Are cracks beginning to appear in the foundations of that bastion of climate change denial, News Corporation?
Early this week research by the Australian Center for Independent Journalism was released, highlighting the fact News Corporation has been waging a war on climate science.
Perhaps feeling chastised (or foolish in response to the buzz the study has generated), a story was quickly published on News.com titled “10 simple points about climate change”. By News Corp standards it’s a rather puzzling article. Puzzling in that it contains factual information. Yes, my jaw is still on the floor.
However, this didn’t escape the attention of one Mr. Andrew Bolt:
It is disappointing that News Corp, of all media outlets, yesterday published this article on warming, revealing more faith than facts.
Here’s just some of the most egregious errors or misleading claims.
Do tell Andrew, is there an official News Corp position on climate change? That is something even Rupert Murdoch denies. Golly, it is as if Andrew thinks News Corp shouldn’t be publishing articles that accurately present the science.
Bolt also hilariously “corrects” the article using indomitable sources such as “Watts up with that?”
Go, read and marvel at the crazy.
Andrew Bolt must be feeling increasingly isolated even with the depths of News Corp.
This ones for you Andrew, perfectly attuned to your plaintive cry of despair:
Watching the Deniers 
Should we really be surprised that Andrew Bolt denies any evidence that contradicts his ill informed, vacuous ideology? He has never been interested in facts, honesty or objective reporting.
Why not in all their newspapers as well?
greenwash ? “looked we put a story online”
I agree, greenwash. More like damage control in response to some negative press.
Yep, prompted by the recent study stats that revealed climate misdirection dominated News Ltd’s coverage…
Not that this was news
I wonder if it has anything to do with uncle Rupert’s minions being on trial in the UK? Maybe he’s trying to clear the decks a little should the court case get a bit sticky for News Corp.
bolt
“Turns out the median sea level rises tipped under the four IPCC scenarios for 2100 are between just 26cms and 30cms, with a very upper limit of 82cms under the most alarming scenario”
so does not even acknowledge that the four he quotes are if we take the action required to reduce emissions,
and then claims that the 98cm by 2100 is only 82cm because he does not understand the graph
does he even realise the effect of a 98cm SLR for countries like Bangladesh, while they are all concern trolling about helping the poor ?
http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3086.aspx
And then there’s the issue of equilibrium sea level over the span of centuries to millenia…
People three or four generations hence might be moderately pissed off that we gave them around a meter of sea level rise, but 10 or 20 generations down the track our decendants will curse the 20/21 centuries.
The rest of his innumeracy aside, Bolt seems to think that all physics stops on the right-hand terminus of the x-axis of a graph.
Andrew Bolt is paid by Gina Rinehart to deny climate change. Miners like Gina would prefer it if we all didn’t give a shit about the environment like herself, so she can continue to make millions from our land. Watch this and weep: http://youtu.be/Kan_ntBnBWA
Just in
The Federal Opposition will oppose the Government’s legislation to repeal the carbon tax unless the Coalition agrees to significant amendments.
The Government is pressuring Labor to accept its election mandate and support the repeal bills that will be introduced in the Lower House within weeks.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says shadow cabinet has agreed on a policy position after meeting today.
He says the amendments will be consistent with Labor’s pre-election policy to move to an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
The Coalition’s policy is to ditch the carbon price and put in place a different policy called Direct Action which does not involve an ETS.
Worse than Bolt are his followers. Given my propensity for facepalming and my not so secret masochism, I am an avid follower of @BoltComments. This guy copies and pastes directly from the comments section in Bolt’s blog and it makes for cringeworthy reading. For example…..
“you cannot separate nature’s c02 from human c02 , its impossible so is measuring it”
“another none scientist expousing opinions on a subject he knows nothing about”
“4.5 billion a year to stop people in developing countries from giving birth….how about a one off sterilization via water supply…job done”
“Cory Bernardi is the only hope for Australia. I hope he forms a new party like Britain’s UKIP and Holland’s PVV.”
“[Same-sex marriage supporters are] simply too ignorant to understand the absence of science in their arguments”
“Why do the leftists not realise how much greater there is in conservative?”
You get the picture. These people are beyond help. They are paranoid, xenophobic, homophobic, epistemophobic, hellenologophobic and pretty much unintelligent beyond belief. Most of them will be dead in a decade or two though. Bolt will have less and less people listening to him over time and will become a victim of the free market ideology he loves so much when he is kicked to the curb.
Uncle Rupert, Bolt’s revered master and ‘lucky’ to still have a newspaper license, was asserting the importance of a strong education system for Australia.
Bring it on, as it will dry up Bolt’s pool of dimwits.
Its funny how two people can read the same words and come to different conclusions. When I read this Bolt article this morning it never occurred to me that he was complaining about News publishing a blatantly pro-warming article. I saw him as complaining that News would publish something that was so clearly erroneous.
Same words…different reading.
Yeah, it’s funny. Giggly funny. The delicious irony of the professionally erroneous Bolt ‘correcting’ his stable mates efforts is presumably what you see as funny, Gids.
he said this article on warming and then went off into a world of make believe
Same words…different reading.
Gidiot, we wouldn’t expect anything less from you. YOU are Bolt’s target audience. You tick all the boxes. You have already repeatedly proved that you are an illiterate, maniacal ,egotistical, racist, bigoted climate zombie. That is also why you are here obsessively trolling. It’s the hallmark of the troll. You viciously hate the fact that there are people here talking about climate change. It is an anathema for you. You go out of your way to try and disrupt the conversation. There have been a number of studies that have shown that the conservative brain is especially fearful of fear and disgust.
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/15/inside_the_conservative_brain_what_explains_their_wiring/
http://www.livescience.com/13608-brain-political-ideology-liberal-conservative.html
You and Bill are obsessive compulsive, with the main symptom being trolling websites consisting of people you hate. You and Bill are sick, perverted and pathetic individuals. The proof is that you will continue to troll on this website again and again. Your compulsion is so overwhelming, and so overpowering, and so addictive, that you are unable to resist it. Just watch this space, and you will prove that I am right.
Funny that you call me obsessive compulsive yet you post about me constantly. Seems you’re obsessed with me rodger. Why is that? I post on this blog but few others. How many do you post on?
OK Gids,
Could you please explain what you find so clearly erroneous about the Australian article that Blot had such issues with?
Please post links to support your case. Factual arguments only, which just about precludes anything from WUWT.
Bolt corrects? Bolt is capable of correcting? The man is barely literate: he obviously hasn’t read an IPCC SPM.,and he cannot read a graph,or has never found one that wasn’t a cherry-pick.
His first ‘correction’ is that ‘warmists’ [the bogan’s favorite handle] prefer ‘climate change’ to ‘global warming’ because it covers for extreme weather. The idiot has to know that the ‘CC’ in IPCC condemns his risible reframing.
“Fact is more CO2 means more plant food, and moderate warming means more rain overall” Blithering stupid idiot thinks he can ‘correct’ a general statement by being even more general ! If there’s more rain overall why is the SW wheat belt drying? Where and how will that rain fall? And ignore all the weed species that will make / already make more efficient use of extra CO2. And ignore the rising temperatures and sustained hot spells negative effect on plant growth.
Bolt ‘corrects’ :
“In fact, rainfall in Southern Australia has, if anything , increased over the past century…”
In reality, ‘if anything’ there is no trend at all over 100 years for the southern half of the continent…while there is a clear decline in SW Australia over that period and over the last 40 years in SE Australia. Why does he choose such a coarse indicator as a half continent? Because AGW is already having discernible regional effects, that’s why.
And that’s just for starters on that shockingly stupid article. It’s a barrel full of fish.
Like a serial drunk driver who must be forbidden to drive, serial misrepresenter Bolt should not be opining about fact-dependent matters. He’s guaranteed to harm himself and others.
“he cannot read a graph,or has never found one that wasn’t a cherry-pick.’
but but
Viperous replied to Mike D
Fri 01 Nov 13 (09:10am)
He’ll give a voice to those thousands of scientists who find huge faults with what is postulated, but are not heard because they are howled down by BS like ‘settled science’ and ‘consensus’.
Same as with Andrew. Do you think that he draws up these graphs himself?
Andrew Bolt is a smart ass who knows exactly what he is doing when he acts as a serial misinformer re climate change/global warming. In the style of the radio shock-jock, he sets out to be controversial to bolster and sustain his right-wing readership by deliberately presenting that which supports his and their cockeyed views of the social, political and physical world.
Down the track, when the Bolta is in his dotage and no longer able to sustain his scientific nonsense, he’ll absolve himself of blame for misleading his readership by laying the fault at the feet of the climate scientists for not doing a good job of presenting their research. It’s just my opinion but he has no shame and a skin as thick as a rhinos. In that regard, and I mean this is the nicest possible way, Andrew Bolt is from the same mould as S. Fred Singer.
heading for a stalemate
about time that the labor party stood up for principles instead of popularity
now change their cruel boat people policy and in the words of Palmer ‘fly them in and process them straight away”
he is a goon but he is our goon
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-01/bill-shorten-says-labor-wants-carbon-tax-replaced-by-ets/5064352
Now stick with it
Shorten has made the right call. Cave in to Abbott’s populist wedging attempt…or stand up for the science, and for economics for that matter. He cannot spit in the face of learning.
Abbott’s position has no support, except for the political sanction he claims to be holding. Such dumbness has to be rejected, or we will be dispensing with other physical realities simply because the ‘adults’ are ignorant of them…like Newman’s wholesale gutting of the Qld environment regulatory process.
This is a watershed moment for Australia’s governance.
“This is a watershed moment for Australia’s governance.”
Is that another of your Abbotts-gunna-resign-soon hyperbowlic comments.
Abbott must be beaming at the moment. The Lib election team will already be preparing the ads for the next campaign pointing out that the ALP still favours a carbon tax. A DD just became more likely.
You’ve had a few watershed moments yourself on this blog, telling fibs and being found out. I’m not surprised you instead focus on what you think is going well for you, even though you can’t see it as an own goal, an obvious attempt to wrest attention away from the expenses disgrace, stupid populism and a mess that someone else will fix.
Think about it ,Gids. It’s bad enough having one group prepared to swear black is white and up is down, but for the other to cave in to cretins like yourself….so it is a serious moment.
You are happy that ‘your’ team is ascendant, and could not give a sh!t how they achieved that ascendancy, even if it means repudiating and rejecting basic economic tools.
In the sane world, no one thinks carbon pricing is the devils’ work.
So you agree that Shorten just lost the next election? That is if he’s still leader by then. Remember that Abbott has yet to announce the RC into union corruption which will involve Bill in the Gillard affair. So he was already behind the eight ball before deciding to cave to his radical left with this decision.
is it on the IPA”s to do list ?
now that gillard is out of politics she may take michael smith to court, that would be fun
No, I don’t ‘agree’. There is plenty of time for the COALition to self-destruct and the electorate to wake up, despite News Ltd’s sleeper-hold on your brain. The media in general are already pushing back. Are you proposing a political witch-hunt dressed as a fake inquiry is going to be swallowed whole?
Your world view is quite depraved. I’d rather be optimistic than a cynical and dishonest fake conservative.
“she may take michael smith to court”
It’d be bloody fantastic. But she won’t do that because that would mean he could then do a discovery on all those documents which have been withheld, ‘lost’,etc. He could also call witnesses and force them to testify. She’ll never do it. She only survived because the waters were muddied. Court cases have a habit of unmuddying the water.
But it probably doesn’t matter. The police investigation continues and will, it seems, come to fruition before the end of the year.
they said exactly the same about Mann’s case
how is that going ?
“Are you proposing a political witch-hunt dressed as a fake inquiry is going to be swallowed whole?”
there will be an inquiry. Don’t you think that someone should inquire into all the lost funds at the HSU? Whether Gillard was involved in the theft of funds from the AWU, members money was stolen and never recovered not to mention members funeral funds.
Someone should be looking out for the members money. The union leadership certainly weren’t.
you are both breaking the rules here
false claims are not allowed
Williamson and HSU funds? He’s pleaded guilty to fraud, and is being sued by the union for return of funds….we need an inquiry? AWU? Isn’t that a long shot? By all means have a dig, and we can look into Tony’s anti-One Nation slush fund, its backers and whether Tones was doing all this legwork at the public’s expense….LOL.
You guys have wedged yourself. As cynical as you are, you’re no match for the guys you worship. They are playing with you.
No, he’ll be grinding his teeth to stubs.
Labor has snookered him. They demonstrated both a willingness to parley, and an intent to stay true to the science and to the expectations of the Australians who voted for them.
Abbott’s on the back foot. And there’s a monkey on his back – the laws of physics. He can pretend that the monkey’s existence is “debatable”, but at some point his flailing arms are not going to stop him from toppling.
Interesting times…
John “false claims are not allowed”
Neither are personal attacks, ad hominem attacks, and foul language yet you engage in all three. Why are you so insistent that one rule be followed – and you judge if it’s violated – while you constantly break the other rules?
“Williamson and HSU funds? He’s pleaded guilty to fraud, and is being sued by the union for return of funds….we need an inquiry? AWU? Isn’t that a long shot?”
Of the millions Williamson stole he is now saying he can repay <$100K. But the real issue is how he and Thompson did it and got away with it for so long, were they the only two or is it endemic in the HSU and the wider union movement.
AWU? One million dollars from a fund set up by workers from their own resources for the use of their widows and children if they were to die as a result of their dangerous employment went missing and JG was part of that process. If anyone other than a union/ALP leader took so much as $2.50 from widow's funds they'd be (rightly) relentlessly hounded out of whatever position they were in. But all we hear here is invitations to move on, forget it, nothing to see here.
Tribalism at its worst. Is there such a thing as unconcerned troll?
logic fail “slippery slope”
What does that mean in this context?
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
unsubstantiated conjecture.
Except there’s no speculation in what I wrote. Williamson has admited to taking millions and says he can only repay a minor portion of that.Funeral funds were taken and JG was involved in convincing the workers to allow the money to be moved to new accounts where it disappeared.
I actually feel sorry for Andrew Bolt. I doubt that he is a Svengali who has brainwashed his readers into treating with caution (contempt) the claims of certain sections of academia and science. He’s probably more somebody with a family and a mortgage and lives with his own uncertainty and existential qualms. He is possibly a pawn, a figurehead for an ignorant world-view that can easily be dispensed with once his corporate masters decide he’s no longer of value. I know a lot of people like that.
Andrew Bolt is probably given far more attention than his limited audience would suggest he warrants. Talking about what Andrew Bolt writes about keeps Andrew Bolt in a job. I personally say congratulations to Andrew Bolt. He has a simpleton’s world-view reduced to a non-nuanced absolutism that disavows the multitudes. If that appeals to a niche fair enough. I don’t believe inaction on climate change is due to the fringe readership that Andrew Bolt grooms, nor is the electoral victory of Tony Abbott entirely due to the efforts of News Corp.
The readership of Bolt will eventually turn on him because that is the cycle of life. He’ll probably be replaced with something more obnoxious and extremist. There will always be people with mortgages to pay and family’s to support. There will always be somebody to cop the flack on behalf of the billionaires and the gross interest of corporate capitalism. The modern day canon-fodder.
yes the majority of his followers were well and truly climate cretins to start with and did not need bolt to convert them, he is singing from the same songbook as they are,
you only have to read the goon comments there to realise that his followers were ratshit crazy from birth
I saw a meme on FB the other day which is tailor made for Bolt:
“Those who stir the shitpot should have to lick the spoon”
recent poll 57% did not think that NSW bushfires were caused by global warming for following reasons
“Because there is no such thing as global warming. It’s all fake.”
“We’ve always had bushfires in the mountains where I was born. A lot of them are deliberately lit, or accidental.”
“I know the army fire range had a little something to do with it.”
“I think a fair percentage of them were deliberately lit.”
“Things happen naturally, and that’s how things re-grow basically.”
“I say that because I lived in a bush-fire prone area and they have always had bush-fires.”
“It mainly seems to be pyromaniacs and lightning strikes starting the fires.”
“Because a lot of the fires were lit by people and some of them were from stupid human mistakes like firing guns on a complete fire ban.”
“I just think it’s a natural phenomenon, unless it was deliberately lit. It’s just nature.”
“Because I live with a lot of young kids who love lighting fires.”
“If they cleaned up the forests and didn’t let kids light fires, there wouldn’t be fires would there?”
“I’m a bit of a skeptic. There’s so much litter in the forests and you can’t go into forests and collect wood. If you were allowed to go in and collect timber, the fires wouldn’t be able to get away so easily.”
“I know a few of them were actually lit on purpose, a few of them were by acts of nature, but predominantly they were being lit. And fires do happen in Australia – it is the season for that.”
“Well, didn’t they say they found people. The finger has been pointed at certain individuals.”
“Obviously someone throwing a cigarette butt out the window or something.”
“Some of it was caused by the army explosives and there were people lighting fires as well.”
“I don’t think global warming had anything to do with it. Someone lit the fires.”
“People light fires, not global warming.”
“Because I lived there for 35 years and I’ve seen them come and go. There is no climate change.”
“It’s a natural occurrence. I don’t think there’s any correlation between the two at all. There were bushfires raging long before there were people on this planet.”
“I drove across to New South Wales last week and I think it’s just nature itself. If we were allowed to burn stuff on our property (which we aren’t allowed to do now) there would be no fires around.”
“I just don’t think that they were. I just think it’s a combination of different factors which led to it being a bad situation for fires.”
“Well, it’s nature! You can’t control nature and stupid people.”
“Well, I mean I’m in the same climate and I didn’t have any fires at my place – it was in fact raining!”
“There are always bushfires. It’s an environment that’s susceptible to bushfires.”
“We get good seasons and bad seasons. I don’t think it has anything to do with global warming.”
“They’ve been happening in Australia since Captain Cook arrived.”
“The Australian bush needs to have fires to propagate its natural flow – some seeds need fire to grow.”
“This has been happening for ever. We’ve always had fires in Australia. In 1920 there were huge fires in NSW.”
“Australia is gonna have bushfires. I partly think its because of a lack of backburning.”
“We haven’t done the backburning at the rates we used to to stop these sort of bushfires.”
“They’re not taking care of cleaning up the fuels in there.”
“The terrible climate conditions at the moment are not caused by climate change.”
This is it I suppose. The question was ‘played any part’, not ’caused’…. Pretty sorry reading, but the sample was only 525 people.
18-24 yos are pretty aware,diminishing returns thereafter. Mortgage age types don’t want to know, they don’t feel sufficiently in control of their own lives enough to admit another overwhelming force into it .
There is no strong urge to ditch the carbon price until the post 50 yos. So Abbott’s bellicosity about mandates is smoke as expected.
Labor voters are more intelligent than the rest, that is clear. But not much.
If the question has been put: “Can you rule out an influence of CC on the severity of recent bushfires?” there might have been an interesting response.
In other findings of 1124 polled, 40% to Abbott for PM and 36% to Shorten. Abbott is underwhelmingly popular LOL.
we must remember that these people were phoned out of the blue and had to come up with a reason off the top of their head, no time to question them further, a lot if questioned further and asked what they knew about the hotter, earlier season etc may have said, ‘oh yer that also. only the ” it is all a hoax ones would not change their view.
“Labor voters are more intelligent than the rest, that is clear”
Translation: people who agree with me are more intelligent than those that don’t.
FFS you guys are a hoot.
No they are voters who accept the science and unlike you two trolls do take heed of the warnings,
that is clearly an intelligent position to take rather than saying idiotic things such as it is all a hoax
“but not much” Giddeot. FFS. Couldn’t even read a short couple of sentences without decontextualising them, could you.
What, are you some kind of intern at Bolt’s Shit Factory?
So I guess this puts to bed this type of wishful thinking:
“A pattern is emerging, and people are noticing the climate regime has shifted. This fact is intuitively understood and accepted by the public who are often the victims of such events. Watching your home burn, your town flooded or choking on the acrid smoke of the fires that have drifted into the heart of Sydney will put to rest most people’s lingering scepticism.”
Even I am a little surprised by the results. The issue was whether CC “played any part”. Image the results if the question was something like “played the major part”.
We should also note that Morgan generally favours the ALP/left issues by a small margin. The MOE on this type of poll is around 4% so any way you cut it this is a pretty devastating poll for the true believers particularly since it comes while the embers are still warm. Ask the same questions again in a month and see the results.
There was always the danger that the warmists would over-play their hand by claiming every climate disaster as proof of AGW. You can only cry wolf so many times. I still think there is a legacy of distrust from the 2007 perfect storm when the claims that the dams would never re-fill and that we were in permanent drought so terrified the population that they went along with things like the ETS and desal plants. The populace don’t forget nor forgive being so badly misled.
WTF “We should also note that Morgan generally favours the ALP/left issues by a small margin.”
get a life fella, are you really this far into looking for reds under the bed?
Calm down JB. Nothing sinister here. Its a well known fact that the way polls select their participants skews their results. Morgan marginally favours the ALP . Essential even more. Newspoll marginally L/NP.
You might try adopting a policy of understanding before taking offence.
“claims that the dams would never re-fill ”
another false statement
Do you just ignore the post on presenting false information?
Tim Flannery: “Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/no-thanks-for-flannery-at-end-of-climate-career/story-fni0ffxg-1226723061366
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm
From 2007:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/climate-watch/no-more-drought-its-a-permanent-dry/2007/09/06/1188783415754.html
What’s happened since then? Water storage for Melbourne has increased every year and has been in the 70% to 80% of capacity range since early 2012.
Perth is currently the only major city that is very low at 32% of capacity while other large cities are anywhere from 80% up to 95%.
http://water.bom.gov.au/waterstorage/awris/?ftr
False claim
talking to farmers, the question “what about the bush? What will that mean for a farmer?
SALLY SARA: Well, making good use of water is one of the subjects of this week’s interview. Professor Tim Flannery has warned climate change will impact on Australia to the point where Sydney can expect to receive 60 per cent less rainfall than it does at present. If that’s the case, what about the bush? What can Australian farmers expect as weather patterns alter? I spoke with Professor Tim Flannery about climate change, water and the intriguing subject of carbon trading. Professor Flannery, congratulations firstly on being named as Australian of the Year.
PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: Thank you very much.
SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?
PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.
ask any farmer during droughts and they will tell you that even the rain that falls during such times does not fill their dams, FFS i had dams. where are you in the city ?
FALSE CLAIM
and more than half of queensland is on drought relief
that area is growing and getting worse
even the rain that falls does not fill there dams
False claim when when you quoted his own words???
The article I quoted also said that permanent drought would be the new normal but instead every year since has been wet and the dams have filled. Another failed prediction.
For Australia as a whole storage is at 73.4% of capacity and for the three largest dams it’s 94.6%, 80.1%, and 91.3%.
Not much of a nationwide drought! More importantly it’s been that way for a few years now storage increased continuously after 2007 through 2012.
More inconvenient facts for you John.
Bill, the strongest La Nina since 74-75 turned around the dam levels. Good, but be careful and put yourself in the planner’s shoes. It is now warmer than 40 years ago. Will we be able to rely on super La Ninas to do what happened in 2010-11? After all it was 35 years between big ones, and it has not turned round the drying trend.
Cities are growing, and conventionally make long-term infrastructure and supply plans. They cannot gamble on getting another super La Nina.
What happened during the last decade drought? Water consumption policies encouraged lower per capita use very successfully. De-sal back ups were constructed. In Perth’s case they cannot live without it. In the other cases they are there [and the fact that they are expensive has a lot to do with poor transparency and poor contracting BTW] if needed.
Nick “Cities are growing, and conventionally make long-term infrastructure and supply plans.”
The way I see it is that the cities need to make plans regardless of climate change. Look at the long term swings in precipitation for all of Australia and you see extended severe drought. Cities need to be prepared for those regardless of beliefs in climate change. Growing populations make future droughts an even more serious threat.
California went through a severe drought in 1976-77. The population at the time was 22 million. Today the population is 38 million and a similar drought would be FAR more serious. So even droughts that aren’t unprecedented will have far greater impact than they did previously.
Bill, have you never studied even basic physics or chemistry? Whoever said 100% of the planet would be negatively affected? The CSIRO clearly stated that over time the northern part of Australia would become wetter while the southern half became drier.
inconvenient information?
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/as-drought-takes-tragic-toll-queensland-families-must-decide-to-stay-on-farms-or-leave-the-land-behind/story-fnihsrf2-1226751757275
oh says bill all of australia is not in drought, forget it
these people suffered years of drought and then massive floods, a few years later and back in drought
this is sending to the wall, farmers who have made a living in these areas for generations they want out now
Blair Donaldson can you really look at this chart for Southern Australia rainfall and say that what is happening now has no historical precedent? Just compare the current 20 year period with that of 1920 – 1940! So how can it be blamed on climate change? I never said anything about the entire planet that’s a strawman you just made up. What is happening in Australia is regional changes that have happened many times in the past.
So you haven’t studied basic physics, or chemistry? Given your tendency to read minds, I made the false assumption that you could see a reference to global temperatures could also apply to national temperatures where landmasses were reasonably large. My apologies.
John take a look at rainfall trends for Queensland for the last 30 years. Notice anything?
I have sympathy for those impacted by the drought. That’s not the issue we’re discussing. The issue here is whether that drought can be attributed to climate change or is just regional in nature and part of the natural cycle of weather in Australia. To me it’s clear based on historical data that the current situation isn’t unusual.
BTW look closely at the key. Some places rainfall has decreased at the rate of 5mm per year while in other areas it has increased at a rate of 4mm per year.
bill i take expert advice not the troll comments from someone on a blog who has no expertise whatsoever (you)
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/
Giddy Gish Galloping…. 57% is a slim majority…so the absolutism of ‘putting to bed’ is not applicable. But ‘over-playing your hand’ only applies to ‘lefties’,eh?
There were never any unconditional claims that the dams would never refill. Just the opposite. Flannery said in his 2/2007 Landline ABC interview ‘if this trend continues’. Do you understand,dopey? He was talking about projections and observation in winter RF trends in southern Australia
For you Giddeot:
SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?
PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.
This is specifically what he was referring to in the context of projected change, you degenerate:
Do you understand how you have been misled by subsequent ‘interpreters’ of that interview?
Here you are seven years later lying you stupid head off as usual, while talking about the danger of ‘over-playing your hand’…. Repeating the distortions of professional bully Bolt without compunction. It took a mighty effort, the weekly /bi-weekly repetition of BIg Lies by News Ltds stable of cynics has paid off for the COALition and the fossil-fuel industry. The price has been appalling: public ignorance, schism between science and government, the subversion of government by narrow interests.
“The populace don’t forget nor forgive being so badly misled” So far, those like you have no idea who has done the misleading, about so many issues. Enjoy your bubble of ignorance.
Nick he wasn’t talking just about the trend he specifically stated that it’s already happening right there in your quote:
“We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems”
He stated those things are already happening. Yes he mentioned the trend continuing but he stated the impacts are already being felt. JG’s statement was factually correct. Flannery was wrong obviously. A change in weather patterns created the drought conditions and when it changed the runoff increased and the dams filled. Flannery did not say “If the trend continues then dams will not be filled” he said it’s already happening.
Look at the graphic link,Bill. Look at the trend in winter rainfall in southern Australia.
And his comment combines the now with the projections, that’s clear.
Ambiguous? I don’t think so. You may differ.
But it does not justify the shrieking alarmist distortions from News Ltd and shock jocks over it. They have run a six and a half year bullying campaign in an effort to ruin Flannery’s reputation. Why? Not because they actually give a shit. Simply because the Bolts of this world need to use people this way to keep an audience and to feel relevant. Bolt is in need of rehab, but he’s actually out there on his crack.
I’m just pointing out the context of what he said and it’s clear that he said it’s already happening. Except then it wasn’t happening anymore.
When I look at the chart I see dry years and really wet years. I bet that has been the pattern in Australia for a long, long time. Recent years don’t look to have been worse that previous decades. Yes the current trend is down but it’s been up and down for decades based on that chart. I don’t feel that Flannery’s claims are supported by that chart at all. You may see it differently.
Australia will probably always be fighting drought and water supply issues. It will only get worse as the population increases regardless of whether the earth warms or not.
Flannery said “we’re already seeing the initial impacts“. He used the caveat “if that trend continues”. He is discussing projections for the century in context of current observations.
He did not say the dams would never refill, and his comments were made once. Apparently, this Landline interview ” terrified the population” into accepting socialism, in the Giddeots view. LOL
What the Giddeot is oblivious to is the deliberate and slanderous amplification of this one moment by the keen-eyed professional shits at News Ltd. This amplification and distortion is directly responsible for any ‘terror’. And it diverts attention away from so many other issues that should concern Australians, as intended by the Murdoch/industry/COALition axis. Giddeot keeps blaming the victim of a cynical reframing. That’s why he’s a degenerate.
Flannery should be ignored screams Bolt. It’s funny how he cannot leave him alone for more than a couple of weeks, even seven years later.
Bill, there is a rational and temperate discussion that can be had over this issue.
It will never be found by citing Bolt, with his need for heads on sticks. And his contempt for fairness, and his innumeracy. Mr Bolt is not actually involved in tough decisions, beyond risking his employers funds on defamation. He does not do engineering.
If you look through the seasonal rainfall trends for southern Australia, summer is on a slight up, while other seasons are trending down. A summer La Nina is what saved Melbourne, that and water rationing. Planners cannot just put everything into one basket,and hope for dramatic wet years, though they obviously are here and there. The last wet summers where the wettest ever in Victoria. A return time? Who knows.
Bolt argues for damming the Mitchell River…but examining his claims,you will see he picks the most optimistic [and coincidentally elderly] assessment of safe yield, and the most low-ball cost for dam and infrastructure. He overstates the contribution that the Mitchell could reliably provide, ignores in-catchment stakeholders and shuffles the Melbourne population projections into the background. This is to make the dam as cheap as possible and the de-sal as expensive. From memory, he overstates yield by 400%.
Then he rails about the mismanaged de-sal contract without criticising the private industry players. It’s all Labor and greenies. [The de-sal has had everything technical go wrong for it, and had some sneakiness in its planning: clearly an attempt by local Labor to lock in Victorian coal use and secure its Latrobe electorates.]
This is the most read column in Melbourne. People have no idea; he could tell them anything.
Melbourne needs storm-water harvesting, recycling, wise use, and the de-sal over the next fifty years. But that’s not fit for Bolt’s purposes. Too dull.
It’s amazing how different that chart looks if you look at annual rainfall for all of Australia. Then the 15 year trend is at an all time high and the 2 year period of 2010-2011 are the wettest on record for Australia.
Look at how wet the last 30 years have been compared to the period from 1920 to 1950!
Nick “Melbourne needs storm-water harvesting, recycling, wise use, and the de-sal over the next fifty years.” I would add water conservation to that list although you may consider it covered under “wise use”.
San Diego has the same requirement. San Diego does have some water recycling but the pejorative nickname “Toilet to Tap” has helped make it unappealing to the public. It’s been difficult for the city to get approval to add the recycled water to existing reservoirs so that it eventually ends up back in the drinking water system.
When I looked at initial chart you linked I saw a cyclical pattern that appears to coincide with shifts in the PDO and ENSO. No surprise there really. The question is whether it will change in the future or still have a correlation.
California’s precipitation pattern matches up with the PDO and ENSO really well too. Opposite sides of the globe yet they share a common fate.
Click to access rainfall.pdf
Australian rainfall
— past, present and future
A product of the
Australian Climate Change Science Program
C
1. I’d point out that this whole dalek style defence of Flannery is somewhat of a distraction from my main point which was that ‘scientists’ were crying wolf in the mid naughties and people have reacted to being misled at that time.
2. You’re charming desire to leap to the defence of Flannery might, just might, hold some water 🙂 if the archives were full of Flannery setting the record straight before he was shown to be wrong. Where is Flannery setting the record straight about the way people interpreted his Landline comments. Where are the other scientists in OZ taking Flannery to task for exaggeration. Its only after they were shown to be wrong that the parsing of his predictions/scares began.
It would also be useful to your cause if this was the only failed scare that Flannery made. But he was also seen scaring Adelaide about its water supplies as well as Sydney, meanwhile wrapping it all up in an instruction that we must ratify Kyoto.
And let’s not even go into the desal minefield.
As much as you’d prefer it otherwise, the population (while not as intelligent as you) are smart enough to remember such stuff and are less likely to be fooled again.
3. (aside) If I’m being stupidly misled by bolt, News etc and all your other bogeymen then how can I also be lying. Logic fail.
“Giddy Gish Galloping…. 57% is a slim majority”
Well its 57 to 37. a strong result in anyone’s language. Frankly I’m surprised by the result since, if I were asked that question I’d probably answer “yes”, CC played some part. Maybe <10% but some part. The survey was also taken at the most auspicious time for the "yes" side given that the fires are barely over.
Frankly, I'm surprised by the results. It demonstrates the strong antipathy that the populace have toward the CAGW doomsayers these days.
Bill, that annual rainfall all-Australia thing is a trick Bolt used to use to counter claims about regional trends. I think he abandoned it after being caught out once too often. If you look at the data as distributed on a map you can see the extra stuff is in the wrong place.
There has been a notable increase in rainfall in the sparsely populated semi-arid and monsoonal NW, sufficient to generalise into an overall increase in RF for the country.
Yes, I include conservation under wise use [it has made an enormous difference here per capita. Bolt downplays it, or moans about his Camellias not getting enough water]
And yes, the ENSO contributions in respective continents are big and swinging somewhat in opposite phase per hemisphere, but trends emerge from beneath their big influence on variation For climate you have to strap them all together: temperature trend, rainfall, seasonal rainfall trend, ocean warming. As JB mentions, the intense drought in central parts so soon after the massive La Nina, and during an ENSO-neutral period, is a bit of a worry.
“He did not say the dams would never refill, and his comments were made once. ”
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm
No need to comment further
“The survey was also taken at the most auspicious time for the “yes” side given that the fires are barely over”
the opposite occurred with letters to the editor etc, all denying any link
“it was kids”
“it was the Army”
“we did not get fires here, it was raining”
small sample size but was interesting to read some of the comments
Bill, you should go and talk to a few folks in North and West Queensland or the Northern Territory where they having one of the worst drought on record or try and tell people in northern New South Wales that the extremely unseasonal bushfires and low rainfall are just treatments of the imagination. Any fair reading of the long-term rainfall records and temperature records for the southern half of Australia clearly show decreasing rainfall and increasing temperature. Picking the last two years while ignoring everything else is a joke.
Gids, you are a comedian:
1.you say defense of Flannery is a distraction, but you’ll attack him again under the umbrella of ‘scientists’, on the same spurious grounds as last time!
2. Flannery was not shown to be wrong. I’ve just shown how he was misinterpreted, strawmanned. Then the most interesting thing, more than anything F said, is the operation of the Boltian Bullshit Machine in keeping the lie alive. Why should Flannery apologise for that? You just keep echoing Bolt in these bellicose demands for apologies. There is some primal resentment of the scientist’s perceived freedom to think in there, it seems. “Apologise for hypothesising, you’re scaring us”.
And again, you refuse to acknowledge he has been wronged, and persist with the ‘predictions/scares’ framing. He made conditional projections,always in the context of the coming century, or re Sydney’s dam levels, if then-current consumption and rainfall persisted. Around the time he talked on that, Sydney Water started water restrictions, which were very effective, and more frugal water use habits persist. But that is forgotten.
Go into the de-sal minefield if you can say something illuminating about the bi-partisan support for their construction.
3. I feel sorry for you.
Nick regardless of where “the extra stuff” is falling the truth is that Australia as a whole has experienced dramatically increased rainfall over the last 30 years compared to previous periods. If some specific areas are experiencing drought then it’s a local phenomenon and it’s ridiculous to claim it’s due to climate change. It’s just like the chart I posted showing that some parts of Australia show a decline in summer maximum temperature. It’s hard to claim that things like fires are due to climate change when only some parts of Australia are warming during the summer while others are cooling. Regional changes are likely due to changes in weather patterns IMO.
Blair Donaldson why would climate change only have a negative impact on “southern half of Australia” and not all of it?
Looking at the data it’s clear that some areas have experienced increased rainfall recently while others are dealing with severe drought. I don’t think that’s unusual based on historical data.
J Giddeon ““He did not say the dams would never refill, and his comments were made once. ”
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm”
I do agree with the recommendations that Flannery made even if some of his predictions were off.
I wish the Greenies here in the US wouldn’t put up such a fight against desal plants.
Oh Gids has found Flannery repeat his thrust in an article a few months later in 2007. Oh,snap! So he made the same comments around the time, what a complete surprise [sarc] Gids, you and Bolt should get a room! Six years ago. Six_years….
Do a search for News Ltd Blair Bolt Flannery said it would never rain….then compare and contrast.
Bill: what?
You imbecile
Tim Flannery News scientist
” But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain.”
clearly he is stating the current situation “so dams no longer fill even when it does rain”
for gids to contort this to a prediction that dams will never fill again is pure propaganda and is a lie
you are making false claims and such are not allowed
,
Nick your chart clearly shows an increase for most of western Australia and a decrease for eastern Australia specifically southeastern Australia. What do you mean by “What?”?
Also I said “recently” not the trend since 1970. Look at the 5 year trend for different parts of Australia and you’ll see that some are experiencing a decrease and others an increase.
“Australia specifically southeastern Australia.
that is where most australians live and a large part of the farming community.
it is the worst place in australia for it to happen
John “that is where most australians live and a large part of the farming community.
it is the worst place in australia for it to happen”
I can understand that and understand why it’s a concern but that doesn’t mean it’s not due to natural variability and regional weather.
Again, my main point was that Australians in the mid naughties were being assailed with predictions/projections of doom. More floods, more draught, no GBR, no water etc etc. If you like it, you’ll lose it. If you don’t like it, you’ll get more of it. It was a barrage of doom which the people bought and, among other things, caused Howard, to his eternal shame, to bend the knee to the new terror and adopt an ETS and anoint St Tim as Oz of the year.
As these great scares have been shown to be massively overblown, the populace have become inured to any form of doomsaying and this poll is just another reflection of that.
Its all very well to say that Tim was misquoted or didn’t mean what he said or was interpreted to have said. But that fails the simple test that at no time did he attempt to walk those many statements back until it became blatantly obvious that they had been shown to be wrong. Only when the rains fell and the dams filled did TF suddenly decide he was being verballed. Up until then he was happy to have the statements stand. Only now are each of his failed predictions parsed so as to salvage some form of a reputation. But clearly only the committed are buying it.
At no time have I suggested TF should apologise. Why should he? He was doing his job of getting “some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination” by offering “up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” He succeeded for a long time, but now the jig is up.
Stop the clowning, Gids. You insist on critiquing the media and commentators , not the science. Bolt’s hatchet job on Flannery is a study in mendacious framing for profit. Nothing more. If Flannery didn’t exist, it would be someone else from the science community singled out for the needs of Bolts market.
The context for climate change, and musings about heat events,water and ocean, is the coming century. We have seen change but that is apparently meaningless to you and Bolt…too bad.
You are aping your idol: declaring the projections worthless because you think 2013 is time to judge projections. This is childishness which Bolt cloaks in bellicosity and fake outrage to make up for its lack of logic, rigor and honesty.
Come on Nick, You say I’m demanding TF apologise and when I point out you’ve just made that up out of think air, you just move onto the next piece of fabrication.
Nowhere am I critiquing the media/commentators on this issue.
If you can’t address the points I’ve been making then let it go and perhaps we can leave the desperate attempts to rescue TF behind and look at the real ramifications of the growing distrust of the doomsayers.
By repeating the alleged positions of ‘warmists’, and repeating Bolt’s stupid framing re Flannery, you are in effect critiquing the commentary, not the science or the genuine positions as expressed with nuance by Flannery, and you do it unwittingly, Mr Oblivious.
“my main point..scientists were ‘crying wolf’ in the mid-1990s..” “barrage of doom”..”new terror”…”St Tim of Oz”…all just tabloid mockery and exaggeration
You ‘ask’ Flannery to “set the record straight”, a rhetorical demand tantamount to demanding apologies. And remain blind to the six years of deliberate bullying by keeping the dishonestly framed comments ‘current’. Media amplification and diversion.
This is all Boltian polemic, you zombie. Stale, tired, dishonest and accusatory, Entirely constructed for click bait. You haven’t a view of your own, but insist you have!
You have made no points. None. You account of history is an opinion column fable. You are in witless collusion with a newspaper thug, and you cannot free yourself of his ‘view’ to establish your own.
You are slowly starting to realise what a hack you are, aren’t you! If only…
False claims about dams will never fill again and misrepresenting Schneider.
false claims not allowed
giddeon is a deceitful troll
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989. For the original, together with Schneider’s commentary on its misrepresentation, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.[8]).”
now retract your out of context lie
“now retract your out of context lie”
Is pomposity contagious?
Who are you to decide what I should retract? I was using Schneider’s words to explain the Flannery’s MO. No lies. But you are free to disagree with the interpretation.
Nick,
You have this daft notion that if two people reach similar conclusions then one must be merely parroting the other. It is entirely possible for two people to see the same information and reach similar independent conclusions. I know it doesn’t happen a lot here where everyone assiduously follows the approved memes but it is possible.
Long before the great AGW scare, in the days of the great AIDS scare and the MCD scare and Club of Rome scares, I had learnt that there are some people who are more activist than scientist. Flannery is most definitely, in my view, in that category. Hence my opinion of his massive exaggerations of the science in the mid naughties.
“You ‘ask’ Flannery to “set the record straight”, a rhetorical demand tantamount to demanding apologies. ”
I don’t. I pointed out that he didn’t set things straight until much later. My point, which you seem determined to miss, was that, having made his assertions, he didn’t seek to clarify what he now says were misinterpretations until the rains did fall and the dams did fill.
J Giddeon says:
November 4, 2013 at 12:46 am
“now retract your out of context lie”
Is pomposity contagious?
Who are you to decide what I should retract? I was using Schneider’s words to explain the Flannery’s MO. No lies. But you are free to disagree with the interpretation.
you were not using schneider’s intent at all, you are a slimy little, deceitful twerp and you have no evidence of flannery saying dams will never fill again.
false claims and if you had an ounce of human decency you would retract
false claims are not allowed, just how thick are you?
A response at once extraordinary, and yet predictable.
You are in denial, Gids.
You are parroting Bolt and his ilk because you have adopted the same rhetoric word for word. Uncanny.
You remain insensitive to the methods of tabloidism: selectivity, repetition, highlighting, decontextualising, amplification, then more repetition.
You need to step back and examine the very deliberate methods of tabloidism, and keep that in mind anytime you read about an issue involving the interaction of one person’s statements and the media machine’s apparatus.
You seem to think that Flannery is responsible for ‘clarifying’ what Bolt has deliberately made a mess with. Incredible. Just incredible.
LOL …The only level that this makes sense is if we regard Flannery as the adult or carer who has to step in and clean up the toys and poo that the infant Bolt has thrown. But this doesn’t work because they come flying out of the cot all the time! On a learning level Bolt can choose to act like a two-year old whenever it suits .
Or do we blame Flannery for carelessly leaving context-dependent constructs around the place that young Bolt can stumble and injure himself on?
But really, since Bolt claims to be a responsible adult, it is actually Bolt’s responsibility to be a good faith communicator, and not act like a jerk in the first place! Bolt has chosen his path: he is an alarmist whose first deliberate step is to project onto others, and claim they are alarmists…you fall for that audacity every time. No one forces Bolt to publish what he does , the way he does, in the manner he does.
Rational people, if and when they read of the public health implications of AIDS or AGW, accept that there are actions implicit and explicit to be considered. I do not see where this information is primarily alarming or intended to alarm. It is inteneded to inform.
Bolt’s first consideration is how to leverage these issues for his market. His first move is to label / frame / perception manage /recast / these issues as ‘alarmist’ It’s all downhill from there.
Bolt is more ‘activist’ than journalist, now that you introduce the activist/scientist furphy into your waffle… Bolt is more ‘activist’ than any scientist advocate I have EVER encountered. Bolt does not to keep an academic career going, does not need to publish research and seek funding for ideas, and does not need to write for different audiences. But it’s OK for Bolt to be an advocate or activist because scientists are not allowed to be? By some obscure regulation, perhaps?
Bolt is a lazy hack with one speed, is routinely in error [often deliberately so] and he is not subject to anything like the professional oversight that scientists experience.
The real issue is Bolt and his choices of action. There is something fundamentally wrong with the man that prevents him interacting calmly and constructively. LOL.
Nick,
You seriously need to get a grip here. At no time in this ‘discussion’ have I referenced Bolt, but you are utterly obsessed by him.
There were plenty of others at the time also talking about TF’s faux pas but in your fevered mind its all down to Bolt. Presumably all these others were also mesmerised by Bolt’s articles.No one is as smart as you in being able to discern Bolt’s evil game, eh?
JB,
You need to be careful. Claiming that I am making false claims, is a false claim. And false claims aren’t permitted dontchya know.
Thanks Gids, but I have a grip, and you do not have a f**kin’ clue.
Time for you to do some thinking about your framing, Gids. You are all framing and zip content.
I am fascinated by Bolt and his kind, and see little reason to be shy about it. They are very important interlocutors. Way too much influence, way too little accountability, all while ‘holding others to account’. Politics [discussion, transparency, inclusiveness] in this country is going backwards with considerable ‘help’ from artfully stupid people like Bolt.
Tony Abbott spends more time with Bolt than he does with anyone from the science field. Is that significant, Gids? Why isn’t that fascinating? Beyond the obvious that PR is what they both do, where is the real stuff of governance?
There are professional communicators who would delight in the back story of Flannery’s remarks, in explaining context, and in exploring the differences between short-term weather events and climate, and climate projection. Or the anatomy of a tabloid deceit.
None of them work for, or are published by News Ltd. Just chance?
Oh Gids, you might define the ‘plenty of others’ who bagged Flannery. How many is ‘plenty’? Who were the others? Tim Blair, Miranda Devine and…? Anybody who has a clue about science and the environment, or stats, modelling,meteorology, climate and projection? Social policy, economics?
Who do these people work for, again? And WTF are their qualifications,again?
How do we end up like this?
t
Respondents who answered Yes – Human-induced climate change played a part often mentioned the overall impact of global warming with hotter temperatures drying out larger areas and make already dry parts of Australia more susceptible to bushfires. Longer summers and shorter winters, because of global warming, simply mean there is more time during the year for bushfires to spark.
“The world is getting warmer, the water is getting warmer, and temperatures are rising.”
“Because temperatures are getting higher every year and because I suppose there should be more burnback to stop major onsets of fires.”
“Well I mean, I think it’s getting more extreme with the temperatures over the last ten years.”
“Because global warming is a worldwide problem. If you look at the climate events over the last two years, the number of global disasters are increasing worldwide.”
“Research shows that the increase in bushfires and stronger winds are the most immediate effects of global warming.”
“Because, given that for the last couple of years the weather systems have changed, we’ve also had the hottest summers on record, the dams are drying up, it’s the el nino effect. But global warming is changing the way it’s doing its thing.”
“I believe it was an unnatural catastrophe, caused by global warming.”
“Because the planet is warming, it’s causing an increase in the severity of extreme weather events.”
“Global temperatures are rising and it’s going to have an impact. This is already a dry country.”
“Because Summers are getting longer and winters are getting drier.”
“If it’s increased weather temperatures, it’s going to impact extreme weather hazards like fires.”
“Because we know that fires are caused by heat, and we know we’re warming up so we know we’re gonna get more fires.”
“Because of global warming the heat level is increasing at the moment. In Australia the temperature is higher than in other countries.”
“It played a part, but so did the population and the powerlines.”
“Because it all the gas and pollution going into the atmosphere.”
“I think it’s human-induced, like when we use a car, they use fuel and they exit carbon dioxide in the air. The forest will become dry easier and become a bush fire.”
“Due to all the emissions going out in the atmosphere.”
“Because we’re generating a whole lot of carbon into the air.”
“It’s because of all the man-made pollution and the gasses being sent out into the atmosphere.”
“The change of weather patterns creates a drying out of fuel sources. Increasing the likelihood of fires.”
“I believe a lot of it is due to an increased use of energy and the use of electricity rather than solar power.”
“The weather conditions with everything so much drier and hotter.”
“The temperatures are warming up and there will be more bushfire events.”
“Climate change involves greater anomalies in the weather and hence periods of weather that are favourable to bushfires.”
“From all of the things I have read and that’s been on the TV that I have watched, it would seem to me that the bushfires are related to a change in the world’s climate.”
“With the weather being dry like this for a long long time, no doubt we are witnessing new heatwaves and it does contribute to a dry landscape. It plays a small part.”
I had no idea that parts of Australia actually have a cooling trend for maximum temperature during the summer. Fascinating. From the comments here I assumed all of Australia was heating up dramatically.
LOL
That fits in with the northern rainfall increase in the monsoon: more summer cloudiness will lower maxima. How about all year, Bill?
Well the complaining here has been about how dangerous the heat is. Obviously warmer days during the winter aren’t nearly as dangerous – if they are dangerous at all – as hotter summer days which is why I posted it. I was surprised to see that maximum summer temperature has actually decreased in some areas.
The red and pink are were we live not the blue bits so much
Maybe the warming is due to cities and people trapping and generating heat. That would make it anthropogenic.
the maps you are linking are trends not absolutes
eg a place with a 5mm downward trend per year may already be marginal grazing country,
the temperature trends, exactly the same
of course cities will be hotter, but AGW is 95% certain and Austalia is heating up as fast as the planet if not more,
We are going to one the hardest and earliest hit,
get a job
You’re right maybe they are marginal grazing areas already and shouldn’t be used by ranchers. Have you pushed to make that change? I know what the charts show it’s clearly written right across the top for those that can, and do, bother to read.
You obviously don’t like what they show.
i was not complaining about the graphs, only your misunderstanding for what they mean,
they tell what is happening but not the absolute rainfall nor temperature
many farmers have existed on marginal land for generations
almond growers are a good example in SE australia growers who have survived for decades are now selling up due to lack of winter chilling times, other are moving further south and even some grape growers are moving down to tasmania.
it is all happening and your only explanation is that maybe is is just natural variation
well we know it is not don’t we, i thought you agreed with the temperature data sets (DMI)?
What I’m saying is that historical data clearly shows that was is happening now has happened in the past. Probably thousands of times. It’s not like Australia has ever had stable climate. Look at the changes, the ups, the downs, the extremes in temperature and rainfall. Australia’s weather is strongly influenced by ENSO for example. I think most people here know that. If not, then you should.
your graph
how on earth does this show
“What I’m saying is that historical data clearly shows that was is happening now has happened in the past.
Bill Jamison.
Why would you assume that “all of Australia [would] heat… up dramatically”?
And on the subject, some of it is heating up more than “dramatically”:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3881396.htm
Bill Jamieson says,
“Regional changes are likely due to changes in weather patterns IMO.”
And what causes changes in weather patterns?
Changes in the climate, perhaps? Impossible _ “denier” science has proven that there can be no link between climate and weather.
Elsewhere, the denier looks at the noise on a graph and says _ look! It goes up and down, it’s all happened before!
What a fucking idiot. Another Dunning-Kruger who thinks he understands what’s happening better than professional climate scientists.
Leave Bill to his fantasies, clearly the application of reason and informed action in the real world makes him uncomfortable.
Blair if you can look at the data then you should be able to understand the cyclical nature of Australia’s climate. If not then you probably shouldn’t even post here.
I understand data enough to know that in the part of Australia where I live, rainfall has decreased and temperature has increased since the 50s. As you are supposedly an expert in “understanding the data” you can probably figure out where I live. I guess the increasing number of record high temperatures and decreasing number of record lows is irrelevant as far as you’re concerned?
Unlike you I don’t pretend to be an expert, I defer to those who actually research the subject and have done so in many cases for decades. You’re just an armchair critic who doesn’t like the inferences being drawn by those who know what they’re talking about. No wonder you are one of Andrew Bolt’s acolytes.
As you haven’t studied physics (based on your failure to answer my very simple question), I’m not really surprised the basic science is beyond you.
So I guess climate change has singled out your area for impact while ignoring the rest of Australia.
Is that what you’re inferring?
How do current temperatures in your area compare to temperatures from 1920 to 1950?
And again you deliberately misrepresent what I have said. Are you so devoid of evidence and honesty that you must twist what I said?
My previous comments were related to where I live, I was not making any comparison or commenting about other parts of Australia. I suspect you knew that but were trying to be a smart ass – you failed.
Regional weather patterns change constantly and seasonally based on a variety of factors. Some are fairly well understood such as ENSO and some aren’t. Ocean water temperature has an impact. Phases of major ocean cycles such as the PDO, and AMO have an impact and so does the SOI. Weather patterns have changed forever. Droughts occur and so do floods. Just look at the weather data for Australia and you can see it is a land of extremes. You act like you don’t know that.
Are you really trying to imply that all changes must somehow be connected to climate change?
Bill Jamison again,
“Look at the 5 year trend for different parts of Australia”
On the scale of a century, 5 year periods are not trends of anything, you dimwit.
You’re absolutely right so let’s look at the trend using all of the data available. Guess what? It shows that rainfall has increased over most of Australia.
Are you sure you want to look at longer term trends?
Bill,you are going round in circles, as you know. In most of the major agricultural zones, rainfall has declined over the last fifty years, but inter-annual variability is so high, that trend underneath is not that important to farming at the mo by itself. Then you have to factor in the increase in mean temperature over the last fifty years coupling with what rainfall you may get .We are living in the now, not in the early 1900s.
There are no projections for regional or national cooling.
“http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/ipcc-this-centurys-chicken-little/story-e6frg6xf-1226752383735#”>Here’s another disgraceful misconceptionmasquerading as a useful opinion, courtesy of News Ltd
Link
Aging mining executive Hugh Morgan wheeled out to say something dishonest, with a poker face. Irony alert.
you need to google nick to beat the paywall
CO2 man
the great defender of carbon dioxide in the comments
Ian Featured
3 hours ago
You inhale and exhale co2. Does it burn you nose? To call it pollution is to lie by word. H2o is also a greenhouse gas. I do not see you calling water a pollutant.
y
John
John Featured
2 hours ago
@Ian You’re splitting hairs here Ian. The word “pollutant” is used in a specific context and when the levels exceed some acceptable limit. If you are trying to distill pure alcohol then yes, water would be considered a pollutant. Do you see yourself as you some Great Defender of carbon dioxide? There you are, CO2 Man, with your cape and tights, underpants on the outside.
–
you may need to just google ipcc this century chicken little story to beat the paywall
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/ipcc-this-centurys-chicken-little/story-e6frg6xf-1226752383735
Brave of you Nick. I was gunna link that this morning but considered I’d be accused of trolling…..again.
I thought the Club of Rome analogy rather apt.
The Limits to Growth is a 1972 book about the computer modeling of exponential economic and population growth with finite resource supplies.[1] Funded by the Volkswagen Foundation[2] and commissioned by the Club of Rome it was first presented at the St. Gallen Symposium. Its authors were Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. The book used the World3 model to simulate[3] of consequence of interactions between the Earth’s and human systems.
Five variables were examined in the original model. These variables are: world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion. The authors intended to explore the possibility of a sustainable feedback pattern that would be achieved by altering growth trends among the five variables under three scenarios. They noted that their projections for the values of the variables in each scenario were predictions “only in the most limited sense of the word,” and were only indications of the system’s behavioral tendencies.[4] Two of the scenarios saw “overshoot and collapse” of the global system by the mid to latter part of the 21st century, while a third scenario resulted in a “stabilized world.”[5]
The most recent updated version was published on June 1, 2004 by Chelsea Green Publishing Company and Earthscan under the name Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Donella Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows have updated and expanded the original version. They had previously published Beyond the Limits in 1993 as a 20-year update on the original material.[6][7][8]
The book continues to generate fervent debate and has been the subject of several subsequent publications.
You would think the CoR analogy apt, just like your master, Bolt. I guess you missed another chance to break out of your shackles, Gids, he he!
Predictions and projections always fail: some are way out, some are close, some are bang on though not for he expected reasons. Some people miss the point, and some people declare them failed long before the term has run, because they never acquaint themselves with the IPCC reports. Or do not give a shit about lying.
You still need to make predictions and projections,eh? Even if some noisy fool goes off.
Even if one of the COALition mafia is wheeled out to clog up the airways with on-message tosh. A superficial analogy, and one made often enough by other idiots before him. Slow news day.
the prediction did not fail in fact
giddeon is living the illusion of being lucky enough to share in those resources whereas 80% of the global population live in abject poverty and share in nothing,
we have already reached the stage where there is not enough resources to maintain the whole global population in the manner to which we are accustomed
it is an illusion giddeon and you are deluding yourself
The difference between you and Nick is that Nick was using it to exemplify the disgraceful bias and alarmism of Murdoch Inc. To anyone with more than one brain cell, this is obvious You on the other hand would have linked to it as a projection of your extremist, racist right-wing skinhead intolerance which is on full display every time you post. This is again proven since you thought the Club of Rome analogy ‘rather apt’. The fact that you don’t even understand the real relevance of the Club of Rome proves without doubt that you are a clueless troll. The world by definition is subject to finite resources, and the factors of human population, pollution and exponential economic growth will eventually hit a brick wall. That is an undeniable truth. That you found that ‘rather apt’ shows that you are beyond stupid and actually agreed with the bullshit on offer. It is any wonder that Murdoch papers speak to you. Time to pop that bubble and wake up from your stupor!!
“You would think the CoR analogy apt, just like your master, Bolt.”
Did Bolt say he thought the CoR analogy apt? I must have missed it.
Or do you just know that that’s what we would think because you are so much smarter than anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
or are you are so obsessed by him that you just assume he holds the opposite views to you on every subject. Pretty funny really.
What?! You don’t know what Bolt thinks? He makes sure people know what he ‘thinks’ daily. He linked to Morgans rubbish of course. Very generous of him to make the effort.
TROLL ALERT. TROLL ALERT
“J Giddeon says:
November 4, 2013 at 7:39 am
or are you are so obsessed by him that you just assume he holds the opposite views to you on every subject. Pretty funny really.”
Gidiot, why the hell do you post here? This is a site where like minded individuals can get together and chat about what the stupid deniers are up to.
You have proven yourself to be a denier. You are simply not welcome here. You are not a like minded individual. You on the other hand vehemently hate us. You call us ‘warmists’. You troll us. You show no respect.
You are a weirdo. A crack pot. A dickhead. You are obsessed and strangely addicted with trolling here. You continually lie and spout nonsense. What the hell is wrong with you?
In reality, the ‘failure’ of the Limits to Growth projection is a dogma.
Morgan is ‘talking through his hat’, to borrow from the Suppository of All Wisdom
A good look at the work itself…and how it is misrepresented relentlessly.
and what would one of the authors know about it?
so giddeot has just accepted the bolts of this worlds interpretation or read it from the mind of a OWG conspiracy theorist perspective
Why apt?
Limits to Growth basically made three projections based on differing projections. The second of the three was the most pessimistic. That was the one that was most spoken of and that was the one that the scaremongers utilised to, well, scaremonger.
It was those numbers which caused people to think that mineral resources would start expiring before 2000. Contemporary doomsday scenarios such as the Population Bomb relied on both these numbers and the prevailing air of pessimism to advance their tale. It was this type of general gloom that lead people like Carter to talk about America’s best days being behind it. It was also one of the reasons why the Fraser govt moved to protect our own oil reserves through taxation, believing that we would soon exhaust them.
The other scenarios, which saw a much longer timeframe before resources depletion became a problem, barely got a look in. Despite what is now said, the authors and the CoR were quite prepared to see the least likely scenario be treated as the main talking point.
The analogy with CC ought to be obvious. The IPCC makes projections based on a series of scenarios with the most pessimistic getting the bulk of the attention. The lower ends of the projections aren’t so much talked off.
(Although I do have to say that this is less so with AR5 than it predecessors, reflecting, I think a growing distrust of the IPCC and all things to do with CC)
Just as the CoR never recovered from the failure of the pessimism to eventuate so is the IPCC suffering. And just as the defenders of the LtG say that they weren’t wrong because the optimistic projections are still, sort of, on track, we will in the future see people saying the IPCC was spot on because SL did rise by 30cm just as they predicted. It will become bad manners to point out that some fools thought the 98cm predictions was a dead cert.
you are living an illusion
“The analogy with CC ought to be obvious”…chuckle. Except that it’s crap,[as neither project has failed]. And Morgan is not making it in good faith. He’s not fostering discussion, he’s attempting to nix it using the logical fallacy of appeal to his own authority.
“the lower end of the projections aren’t much talked of” Crap, again. They are talked of plenty, usually in terms of “missed opportunity” or,”too late to achieve required targets”. That’s why the higher scenarios are ‘more discussed’ [or more vigorously screamed against by you mob]. Seriously, the info is presented with all scenarios addressed in great detail.
America’s best days are behind it, but entirely because of a failure to understand the need for equity, and the need to regulate financial behavior to suit all, not just sociopaths. Just ask the 45 million on food stamps.
Australian oil reserves? Who do we ask? They are crap, or shale oil is everywhere?
Amongst other logical fallacies, both Morgan’s and J Giddeon’s constant stream thereof.
I reckon that there’s a market in the blogosphere for a blog that dissects and catalogs the ubiquitous reliance of conservative politicians, media and lay numpties on logical fallacy in order to make their claims. It could also link to errors of fact as a side endeavour but that would be a huge combined job – just identifying the logical depauperacy of the rabid right wing ignorati would be a full-time effort.
number of humans 7 billion
number of cars 1 billion
cars in the US,,,,,,, 1 car for every 1.3 people
is there then enough oil that the whole planet could also run 1 car for every 1.3 people,
the illusion is that we are not at peak oil
“America’s best days are behind it, but entirely because of a failure to understand the need for equity”
Carter talked of America’s best days being behind it in 1979 reflecting the gloom of that decade, in part due to things like the LtG and the Population Bomb. The USSR seemed to be on the rise, the US and capitalism on the decline. The next year Ronald Reagan was elected. Less than a decade later the USSR lay in ruins, and US capitalism was in the early throes of one of the greatest growth periods in its history. Carter was wrong.
The US is going through a difficult period now. But who knows…maybe another Reagan is around the corner.
Institutional inequity, arbitary actions, parasitic sub-economies, concentration of wealth and power and the shaping of regulation since Reagan have changed the landscape to something even less stable. The US is becoming something that Reagan could barely imagine, though he was a facilitator. I wonder whether he would have blinked.
The collision between nascent global financial ‘ecology’, attempts at truly rational economics, the globalism experiment/dictatorship and US unilateral wilfulness is going critical.
“J Giddeon says:
November 5, 2013 at 2:59 am
Carter talked of America’s best days being behind it in 1979 ”
Why Gidiot do you have to lie all the time? Why are you trying to force your delusions onto us?
The truth
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/carter-confidence.htm
yes, the malaise speech. I would have posted it but its not a very good speech and I didn’t think you’d be interested.
Of course you didn’t find that speech any good. You are an extremist skinhead climate zombie. But the speech was showing that you were lying, or just wilfully ignorant. Your disgraceful and abhorrent reputation precedes you.
Care to provide a link where Carter said ‘the best days are behind us’?
Gidiot, don’t bother. I have done it for you. In Carter’s acceptance speech for example he said.
“There is a fear that our best years are behind us. But I say to you that our nation’s best is still ahead.”
Pretty much the exact opposite to what you said. ‘Our nation’s best is still ahead’. And it turned out that Carter was right!!!
See, you are a habitual liar, completely enclosed within a bubble of distortion.
Now, why do you post here? All you contribute is nonsense, lies, distortions and ignorance. All typical of a troll. You hate everyone here, calling us ‘warmists’ the language of a climate change denier. All you post is whinging and bullshit. You are a patsy of Bolt, who we all hate. So why are you so obsessively addicted to trolling here? Do you have a mental disorder?
giddeon, false claims are not allowed , why do you just ignore that and continue to post false claims,?
not only false claims but outright lies, are you telling lies for god?
For the benefit of the innumerate (and we know that includes Dodgy and JB) Carter’s acceptance speech was in 1976. I was talking about Carter’s views in 1979. I think you guys will just have to trust me that those dates are different.
Carter never specifically used the word ‘best days are behind us’ which is why I didn’t put them in quotes (although we know that the resident fabricators also struggle with the notion of quotes). Saying that Carter talked of the best being behind is a paraphrase of his views and needs to be seen in stark contrast to the optimism of his rival who did indeed say that America’s best days were ahead. Carter talked about the crisis in the american project in the ‘malaise’ speech which was followed by the Iranian revolutions and the consequent humiliations for the US and then Carter’s humiliation by Reagan. All of this is summarised by historians as Carter seeing the best behind while Reagan saw the best ahead.
Just by way of illumination for you, when we see TF saying the dams won’t fill, you try to parse and read the widest possible meaning into it to exonerate him. But here you want to read a strict literal meaning into every syllable. Its almost as though you had an agenda.
“Carter talked of America’s best days being behind it in 1979
Carter never specifically used the word ‘best days are behind us’
so you just made it up then the same as you made up flannery saying that dams will never fill again
no evidence for either,
Giddeon why i never put it in quotes
“America’s best days are behind it, but entirely because of a failure to understand the need for equity”
Carter talked
you are as bad as bozo with your lies even when what you wrote is staring everyone in the face
troll
J Giddeon said:
Now it might just be me, but his claim appears to be at odds with his previous comment in this post:
If those are not quotation marks, what are they?
Ah, I see that John caught that one too. It really does pay to refresh.
Although with trolls as dense as J Giddeon it probably pays to repeat the bleeding obvious multiple times – after all he still can’t get the basic climatological science right, and he’s been corrected innumerable times on this subject over months and years.
He’s not ‘special’ – he really is just a slow learner.
“America’s best days are behind it, but entirely because of a failure to understand the need for equity, ”
I didn’t write that. Nick did.
Now let’s see who is honourable enough to apologise.
yes you should have made that more obvious,
not always required but in that instance
followed directly by carter talked, it did fit that you were quoting carter
.
giddeon Now let’s see who is honourable enough to apologise.
you hypocrite
tells lies about flannery
tells lies about schneider
tells lies about the current australian anomaly
probably dozens more lies
no honour whatsoever
Well no apology from JB….well that’s only to be expected from a man such as he.
Bernard?
“J Giddeon says:
November 5, 2013 at 2:59 am
Carter talked of America’s best days being behind it in 1979 reflecting the gloom of that decade”
This is what you ‘paraphrased’. But of course Carter NEVER talked of America’s best days behind it. I asked for you to provide a link from where you ‘paraphrased’ Carter, and you didn’t. That’s because he NEVER SAID THAT. You talk of paraphrasing, yet he NEVER came close to saying what you ‘paraphrased’. That is because YOU ARE LYING!!! You are such a typical right wing extremist climate zombie troll with your gallon hat shrouding you eyes.
When are you going to apologise for you abhorrent and disgraceful behaviour.
Why are you so obsessed and addicted to trolling and lying?
Rodger: Gids is “an extreme skinhead climate zombie”! I love it, I’m dressing as one next Halloween!
Gids, like the US, is “going through a difficult period right now”. He thinks heavying Jimmy Carter will suffice as an explanation for why he didn’t understand The Limits to Growth.
I don’t share Carter’s optimism. The United Zombie State of Gids best years are clearly behind him!
So Dodgy, which parts of what I wrote to explain why most historians summarise Carter’s views as being as I described were toooo hard for you to fathom. I could try writing in ways that you might understand but I don’t speak gibberish.
“Gids is “an extreme skinhead climate zombie”! I love it, ”
Nick,
You disappoint me. I thought you were better than this lot. But you’re just a more articulate version of Dodgy.
Gidiot is the most abhorrent, and truly distasteful person. He vehemently hates that anyone talks about climate change, so he tries to force his shitty dick into everyones mouths after he has shoved it up the arse of Murdoch, Bolt and Willard. And then he has the gall to say it’s for your own good, all the while he is laughing his head off. Then he lies and distorts and ‘paraphrases’. He has proven himself to be a racist, bigoted, egotistical climate zombie who is addicted to trolling.
What are truly disgusting, illiterate and pathetic dribble of shit he is. You watch, he will arrogantly taunt, abuse and provoke everyone here.
Mike, this troll needs to be banned ASAP
“J Giddeon says:
November 5, 2013 at 8:09 am
So Dodgy, which parts of what I wrote to explain why most historians summarise Carter’s views”
See what I mean, so now it’s what historians think, when Gidiot says that Carter ‘talked’ of the best years behind them. What historians? Where is the link? Look over there !!! You are just digging your hole even deeper. You are truly a foul and disgusting clues troll. Everyone here can see it.
Why are you so addicted and obsessed to ‘educating’ people that you hate so much?
Just piss off.
rodge i agree with everything you said except i think that it is murdoch and bolt shoving it in him,
we do not want to see you warned for language so tone it down
suggest
shit use the word feces
for prick use the word giddeon
for arse you could probably use giddeon again
just a thought
“Rodger the Dodger says:
November 5, 2013 at 8:17 am
Gidiot is the most abhorrent, and truly distasteful person….” etc
Oh oh, I think there’s some more editing required.
rodger, he is one of those trolls who use a different pseudonym on every blog he spews on, he knows that he is writing drivel but is probably doing it for god as many of them are.
so when you write giddeon he just chuckles that it is not his real self anyway,
many people use a pseudonym i was using cooloola for many years but always used the same on every blog, this retarded troll giddeon does not have the guts to do that,
Gids, you seem very vulnerable to misinformation, it sticks to you like shit to your thongs.
Indeed JB misattributed my adaption [of your comment] to you. Bad JB! Arcing up about it seems a little rich, given your baggage.
You want an apology! Hmmm. Now how about the Schneider, the Carter, and the Flannery framings, which long ago were corrected when first they appeared on the webs, and pretty much every time subsequently, given the zombie nature of modern ‘contrarianism’ and the abundance of mole-whacking armament. You have been given some links to get up to speed on the issues.
Yours are classic dirty-tricks framings. They’re wrong in fact, are intended to be unconstructive and dismissive, and cannot possibly be offered sincerely, unless you are a teenager, maybe. Ignorance and incautious acceptance is the only defence.
Carter explicitly said the opposite to what you offered as a summary of his attitude.
That’s not really surprising, as presidents really do not have the latitude to stray from encouraging, optimistic and positive messaging in public.
So will you back up your ‘most historians’ claim? Will they be real historians, or partisan hacks from the infamous ‘institutes’ and ‘centres’ that parisitize the American dream?
I’ll happily retract if you did not in fact attribute those words to Carter in the context they were being thrown around. I have too many tabs open and too little time to bother with checking for myself – after all, I’m only following the example of another who said “…I don’t intend to go trawling back…”
That said, you yourself did make a very explicit statement about old-growth forest between Hobart and Launceston:
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not?.
J Giddeon says:
November 5, 2013 at 2:59 am
“America’s best days are behind it, but entirely because of a failure to understand the need for equity”
Carter talked of America’s best days being ahead of it, trying to lift the gloom of that decade, in part due to things like the LtG and the Population Bomb. The USSR was already on it’s last legs, and the US and capitalism on the decline. When Ronald Reagan was elected he reduced tax rates for the wealthy, tripled national debt, funded terrorists, unemployment went from 7.5% to 11% and he attacked unions. Less than a decade later the USSR lay in ruins, and US capitalism was in the early throes of one of the greatest economic catastrophies in its history, all built on debt. Unfortunately, those Reagan and Bush years sowed the seeds of the GFC, leading to the greatest loss of wealth in history.
Carter instigated two enquiries into Climate Change, the JASON report, and the Charney report, both saying the same thing. That CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were warming the climate. Reagan didn’t like the results, so he created instigated his own report, stacked with climate zombies like William Nierenberg to tell him what he wanted to hear. This led to the start of the rise of the climate zombies, and organisations like Heartland.
There I fixed it for you.
Gids, you really are missing the point. Your problem (and the problem with most contrarians/denialists) is very low standards of evidence. You initially say “Carter said” then, when pressed on the point, say “most historians said about Carter”, then fail to provide any evidence at all that these “historians” actually exist, let alone that they said what you claim they said.
You may have noticed that most people on this blog, back up what they say by linking to a factual source, rather than just concoct some random accusation out of thin air.
By the way, you have also failed to reply to my challenge that you back up this comment about Blot (sorry Bolt)….
” I saw him as complaining that News would publish something that was so clearly erroneous”
Enlighten us as to what was in the News article that was erroneous, point by point, given that this article was the first that they have ever printed which was actually factually based.
Surely you must realise by now that this is a fact based blog and random thoughts and meaningless waffle based on your own interpretation of things will not be be allowed to pass unchallenged.
I really would like to see your response to that News article by the way, just to see if you are capable of rigorous logical thought.
Rodg, that’s my comment on Gids original fit-up of Carter. Gids gave us the ‘best days behind’ bit, which turned out to be the exact opposite of Carter’s words, though Gids tried to reframe it as Carter’s late period impression [also tosh as you note]. I cobbled on the ‘equity’ failure as a riposte and update.
It may not matter as Gids sinks beneath his cumulative cluelessness, despite getting a damn fine education here!
J Giddeon.
I responded.
Why do you persist in avoiding a response of your own? Is it because you know that your claims about Greens trying to protect old-growth forest between Hobart and Launceston is wrong?
You were all high and mighty about other people’s apparent errors but you seem to avoid looking at your own. Splinters and logs, and all that…
I wouldn’t do this for everyone but I did go back through my ‘library’ to find:
Reagan’s War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism
The Essential Reagan.
Both books have extensive sections on the 1980 election and the way Reagan’s optimism was contrasted with carter’s pessimism and how Reagan’s later assertions
“that America’s best days and democracy’s best days lie ahead” were specifically made in contrast to the general mood exemplified by the dying days of the Carter administration.
At the very beginning of this whole absurd thread where you all try very hard to miss the substantive issue I said “Carter talked of America’s best days being behind it in 1979”
Yet Nick, can still say “though Gids tried to reframe it as Carter’s late period impression”.
I was always talking about 1979. But you guys are so desperate to score even one point that jettisoning the facts is, it seems, perfectly acceptable.
no one is interested in your yank drivel, this is what we want
Bernard J. says:
November 5, 2013 at 9:37 am
Bernard?
I’ll happily retract if you did not in fact attribute those words to Carter in the context they were being thrown around. I have too many tabs open and too little time to bother with checking for myself – after all, I’m only following the example of another who said “…I don’t intend to go trawling back…”
That said, you yourself did make a very explicit statement about old-growth forest between Hobart and Launceston:
In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not?.
“Gids, you really are missing the point. Your problem (and the problem with most contrarians/denialists) is very low standards of evidence. You initially say “Carter said” then, when pressed on the point, say “most historians said about Carter”, then fail to provide any evidence at all that these “historians” actually exist, let alone that they said what you claim they said.”
You know Debunker, if I was going to write a sanctimonious piece about how much more concerned about the evidence you are than others, I’d make doubly or triply sure that you got your own facts right.
“You initially say “Carter said” “. Nup.
what has Carter got to doe with this?
no one is interested in your yank drivel, this is what we want
Bernard J. says:
November 5, 2013 at 9:37 am
Bernard?
I’ll happily retract if you did not in fact attribute those words to Carter in the context they were being thrown around. I have too many tabs open and too little time to bother with checking for myself – after all, I’m only following the example of another who said “…I don’t intend to go trawling back…”
That said, you yourself did make a very explicit statement about old-growth forest between Hobart and Launceston:
In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not?.,
but back to the point twodicks
That said, you yourself did make a very explicit statement about old-growth forest between Hobart and Launceston:
In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not?.,
Gids mistakes self-serving and hagiographic political puff-pieces for history. Of course he does. Every single thing he reads is framing first, second and third, as part of his high-maintenance libertarian right fantasy.
“Carter talked of America’s best days being behind it in 1979” remains a falsehood, a piece of reframing for the express purposes of polishing Reagan’s shoes. And it was the SECOND attempt you made at Carter.
Your first was:
“It was this type of general gloom that lead people like Carter to talk about America’s best days being behind it.” Without a date attached….
Carter did not say that. Is it that hard for you to agree? I suppose it is because to do so would be to realise with compassion and understanding that the world is not black and white, that convenient narratives are ways of dismissing complex reality and accepting false constructs clears the way for the next unconscionable acceptance of unsavory, bat-shit crazy politics and policies.
Gidiot, as John first said in this thread, you are living an illusion, and you continue to prove it every time you obsessively troll here. You live in a fantasy world, full of heroes like Bolt, Reagan and Willard. Your mortal enemies are people who accept the science of AGW. Your only entertainment in life is to battle and troll those who you despise. You main implement of torture is distortions, lies, taunts and a sheer determination to bore. You will never concede, always willing to dig your hole even deeper and then distract everyone from the hole you’ve just dug. A few days later, you will then busily construct another hole, hoping that everyone has forgotten about the rabbit’s warren of other holes you have dug. This thread is not about what Carter has or not said. It’s that you have been exposed yet again as the utter fraud and habitual liar that is your very nature. Your continual drivel and slimy nature is abhorrent and disgusting to everyone. Your obsession to prove yourself right despite the overwhelming evidence against you is tiresome, and you have outdone Bill in his Facebook stalking tirade. You are boring beyond belief, and no one is interested in whatever crackpot and deluded shit that your depraved and diseased mind thinks. If I wanted to be subjected to a continual diatribe of nonsense and meaningless musings, I would visit the psychiatric ward of a prison, or read Bolt’s blog. Don’t you think it’s time for your habitual trolling to stop?
That’s a lot of words about what I think for someone not interested in what I think
Gids claims he never wrote that Carter ‘said’…. Gids wrote ‘people like Carter..talk[ed]’ and ‘Carter talked of America’s best days being behind it…’
Then Gids wrote/’explained’ he was paraphrasing Carter, but not from actual speeches or media releases, but from some general sense of Carter’s attitude in contrast to Reagan, it seems.
So much horseshit then.
But he’s concerned about ‘resident fabricators’. And cites two fawning bios of Reagan, written by resident fabricators / fluffers from the Hoover institute and the Heritage Foundation. LOL.
You see, this whole stupid thread is about you people seeking to avoid the point. LtG had a significant effect on the minds of many leaders in the advanced world. That is the point. I provided a couple of examples of that. A couple out of dozens that could be cited. the point was that LtG and its sister doomsaying treatises had a perverse effect on leaders at that time the same way as the ‘science’ is had a pervasive effect on leaders in the late naughties. The issue is the LtG results were used, inappropriately, to make claims about the future. The similarity with CC was Murray’s point.
But you lot have drilled down on a minor phrase which you’ve chosen to read in a particular way to disprove the point. Even if you could show that Carter and his administration didn’t think america was in decline, it wouldn’t make the slightest difference to the main point. All heat, no light.
we are already beyond ltg what do you not understand about, there is only enough resources to maintain 20% of the world’s population in the custom to your own lifestyle. it is your illusion and delusion
now forget your yank crap, forget your idiotic claim about sea level “dont panic”
tell that to the people in tuvalu or bangladesh who are already seeing the outcome and try to concentrate on your fifth last lie
In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not?.
“there is only enough resources to maintain 20% of the world’s population in the custom to your own lifestyle”
20% not 19or 21%
Evidence?
Huh? We dealt with ratbag Lavoisier Group chairman Hugh Morgans well-poisoning nonsense very early in the piece. You have been given links that will help broaden you knowledge and help you make the distinction between LtG’s actual contents and process,and the myth fabricated around it.
Then we look at the game you bring, your modus operandi–how can we not?–and find, again, that it is constructed on rubbish….and the more rubbish you invent or bring, the more you cling to it.
CCs claims about the future are “mistaken”, like LtGs apparently. You do not stop for even a minute and examine your belief, do you. Like Morgan, you straight-facedly misrepresent LtG, and hilariously claim to know the future! I’ll visit your tent next time your circus is in town, Madame Gids!
The ‘minor phrase’ conceals a complete rewrite of history intended to back your point. How minor is that? “even if you could show Carter, etc.” ‘could’? We did, idiot.
There is plenty of light here, you just have to come out from under your rock! But it is too hot for you?
J Giddeon says:
November 6, 2013 at 3:29 am
You see, this whole stupid thread is about you people seeking to avoid the point. LtG had a significant effect on the minds of many leaders in the advanced world.”
What, so you are now a mind reader of dead leaders. What, the fact that the oil shock which led to high inflation didn’t have any effect. The fact that the days of ultra cheap fuel were over, and that it took a massive injection of money printing to ‘fix’ the funk.
Gidiot, you are hopelessly deluded, living in a bubble. You deny human induced climate change and you are here to condescendingly educate us in your extremist right wing ideology. We all already know what and how your type think, and we all think that it’s disgusting and repugnant. We are not here to discuss the politics of right-wing extremism, and we certainly don’t want to hear ad nauseam your perverted and nauseating world-view. You hate everyone here, and your only intent is to troll this site into oblivion. We all get that. But for some reason, you are obsessed and addicted to trolling here. Time to seek urgent medical help.
“CCs claims about the future are “mistaken”, like LtGs apparently. ”
Mistaken? You see, I never said that. You are so concerned about peripheral and piffling issue that you constantly miss the point.
LtG wasn’t wrong. It results were used inappropriately. It had three scenarios and the worst of those was the one that became dominant in the public and governmental imagination. It was misused by people with their own agenda and when the most dire of warnings failed to happen the whole notion, even the more sober guesses, were discredited and the public were no longer buying any of it.
Similarly with CC. AR5 for example has many scenarios but the worst of these are the ones that get pushed into the public and governmental mind. They are for example indoctrinated into the idea that SL will be at the upper levels of the most pessimistic scenarios. This has been going on for two decades now and people aren’t buying any longer which is why we get polls like those that you did your best to ignore last week.
That’s the point. But heh that’s just a distraction from the really vital issue of whether Carter actually said “america’s best days are behind us” or merely alluded to that thinking. Doesn’t get more fascinating than that.
It’s plain as the nose on your face that your Carter construct is false, so we can quit pretending that it is still somehow in play. The fact that it’s false is not peripheral or piffling, given your fondness for making shit up on your little jaunt from Launceston to Hobart. And elsewhere.
“I never said it was ‘mistaken’…sorry for taking a fraction of the license you gave yourself when you fabricated Carter’s view. “It was used inappropriately” is a proclamation. Evidence would be nice. You haven’t established that, and neither did Morgan. But you’ve proclaimed that in order to see an ‘apt’ comparison with CC. It’s nonsense all the way down. Morgan is the one who is using it in appropriately: in his chicken littling is the claim that it completely presumed there was a standstill in technology, which is a diversion. LtG even modelled an infinite resource scenario. It’s the interaction of all the elements that produces the results. Technological change will not buy infinite space. The effective and encouraged perception of LtG is that it is ‘mistaken’ more than ‘misused’, hence Morgans’ ‘Chicken Little’ dance
The most benign IPCC scenario is realistically regarded as included for comparative purposes, more than our likelyhood of achieving it.. That may account for an alleged neglect of its weighting in discussion. But I reject that weighting because I have seen plenty of discussion that uses the benign scenario: comparative utility is the simple purpose of the presentation, after all.
The upper limits of SLR projections in the conservative approach of AR5 are not spectacularly above the lower. Incorporating them into coastal planning processes seems eminently sensible, considering coastal process experts have the oversight. Or had it until O’Farrell abolished SLR. Planning for coastal processes has to have large margins built in because of weather/tidal combination effects.
Gids, you complain about the verbal abuse on this site, then make comments like this:
““You initially say “Carter said” “. Nup.” WTF?
This is nit picking on a grand scale. OK, you actually said, “Carter talked about…”, and I said “Carter said..”. Fine. It’s a paraphrase, but if you had actually listened during your comprehension classes at school, you would realise that it means exactly the same thing.
Meanwhile you are happy to paraphrase Carter’s entire administration in 1979 and apparently can’t even tell the difference between a puff piece written by fawning minions and objective history. You really are a piece of work!
And by the way, the standard tactic employed by the denierati when backed into a corner (such as explaining yourself regarding Tasmanian forests, or explaining why you think that News Ltd article Blot objected to was “erroneous”), is to obfuscate and change the subject. (Which you are doing in spades. You have struck such a rich vein of bullshit, that resource at least, will never run out!).
How about addressing those issues first? You might actually gain some kudos out of it, or at least, rescue some measure of respect, which, you may have noticed is sadly lacking at the moment.
J Giddeon says:
November 6, 2013 at 5:18 am
“there is only enough resources to maintain 20% of the world’s population in the custom to your own lifestyle”
20% not 19or 21%
Evidence?
I told you that you were living an illusion , you just confirmed that
How many people living in poverty are there? – ATD Fourth World
http://www.atd-fourthworld.org/How-many-poor-people-are-there.html
20% of the global population have 90% of the wealth. ATD Fourth World produces qualitative studies on extreme poverty through its Research Institute,
there are seven billion people on the planet and one billion cars
the US has one car for every 1.3 people
Is there enough oil to run cars for everyone on earth at least three times as many as now ?
Of course not, that we have not run out of oil is an illusion
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not?.
“there is only enough resources to maintain 20% of the world’s population in the custom to your own lifestyle”
Define poverty.
“20% of the global population have 90% of the wealth.”
Maybe yes, maybe no. surely you learnt after the “Our Earth” debacle that you can’t just believe a number because it suits your prejudices. eg is that calculated using PPP, GDP, exchange rates? The site doesn’t give us a hint about that.
“Is there enough oil to run cars for everyone on earth at least three times as many as now ?”
Yes. As we add more cars we find more oil, find new ways to get oil out of sands, find new ways to extract more oil from each well, shale, gas conversion, better electric cars and so on. We’ll never run out of oil. We’ve never run out of any resource. We currently have ~60yrs of reserves. But we had ~40yrs of reserves a century ago. Despite economic growth etc, we have more reserves in 2012 than we had in 2000.
Your mistake is as old as Malthus. You ignore human ingenuity.
so you still do not understand exponential growth
” As we add more cars we find more oil”
is this something like the lack of pirates driving warming?
there is and only will be enough oil for the lucky 20% unless you are advocating renewable for electric car recharging
In 1920 less than 1 million motorised vehicles. At that time we had sufficent reserves for somewhere between 10 and 40yrs depending on your sources and methods of calculation. Today 1 billion cars and > 60yrs reserves.
No attempt to define ‘poverty’?
No advise as to how your site’s numbers were calculated?
No understanding as to how reserves have increased in the past decade?
No clue?
J Giddeon says:
November 6, 2013 at 6:53 am
In 1920 less than 1 million motorised vehicles. At that time we had sufficent reserves for somewhere between 10 and 40yrs depending on your sources and methods of calculation. Today 1 billion cars and > 60yrs reserves.
so in effect the reality is less than 20 years reserves without your delusion
if you do not know the meaning of poverty then use google
here is another take
At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.Source 1
More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.Source 2
The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.Source 3
According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”Source 4
Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
“if you do not know the meaning of poverty then use google”
I know what I mean by poverty but I was asking what you and /or your source means by it and therefore how its calculated. Clearly, not only haven’t got a clue about that, it hasn’t even occurred to you to ask that question.
I’m not arguing that there isn’t poverty. But the solution is not to drag the non-poor down but to drag the poor up.
I see that your lack of understanding of how the world works and lack of imagination means you can’t see how that can happen but its been happening for 200yrs despite the doomsayers.
don’t fret JB, we’ll get on with it while you whine and try to work out why it hasn’t happened as you thought.
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
asked and answered
No, tangentially skirted and avoided.
You’re a chicken-shit coward who is happy to claim:
whilst you do exactly that, on a matter of more substantive importance than the things on which you attempt to ping the rest of the posters here.
You’re a great justification for birth control.
“We’ll never run out of oil”…triple the number of cars, and it effectively runs out for those who cannot afford it. And when it takes a couple of barrels of oil to extract and refine one barrel from tar or coal>oil, I suppose sheer ingenuity will have us revisit the sedan chair? They’ll be useful for rehabilitating the wastelands. There will still be oil there, but damn hard to extract eh, Gids. A bit like an intelligent claim from you.
“triple the number of cars, and it effectively runs out for those who cannot afford it. ”
Well in that case, we’ve run out of 1kg gold ingots.
We’ve never run out of a resource. We always find substitutes/new ways to extend/new ways to extract/new ways to conserve. That’s why our oil reserves grow even while we exploit them.
There’s lots of places you could find out about this but it would do your understanding of how the world works a real boost if you just read some Julian Simon. I know you much prefer your gurus to make failed predictions (TF) whereas Simon made prediction that turned out to be correct, but still.
We’ve never run out of a resource
we will never run out of water
but we will run out of drinking water
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/30-facts-about-the-coming-water-crisis-that-will-change-the-lives-of-every-person-on-the-planet
you are deluded,
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
when are you going to answer this?
water wars
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-rasmussen/water-wars_b_844101.html
phosphorous
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phosphorus-a-looming-crisis
six resources
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/oct/31/six-natural-resources-population
giddeot’s position is that while there is enough for him then the other 80% of the world do not count when ascertaining the amount if oil left
EROEI, Gids…you’re skipped that bit. Low hanging fruit is going fast…gone. FF resources are abundant but, ya know…one barrel gets three in the tar sands, not as good as 1:15 in Saudiland…and then one gets two…oh its no good…but we’ll never run out, no sir!
Substitutes for oil in the agricultural sector, chemicals, pharma, etc?…
We will absolutely trash the place over the next few decades…absolutely f**k it…if we want to keep the showbags-for-all economy idea going. And we will have to walk back mine rehab, which has taken a long time to get somewhere, as it will be too energy expensive to contemplate.
Gonna be fun , all those people saying maybe we should have cut back on the superfluous lighting, and the churn of cars. Hey who TF needs a new car every two or three years? What hopelessly out-of-touch sap buys into that? Oh wait, it was national policy.
Oh, and the CO2…where’s it going again?
It get it Nick.
The real agenda of many warmists is to use the great scares to cause a change in behaviour that they favour.
Trouble is logic, history and economics prove it wrong and the people aren’t buying it.
Solution – makes the scares scarier.
There I was thinking we lived on the same planet! Sorry, my bad.
So what’s it like on planet Gids? Do you have physics?
Gidiot, WTF is wrong with you? Why do you continue to act like a nasty troll?
Just piss off.
Mike, we continue to have a troll infestation.
I don’t want to scare you, Gids. Just say when it’s too much, the counting and stuff.
“Mike, we continue to have a troll infestation.”
Translation – the nasty man is saying things I don’t want to hear but I can’t work out how to argue against it.
Please make the nasty man go away.
“I don’t want to scare you, Gids.”
You’re not scaring me Nick. I know that your scary scenarios are just so much gumph. But somehow you’ve convinced yourself.
Gidiot, you just keep telling lies, misrepresentations and distortions. So yes, stop the bad man telling us bullshit and trying to stick his extremist right wing dick down our mouths.
Gids is a walking, squawking caution against extrapolating from the past. Past substitutions mean everything is substitutable, to paraphrase.
FFs will last forever effectively, but timely scaling up extraction of non-coventional sources to meet the growth paradigm is an unknown, given the little we hear about yields and duration per new field, and we know we are consuming ahead of resource establishment [as opposed to dreaming in prospecti]
However only a moron thinks we will still be on FFs in 100 years time, apparently. Well, no morons here thought that. But for different reasons. For Gids, the techno-fundamentalist believer, something new and presumably directly comparable in E-D will have substituted with the markets orderly guidance no doubt. It will simply out price FFs? Which to Gids have no discounted costs at the mo?
The rational see that pulling the tough stuff out of its rocky bonds will crimp exponential growth, more coal will be burnt with a return to more electrified transport…maybe he’ll look a bit more kindly at trying to push diversification despite ‘market’ resistance.
Oh my, another totally delusional rant by our resident lunatic Gidiot.
I’m not going to waste my time trying to argue with you since you are a certified crackpot.
But read this.
“The long-run impact of sustained, significantly increased oil prices associated with oil peaking will be severe. Virtually certain are increases in inflation and unemployment, declines in the output of goods and services, and a degradation of living standards. Without timely mitigation, the long-run impact on the developed economies will almost certainly be extremely damaging, while many developing nations will likely be even worse off.”
Click to access Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf
Do you know what finite means?
Do you know how stupid you look every time you comment?
If you find a report/information that suits your prejudices, its generally not a great idea to just say, that looks like want I want to hear, let’s believe that. I often pays to check it out – well not you but someone with reasonable intelligence.
In your report written in 2005 they have a list of predictions. More than half of those show peak occurring on or around 2010. All were obviously wrong. One such, at random, was the World Energy Council.
Here is their current thinking (sorry to use words you don’t understand):
http://www.worldenergy.org/news-and-media/press-releases/world-energy-council-report-confirms-global-abundance-of-energy-resources-and-exposes-myth-of-peak-oil/
Money quotes:
““Our latest World Energy Resources report shows that ‘peak oil’ – that the world was running out of oil – has moved into a far future. It is clear that coal, oil and gas are going to keep powering the economies of many countries for many years to come.”
“Global crude oil reserves today are almost 25% larger than in 1993 and production has gone up by 20%.
The oil reserves in the world could be quadrupled if unconventional resources such as oil shale, oil sands, extra heavy oil, and natural bitumen are taken into account.
The report sets out a global oil reserves-to-production (R/P) ratio of 56 years with total available reserves estimated at 223 billion tonnes.”
Read Simon.
Geez Gidiot, you have managed to prove yourself wrong. Kudos
First you say we will never run out of oil, and now you are quoting a report which puts it at about 50 years. Even if we use unconventional sources, that could be at most 200 years.
Very much different to never.
You shamelessly lie and distort. Have you escaped from a mental institution?
EROEI, Gids? Remember? The message is clear. We can have as much FF as we are desperate enough to claw out of the earth, provided we believe. As long as we believe! The world is best described in a prospectus, the pinnacle of persuasive art and testament to hope….that’s what it is. Hugh Morgan’s world-as-prospect versus physics and ecology.
“First you say we will never run out of oil, and now you are quoting a report which puts it at about 50 years. Even if we use unconventional sources, that could be at most 200 years.”
Hands up all those morons who think we’ll still be using FF in 100 yrs time let alone 200.
It must be hard to think outside the box if you don’t realise you’re in one.
Why will we not be using FFs in 200 years, Gids? Because they will be [effectively] exhausted? Or because the substitutes will be more energy-dense than hydrocarbons?
john byatt says:
November 6, 2013 at 6:44 am
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
when are you going to answer this?
Anyone come up with a resource we’ve run out of yet?
Makes you think eh?
Ever heard of the dodo?
That was a resource that was hunted to extinction. So yes, we have run out of dodo’s.
See, you are wrong again. But I will bet that you will now redefine what a resource is. Post endless comments on how you are right and continue to bore us all insane.
How about this. Leave this website, let us all have a sane conversation in peace, and you can have your fun at WUWT where you will be most welcome. Win Win.
That it? that’s the best you can come up with? ROTFLMAO
While ever you’re around Dodgy, the dodo won’t be extinct.
yep that is what he did, no prizes it was too obvious
oseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
when are you going to answer this?
It proved you were wrong again. You have been wrong so many times now, it’s become your signature. Then with no argument, just resort to good old fashioned trolling. After all, you are just a proven nasty, ignorant, clueless climate zombie troll.
Why are you even here when all you do is just spout lies and misinformation?
Why are you such a persitant and annoying little dipshit troll?
Red Cedar is effectively exhausted, African Rosewood….neither entirely substitutable for exact qualities,and their replacements are bottlenecking. World fisheries are collapsing, fast enough for you, Gids? Bottlenecks are pretty common. Ah but I suppose as long as there is a dribble that someone can profit from, the world is sweet, eh?
Have you come up with a way to keep growing the economy, Gids?
Have you found a way to maintain supply of harder to access resources in the quantities that an equitable economy needs?
Or what you mean is that scarcity raises prices, concentrates ownership, restricts distribution…? that’s the kind of economy we want? Musical chairs.
They’re planning musical chairs, while pretending that more will be lifted out of poverty? Sounds…wonderful.
We’ve almost run out of this, we will run out of that. What have we run out of?
I’ll try to make this simple for you Nick since I know that in your haste to dis the capitalist system you haven’t bothered to work out how it operates.
I’ll use a simple example for you.
In the 1980’s the usual suspects were sure we were going to run out of copper, the then basis of the telephone system. So no phone system for china, india,etc. Naughty rich folk. Paul Ehrlich lost money on his certitude.
But then what happened? Fibre, mobiles, more signal on each cable.
Current situation? China, India etc have all the phones they need. And the world reserves of copper are higher than in the 1980’s. As copper became more expensive or even threatened to become more expensive, new technologies were invented and deployed. There are myriad examples just like this if only you were open to seeing it.
There’s another lesson here. People don’t want copper they want a phone service. Which resource is used to provide it is by-the-by.
Equally people don’t want coal or oil, they want energy.When something other than oil comes along to provide convenient transport it’ll be used.
that does not even address nicks comment,
so we will not run out of fish because china did not need copper wires or some other retarded reply
and you still do not understand that the resourses we have are hardly used by 80% of the global population
it is your delusion
Blah, Blah, Blah
Another Gidiot classic boring trolling moment, brought to you by Bolt and Murdoch. Misdirect and lie. It’s all he knows.
I’m surprised you can even see you computer screen, covered with spittle from all your lunatic ranting.
Thank you for a barking silly techno-fundamentalist sermon, Gids.
FFs provide great energy density and more than energy alone….energy-density please, and ERoEI. Carrying capacities. Realistic per capita energy demand. Copper is utterly substitutable? Any thoughts, beyond something will come along? Dig harder? Is that it?
There are lessons…the Helium Stewardship Act 2012 ring any bells?
“There are lessons…the Helium Stewardship Act 2012 ring any bells?”
So another thing we WILL run out of. Anything we HAVE run out of?
We’ve run out of patience with your deliberate obtuseness.
apparently it does not make you think
The global fish stocks are depleting at a rapid rate, and will be exhausted my the middle of the century.
Unless the world is happy to turn to sea jellies as the bulk of “sea food”.
Dodo omelettes and thylacine steaks.
English elm floorboards.
Biodiversity in general.
Helium, soon. Phosporus.
Water, topsoil, industrial-scale nitrogen.
Desired real estate.
The list is endless, but you miss the point. The Simon myth of replacability is the fevered fantasy of a thermodynamically-illiterate business administrator. Human societal growth is effectively a boom-before-a-bust, and epidemic, a cancer, and subject to the same laws of nature as each of those other conditions. Human intelligence simply delays the bust – it does change the universe to indefinitely remove it. It’s magical thinking to believe otherwise.
Without a profound restructuring of global society, and an inevitable sourging full of human misery in the process, the global village as it currently exists will go the way of Easter Island and Angkor Wat.
If you want to read something intelligent pick up Diamond and stick to using Simon to wipe your arse.
You don’t know how to think. You’re not qualified to do so.
The depleted resources that you dismiss as being able to be replaced are the beginning of a depletion that will occur over centuries. The fact that we’re not at the end of the depletions yet does not mean that they will not occur, nor does it mean that we can endlessly substitute.
Your logic is fallacious, and ironically that fallacious thinking seems to be the one thing that ignores the laws of physics and persists without exhaustion.
think about this for a while, i am interested in why you lied
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
when are you going to answer this?
asked and answered
think about this for a while, i am interested in why you lied
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
when are you going to answer this?
Reply
J Giddeon says:
November 6, 2013 at 9:05 am
asked and answered
no you rambled off in another direction you did not answer this question at all
so it follows you until you do
get it?
asked and answered. BTW why did you lie about me not living in Sydney. Why did you lie about Uki’s screw-up being a typo. etc etc
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
when are you going to answer this?
Reply
J Giddeon says:
November 6, 2013 at 9:05 am
asked and answered
no you rambled off in another direction you did not answer this question at all
so it follows you until you do
get it?
I was under the impression that the denial “it won’t be bad referred to a warming of about 1DegC for doubling of CO2
in Howard’s lala land it seems that is not the case
Howard ” 4-to-6 degrees Celsius of climate warming “would be less comfortable for some than it is now”
6 Degrees not comfortable for some ?
the crazy
This is all very interesting boys. Clearly you’ve never really thought or read about this. When asked to consider what resources we’ve ever run out of, the best and only response is the dodo! Seriously? The dodo was a food source. Have we run out of food?
All you can talk about is the resources we will run out of in the FUTURE.With no understanding of how these claims have been around for millennia and have always been shown to be false, you have no tools for critically evaluating these claims. In the 1800’s there were scares that the new industrial revolution would soon run out of coal!! How silly were they heh? But you are in the exact same situation.
I guess most of you are so used to seeing and immediately believing whatever is the latest scaremongering, that it just comes naturally to accept that if someone says we’re gunna run out of widgets, you not only accept that uncritically but look open-mouthed at anyone who says that’s rubbish.
You might be happy to believe we are going to run out of this or that because ‘experts’ have said so. I prefer to look back to evaluate the future and when you look back you find that we don’t run out of resources.
You also need to think about what is a resource. The human mind ‘creates’ resources. A stick is a stick until someone puts a point on it. Then it becomes a resource. Oil was just some stuff that oozed out on and fouled, good farmland until minds worked out how to make it a resource.
We have never run out of a resource. As supplies become more problematic we search for AND find ways to extend the resource or get the same utility from other resources.
Prof Stott used to talk of presentism. The idea that the present must be special, differnet. “OK we’ve never run out of resources before but this time….”. Its the same mistake made by the same people for the same reasons and has probably been happening since people started pondering the future.
Read Simon.
You might also ponder the inconsistency in your thinking. If we are going to run out of oil in the next few decades, then the issue of reducing emissions is already resolved. RCP8.5 can’t be true if pending peak oil is true.
Just as science of AGW has moved on so has our understanding of the amount of resources left,
you are living in the past
Next few decades is just another lie from you
now address one of your other fibs
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
when are you going to answer this?
Reply
J Giddeon says:
November 6, 2013 at 9:05 am
asked and answered
no you rambled off in another direction you did not answer this question at all
so it follows you until you do
So you did miss the point. Quelle surprise.
Oh, and there were one or two other things that seemed to slip under your radar, but I suspect that you’d still be banging on about endless replacability as you chew on your Soylent Green and pray to your sky fairies.
You do realise “Soylent Green” wasn’t a documentary, right?
But it is good that it was mentioned. It was part of a whole literature in the mid 70 – mid 80s that saw doom in the future. It was part of that Limits to Growth culture of despair that permeated the Carter years and was only dispelled by the optimism and success of the Reagan years. Terminator 2 is so much more optimistic than T1.
The theme of Soylent Green is that the oceans are dying and the food supply was shrinking. It was the type of doomsaying that allowed dills like Ehrlich to predict that famine would occur not just in India but also the US in the 1970s.
But. The ocean didn’t die and the percaptia food supply increased.
OK, we got it wrong there but this time….
you are a complete idiot
first giddeon claims that we will not run out of FF and at the same time claims that we will never reach atmospheric levels of 560CO2 , how he performs his gymnastic braincell tumble is anyone’s guess
we are already at critical levels when we need to resort to the most polluting extraction known and are already looking in the Arctic which will only be viable due to the warming of the planet
so while they claim that the Arctic is in a rebound they are getting prepared for it to become ice free in the near future.
the message from the deniers does not need to be cohesive, nor logical, so long as they can separate each idiotic claim and hope you do not notice
How is the ocean, Gids? Enjoying your dead zones, collapsed fish stocks and jellyfish plagues? Seriously is it always black and white with you, are you absolutely literal? Does the ocean really have to be lifeless before you consider it’s worth fixing?
Carter sad / Reagan happy…that’s deep. Can’t you move on from what Ehrlich thought forty years ago? He’s still thinking, and publishing, but you like his old stuff better than his new. You may have learned nothing from his misses, but he has.
Face it, all these miserable concerned people over the last century and more have whinged and whined…and improved your life without being concerned about whether the odd idiot or a thousand didn’t notice.
“How is the ocean, Gids? ”
Pretty good really. the usual doomsayers but in general doing fine. FAO predicts fish catches to remain unchanged through the next two decades while farmed fish to almost treble. More use of ingenuity to solve potential problems.
“Carter sad / Reagan happy…that’s deep.”
That’s facile. You know I have much more to say on that but space limits on comments preclude it. Still anything to score points, eh?
“Can’t you move on from what Ehrlich thought forty years ago? ”
He’s just a very good example of where it all goes wrong. But there are plenty of others. Yes he has learnt from his failures. He’s learnt to make predictions about a time far enough off to be safe error-wise.
do you ever take your head out of your arse giddeon?
http://www.kval.com/outdoors/Havoc-in-worlds-oceans-by-2100–228106011.html
Do you ever see a prediction of doom and gloom without immediately treating it as an established fact?
Same old story. Present results for a few (two) scenarios and then only talk about the most pessimistic.
most people with an IQ above average would read that and realise that we need to act, giddeon reads it puts head up bum,
“This is all very interesting boys”. Stop lying. You are ideologically indisposed to being interested in the real world. You simply seek collectable ‘iconic’ thought-bubblers like Simon, or the partisan hack hagiographers of Reagan to cling to, and resolutely steer away from currency in information.
Do you seriously think that estimates of coal abundance in the 1800s were made with knowledge and tools that are comparable to todays? This is essentially what you are trying to argue: that we are just as ignorant and lacking in technique now as then, therefore we are likely just as wrong! How silly are you? Very!
Because we don’t miss the dodo, then observations about resource diminishment and exhaustion can be laughed off!
All through this you resolutely ignore EROEI / energy density realities in regard to energy sources, and the application of that to the modern exponential growth economy, which is the only kind of economy that keeps our bandit capitalists happy.
“The human mind creates ‘resources’ “….you’re confusing what we can monetise, and what energy we can access to satisfy our growth model. We will always monetise, always have an economy of sorts. We cannot ‘create’ energy. We can consider how to use less per unit, but that is not infinitely pursuable…and trying to get energy efficiency happening ahead of the desires of the peddlers of spurious rubbish amounts to treason for some.
You prefer to look back to evaluate the future? Why are you looking in only one direction?
” Stop lying.”
Very revealing. Whenever I write something that challenges you, it becomes a lie. Not just a disagreement over issues or values but a lie. There beats the heart of the instinctive authoritarian.
The right thinks the left is wrong. The left thinks the right is evil.
Just one of the fundamental unbridgeable differences.
so you are now claiming that this is not a lie but just a different opinion ?
you see everything about the AGW science as left versus right
that is moronic , it is about science versus you frightened little cowards
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
when are you going to answer this?
climatecodered
Put simply: Abbott is committed to this caricature of his political rivals, or he at least believes that this portrait will sell as well abroad as it has domestically. Either way, this picture is worrying. It does not suggest practical wisdom: a knack for responding to milieu and ambiguity. It suggests an evangelist or apparatchik, for whom the world is neatly divided into us and them, goodies and baddies, my common sense and their lunacy. Instead, Abbott’s slur suggests that word so often reserved as an insult for the left: ideology.
evangelist apparatchik Them and us, all same giddeon
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
when are you going to answer this?
Oh, lighten up Gids. I simply think your ‘this is very interesting posture’ is a giggle. It’s bullshit. Your limited and self-limiting reading list betrays your lack of interest.
As for your challenging the ideas of yield, exhaustion, and sustainability…that’s another joke.
“The right thinks the left is wrong”…why is this a right left thing? I’m not really seeing how natural laws are optional depending on electoral or social views. I see part of society very interested in concentrating power, and promoting an unsustainable energy use model because it brings them immediate benefits. These people are the authoritarians you should be wary of.
“Do you seriously think that estimates of coal abundance in the 1800s were made with knowledge and tools that are comparable to todays? This is essentially what you are trying to argue: that we are just as ignorant and lacking in technique now as then, therefore we are likely just as wrong! ”
No, we are less likely to be wrong. But only some of us.
Yes, we have better tools than they did in the 1800s. But then the people in the 1920’s who thought they only had 10 years supplies of oil left also had better tools but still got it wrong. Those who, in the 1970s, thought we’d run out of oil by 2000 and that there was nothing that could be done to avert famine also had better tools but still got it wrong.
Ehrlich, in his famous bet with Simon had better tools but still got it wrong.
The people in Dodgy’s link above who thought that we’d reach peak oil by 2010 had better tools but still got it wrong.
Part of the problem is that those in the present think that those in the past were ignorant and that we now know it all. We know more than they did but not everything and we still make the same mistakes they did. We, and here I mean the doomsayers and their followers, always ignore innovation and assume that consumption and production will remain on present trend,whatever that may be.
Which brings us to climate science. Here also we are lead to believe that we know it all or at least enough to make prediction 100yrs hence. That’s why we got the settled science meme in the 90s. Yet it took a mere decade to show that the models we were so confident about are very poor at predicting the future.
That’s one reason why those of us who understand the history of predicting the future remain sceptical of the models abilities to tell us very much at all about the future.
Simon lost his bet over timber prices, but let’s just pick his winners, eh?
Did anyone think we’d ‘run out’ of oil by 2000? I think you’ll find that they thought production would peak by around 2000…big difference. How’s the peaking / plateauing looking now?
Anti wind farm Fossil fuel link
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-07/greens-bid-muzzle-anti-wind-farm-lobby-waubra-foundation/5075190
Waubra creator successfully had turbines removed from wind farm
The foundation’s creator, Peter Mitchell, was a director of several oil and gas companies.
He was the subject of a stinging attack in Federal Parliament last year over his successful removal of turbines from a wind farm proposal in Victoria.
Murray called out by BOM
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/01/scientists-demand-apology-david-murray
correction AMOS
AMO not BOM. Lucky I didn’t make that mistake….there’d be 73 gloating posts.
you are slow, ten minutes after correction.
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
when are you going to answer this?
Well to repeat myself, the story about the Greens seeking to protect as old growth forests that had actually previously been cleared was something that was around in the early 2000’s. My data on this is long ago archived in hard cardcopy and zip.
At some time when I’ve got a lazy few hours I’ll get to it.
But in the meantime, I now find that this may take longer than I thought because, contra all indications it seems I’ve moved home! Now I’m unaware that I’ve moved but the people who tell me I have are very honourable and wouldn’t lie about such things. Nosireee. And if they were mistaken about it they’d own up in a thrice. No question about it. So when I return to Sydney I’ll get a chance to check my archives.
“Well to repeat myself, the story about the Greens seeking to protect as old growth forests that had actually previously been cleared was something that was around in the early 2000′s’
we already know that I was part of it
your claim relates specifically to
“forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
so do you still maintain that is correct because now you do not appear to be to sure of yourself
find your notes on global temperature anomalies from the centre of antarctica also
giddeot, the dog ate my homework,
Stop whining, Gids.
and of course in his delusion that there is enough resources to meet our needs he ignores a simple fact, that if everyone on earth was using the equivalent of the US or Australia we would already be out of most resources,
it it his right wing fundamentalist perspective that allows him to live that delusion
and lacks the balls to own up to his lies,
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
when are you going to answer this?
droopy dick then claims to have answered it,
They won’t get one. Don’t they know their station?
the more media coverage the better though
Anti science abbott adviser
extreme right wing tea party out of touch, much like giddeon
of course the extreme right is always linked to fundamentalist christianity, so no surprise there,
of course climate denier giddeon would not accept the finding of the CSIRO, that is the enemy
http://theconversation.com/look-out-for-that-turbine-climate-sceptics-are-the-real-chicken-littles-19873
link to CSIRO report on COR limits
and lacks the balls to own up to his lies,
joseph gidiot “In the early 1800′s, it was possible to drive a horse and cart from Hobart to Launceston even though there were no roads, but instead just open grass land and open wooded areas due to the regular burning. Now these areas are considered old-growth forest which the Greens are determined to protect.
You dodged and weaved about the accuracy of your claim, so perhaps you’d like to revisit it in light of your demands of others. So…
Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are “old-growth”? Which “forests” between Hobart and Launceston are being targeted for protection by those “determined” Greens, whether “old-growth” or not
when are you going to answer this?
droopy dick then claims to have answered it,
t is worth emphasising that the published study itself is quite different to the way it is described in criticism. Outspoken critics demonised it as simplistic doom mongering. According to CSIRO, sustained, ill-informed attacks on the study claimed falsely “that The Limits to Growth predicted resources would be depleted and the world system would collapse by the end of the 20th Century”. The Australian perpetuates the mythology.
In this way, analysis of Limits to Growth may be a useful progenitor to the intense criticisms levelled at the IPCC. They too challenge powerful vested interests, including some in the mining and energy sectors.
Despite persistent attempts to discredit the study, retrospective analyses have found the scenarios remarkably accurate. While some analyses are from the report’s authors independent analysis by CSIRO compared 30 years of reality with the model runs, and found the “business as usual” scenario matches pretty closley with what has occurred.
That’s what I said above. They made several predictions and at least some of them are right. Equally IPCC makes lots of projections and somewhere in there is, probably, the truth.
the problem is the use the report(s) are put to. the doomsayers select the most dire predictions and that’s the one the public and government are presented with. eg people who use AR5 to pretend a 98cm SL rise is virtually an established fact.
. Outspoken critics demonised it as simplistic doom mongering. According to CSIRO, sustained, ill-informed attacks on the study claimed falsely “that The Limits to Growth predicted resources would be depleted and the world system would collapse by the end of the 20th Century”. The Australian perpetuates the mythology.
That’s what I said above.
yes we know, perpetuating the mythology. ill informed
That’s what I said above:
“Limits to Growth basically made three projections based on differing projections. The second of the three was the most pessimistic. That was the one that was most spoken of and that was the one that the scaremongers utilised to, well, scaremonger.
It was those numbers which caused people to think that mineral resources would start expiring before 2000…..The other scenarios, which saw a much longer timeframe before resources depletion became a problem, barely got a look in. Despite what is now said, the authors and the CoR were quite prepared to see the least likely scenario be treated as the main talking point.”
try to comprehend what the CSIRO said,
it did not say those who agreed with the study pushed the doomsayer propaganda
ignorant Outspoken critics demonised it as simplistic doom mongering
your lot were the ones putting the doom scaremongering line out there and they were ill informed
“Outspoken critics demonised it as simplistic doom mongering. According to CSIRO, sustained, ill-informed attacks on the study claimed falsely “that The Limits to Growth predicted resources would be depleted and the world system would collapse by the end of the 20th Century”. The Australian perpetuates the mythology.
and you and your lot are doing it again, exactly the same
just ignore that the IPCC tells us what we need to do to prevent catastrophic warming
It does not need to be bad unless we listen to the morons
IPCC scaremongering is destroying its credibility | The Australian
.theaustralian.com.au/…/ipcc-scaremongering…/story-e6frg6xf-12258…
Feb 17, 2010 – AS George W. Bush and Tony Blair learned the hard way, the public does not take kindly to being misled about the nature of potential threats.
More hot air from scaremongers on ‘global warming’ UN IPCC report …
climatedepot.com/…/uk-paper-more-hot-air-from-scaremongers-on…
Sep 28, 2013 – ‘This is nothing but a political statement to cover up the fact that continual predictions about climate change are just not happening. The IPCC
we are saying we need to act, mike has posts here to that effect
Here is a really good video.
It debunks a few myths and highlights how criminally corrupt the Murdoch media is.
It also shows how morally corrupt and clueless climate zombies are. I reckon the reason why Gidiot trolls here so much is that he is fearful of the truth, and is trying to play his small part in disrupting the conversation. Look how much he has driven this thread off topic with his whining, misdirection and outright lies. Absolutely shameless.
I also noticed his trying to get off topic, discuss anything but climate change,
do not feed him bring him back to reality
” is that he is fearful of the truth”
that is it exactly correct and appears to be a part of the fundamentalist conservative christian brain.
joseph seems to be a yank from his comments and what he uses to try to disrupt.
just an observation
How do you get off topic? Take the Carter issue. Murray is raised as a climate criminal by whoever. I mention that I thought his LtG was a valid comparison to CC.
Usual your an idiot etc. I seek to explain and make a passing reference to Carter. since you can’t address my main points the group then decides to zero in on the passing reference, misread my words, and then spend 20 posts trying to prove the reinterpreted phrase as wrong in the belief this will somehow prove the main points wrong.
More than happy to stay on topic but I won’t take a backward step when people try to use side issues to disprove the crux of an argument.
Dang, weird things happen when you go forward and back – the reply location changes.
This was mean to be here:
You’re a fine one to speak about going off-topic.
Remember when you made claims about Greens being determined to protect old-growth forest between Hobart and Launceston?
You have yet to point to the old-growth forests to which you referred.
And you have yet to point to any forest between Hobart and Launceston that the Greens are determined to protect, whether old-growth or otherwise.
So how about we discuss that topic with care and in detail, just so we can verify the accuracy of your claims.
I think we need a new rule where making unsubstantiated comments and then refusing to back them up, is treated the same as making factually wrong comments. JG should immediately be banned for repeatedly failing to address issues such as the Tasmanian forest issue, whilst desperately trying to change the subject so he can avoid admitting that he was wrong.
By the way JG, being able to gracefully admit that you made a mistake is all part of the character building process required to progress to full adulthood. You have made a mistake, you have said stuff which is not factually correct and you are unable to prove otherwise. Admit it and move on.
From Pricing carbon: the politics of climate policy in Australia:
More testimony to Abbott’s agenda of simple lying for political gain, and his strongly anti-participatory, anti-democratic motivations in being a thin front for the industry lobby.
Gillard’s minority government was the most constructive expression of political engagement and rational decision making we have seen for a while: “the fragile politics of minority government [provided] processes that were secure against industry lobbying” in the introduction of carbon pricing.
However, give either major a clear majority and they practice exclusive decision making and return to utter captivity to their backers whims.
More alarmist news regarding climate change:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1937.html
[…] there are hard workers who rise to the challenge. The story about Bolt v. News can be found here, for example, in Watching the […]