This is a very simple post intended to offer this presentation from Professor Bob Carter to the readers of the Sandpit.
With very big hat tip to “Gig Diary” who sent me the link.
Bringing light into the darkness…
Home » AGW and climate change » Bob Carter does the Business
Iain, this does not constitute evidence for the idea that climate change isn’t a problem. It is actually evidence of how corrupt the denialists’ campaign against the truth about dangerous climate change actually is!
I take the liberty of posting the link to my takedown of “Professor” Carter below. I hope you are not offended, but I am duty bound to disabuse you of your sad delusions and consider it a community service announcement.
Oh, what the hell, I’ll play.
Lovely, colourful, and pretty pictures. Pity, they could just about be used for anything, up to and including proving the world is flat ?
He is quick to jump on the beloved Carbon bandwagon, but, where is his proof ? There isn’t any, it’s all bloody rhetoric as usual. Show me the money !?
Wanna know why the temperature mean has increased in the last few decades ? I’m not scientist, as I have often declared. I am also not a climate change denialist as has been suggested. What I am disputing is the cause !
Wanna few tips folks ?
Could it be that the worlds population has tripled in the last century or so have something to do with it ?
Could it also have to do with the fact, that our planet has been deforested at a rate unheard of ? Have a look at the places where the mean temps have increased dramatically ? All now heavily industrialised and populated areas, where there was once large forestation ?
And I could go on with the flaws in the presentation.
All you tree huggers out there, and those others concerned about climate change have to do, is quite literally for every tree that is chopped down, go plant another. It really is that simple. Instead of taxing carbon, which again, is one of the most prolific elements on the bloody planet, try taxing those industries, such as plastics, mining, smelting, manufacturing in general, that spew out the millions of tonnes of crap per annum, that attaches to the carbon atoms. Won’t happen though, as the taxation from these commercial monoliths, pay to keep our governments financially solvent.
Actually Derek, it goes to show how corrupt the carbon freaks argument is. Not once, in the entire presentation, did he prove the cause of increased carbon, nor did he satisfy in my mind that taxing carbon was the way to go. His figures could be used for numerous causal arguments ?
It is time the carbon devotees took a step back, and realised that there are other causes, other cures, and alternate routes to take, in saving this planet. A carbon tax definitely, apart from the treasury purses, will not make a squat of difference.
Time people challenged these so called “experts” in this very premise ?
Well For me Sax it is Bob Carter’s conclusion that does the business, his penultimate point is the expensive futility of all of the carbon mitigation schemes and then he closes with the most salient point that , the only sensible thing is to be prepared to address any consequences of climate change or subsequent natural disasters as and when they happen.
The whole lecture is a delight to listen to because he goes through the way that the alarmists work and the very clear shortcomings of their reasoning and how he calmly shows us where they are wrong.
I must admit Iain, that at the time of the first comment, I had not listened to all of it. It is long winded. As soon as I heard the word Carbon, I just switched off. But, to give the guy a chance, I did go back, and listen to the whole thing from start. I understood then his reticence (sic), and premise. It is pretty much what I, as well as other carbon skeptics have been saying all along. It is also the argument I used when that tosser came forth some time ago, when he said that there would be no sunspots ever again ? I wonder where he is now ? Better save a spot in the same place, for Ms Gillard and her mates ?
I do stand by the fact though, that statistics is a wonderful science. Their excuse for their conclusions, (which we are supposed to take as gospel, and not to be challenged), is that they come from the figures. You can’t argue with raw data. Well, the presentation above proves that you can, and must do so ? You can make numbers say anything you like, depending on where you start and where you finish. I am also pleased to see that this guy has also woken up to the furphy Carbon argument. My question thusly becomes,
Why the hell haven’t the rest of us ?
We all panicked when lil Jonny pushed through his GST, supposedly for the good of all Australians, and finally after all the brow beating, the electorate collectively said yep, ok. This brow beating by Gillard is the same, but worse, in that this new policy if it gets up, will change this countries demographics in ways that we cannot possibly forsee. The ramifications are enormous, and as the guy suggests, for what gain ? Bloody naught !
Certainly we need to “green up”, but at what point do we stop, and say hang on ? For this country to continue to be able to feed and employ its growing population, it needs investment and growth. How can that happen, when this much needed growth is being stifled by a new tax. Don’t kid yourselves that it won’t grow either. That was nearly the downfall of the libs and the gst. They had to enshrine in law, that it was never to increase to above the 10% level. That was the only way the Australian electorate would suffer its introduction if you remember ?
I agree with you, in that, you cannot forecast or lessen natural disasters. There are trains of thought out there that the climate as such is not changing, but the wild swings, or severity of the climate is changing. Our storms are more severe, our floods and droughts et al are more severe. There is certainly evidence of that, but again, at what marking points in the data do you take that conclusion from ? IMO you cannot make judgements based on data millions of years old. The basis for such judgements becomes flawed at that point. Millions of years ago, there were no satelites, no cars, no industrial age etc etc, so it is as I said previously, like comparing apples with oranges. So we have judgements being based on three hundred years or so of industrialisation, yet we all know that studying climate over such short periods, as discussed in the presentation, is pointless cos it is only over long periods of time that such observations should be made.
Therein lies our quandry, and exactly what the pollies have locked on to.
Sorry Derek, but can’t let this go unchallenged ?
I read your post, and you haven’t come up with anything there other than rhetoric. That won’t change my mind one iota. Where is your evidence ? You call this guy nothing more than a lacky for the mining industry, and yet look at his creds ? You haven’t challenged them one bit, only slagged the guy cos he doesn’t follow yours, or any other ill informed dope about the death of us all due to carbon ? A lacky he may be, (although with his creds I highly doubt it), that he may be, but at least he put up a pretty sustainable argument about how we got to where we are now ?
Where is the corresponding evidence from the Carbon Club ?
There isn’t any !
As I said above, referring to statistics is a dangerous past time, as they can be made to say nearly anything, but no where in the carbon argument have actual figures been portrayed. It is all buried in future modelling, and we know just how accurate that is. Talk about using the force ?
Sigh … Why do I waste my time?
All the evidence for his complete and utter corruption is there if you just decide to look!
Sadly, we just see what we want to see …
Derek, as a follower of the Goddess perhaps you need to consider that the people following the Carbon (dioxide) tax band wagons are in fact false prophets who are dressing up an attempt to make a big pile of money in the Gaian vestments to fool the well intentioned latte sipping Green voters….
Anyone who heeds the wise words of Gaia can never be insincere. And anyway, the Goddess Herself would not let any “false prophets” exploit Her. The fact that they have not been killed by hurricanes or earthquakes proves that their motives are genuine.
Well Derek how on earth do you know that the Goddess is not letting the false prophets raise to prominence before she smites them with all her fury?
that way she cam make sure that future False Prophets will know to fear her vengeance.
I don’t know why you waste your time either. In your article, not once did you refer to any figures, any past history, or anything that could influence me, or discredit the gentleman concerned.
You talk about my evidence, where’s yours ? At least other than emotive denial ?
Rather than smiting these false prophets, Gaia is perhaps moving gently, first showing them the error of their hysterical ways. When they say it won’t rain again in Brisbane, Gaia in all her inherent goodness rains down a mighty flood. When the hysterical alarmists say the rivers won’t run, Gaia responds by making the Murray-Darling rivers run freely and abundantly. Such is the goodness of Gaia.
Sometimes though, Gaia even goes too far. When the hysterical money-grubbing alarmists said that Victoria would be forever in drought she even gave them plentiful rain for their crops, rose gardens and gunja plants. With all the die-hard lefties down there, perhaps a bit of smiting might have been better 🙂
Iain, I know She’s not letting the false prophets rise to prominence because she has told me Herself.
Sax, among many other things you are my evidence, particularly your emotive denial of the reality of human-caused climate change.
Gigdiary, it’s rather interesting that you have an obsession with “smiting”. As well as revealing your violent fantasies, it is also a biblical phrase. You may get your ideas from that book, Gigdiary, but we on the left prefer evidence and reason.
You’re changing the goal posts Sapphire ! 😉
Nice bait-n-switch !
I never said that we weren’t affecting our climate, but like all C freaks, upon getting their arguments shot down, resort to making it personal. So, if I am the evidence, you are now saying I am right, that C is not the harbinger of doom every one is latching on to ? Yip yah, bloody hoorah ! Perhaps another convertee to the lesser argument of common sense ? Again, perhaps now, carbon freaks will open their eyes, to the propaganda they have been spoon fed, and begin to challenge the real cause of climate change ?
It’s pretty simple really, stop production of all those nasty molecules, that are attaching themselves to the carbon atoms. Those are the ones doing all the damage. We have to change how we do things on this planet, and taxing bloody carbon is not the answer.
We all know what the solutions are, have done for years ? I don’t know why we all don’t just admit it, and finally, as a planet, get on with the clean up process ? Unfortunately though, there is too much money to be made out of the old ways, and that is why things will never change.
Bob Carter is an idiot at best….(and that is being very kind)…
Thanks for dropping by DC
However I disagree with your judgement of Bob Carter Welcome to the sandpit BTW
This Carter Guy is such a fool…
I just wasted my time watching his presentation and – omg – it is so stupid. At slide 4 he shows a global temperature graph (GISTEMP/UAH) from Will Steffen, professor at the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University, that shows the year 2010 to be the hottest on record. Now, Carter claims, that this is not true, as the graph is dated at November 2010, so Steffen could not have known the temperature of that year.
But now, the idiocy:
If you look at the graph in Carter’s own slides, it says clearly, that is shows the average global temperature over the 12-month period from ****September to August****. So, of course, in November 2010 you can tell the temperature for Sep 2009 to Aug 2010, as this is in the past. He could have seen this also by looking at the label of the last point. It does not say “2010” it says “2009/2010”, so it would suggest, that the 12-month period used in the graph is not the same as a year from January to December.
Every time i watch those pseudo sceptics presentations, i am stunned about how dumb those people can be.
> Have a look at the places where the mean temps have increased dramatically ?
> All now heavily industrialised and populated areas, where there was once large forestation ?
And here’s the proof you’re right: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpg
Oh, wait ….
You’ve been had, Iain; Carter’s a fraud. You really should follow DC’s link and read Tamino’s blog to see why.
Firstly welcome to my Sandpit,
Now I have been following this issue for many years and one thing that I am certain about is that when you get a whole mob of people like those at Tanimo’s blog arguing around in circles about graphs and statistical algorithms et al then they usually have absolutely no grasp at all about the politics of the issue. Your pals at Tanimo’s blog are wasting their time and obvious intellect by arguing about the minutiae of one data set or graph when the reality is that their prescription for the “problem” is just not going to ever happen. Frankly if (presumably ) you and they are right then it would be far more productive to put effort into how we are going to adapt to any changes that may be coming to the global climate than to endlessly theorise about ways to stop the climate changing.
And Guess what? That is what Carter is saying at the end of his presentation, He may be wrong or he may be right about the science but either way he is right about what to do for our future.
For Iain “the politics of the issue” are what matters, he will only ever parrot the right wing denialist line purveyed by those in the pay of the polluters….”he is right about what to do for our future”. Yeah sure Iain, because Carter is just such an “expert”.
Iain often pretends to be climate science wise; like he’s really studied up on it and grasps it. LOL.
This is obviously rubbish, because if he had grasped the science at all he’d understand what an idiot Carter is. The credibility of this entire blog is made a mockery of by Iain and his steadfast defense of Carter and his bosses the polluters and pollution. Iain has an ideological opposition to a price on carbon. Nothing more.
Mate you are such a bitter fellow aren’t you?
The science is endlessly debatable and even the experts disagree from year to year about what is known, what is unknown and what is known to be unknown, it is, as they say a moving feast.
As it happens I think what Bob Carter is right about is the course of action because he is making suggestions that remain sensible if the alarmists are right and if the alarmists are wrong. He advocates improving our abilities to deal with change as and when we need to. What is there to argue with in that? Especially as any sort of global level action just won’t ever happen.
I have absolutely no pretensions at all that I am any sort of science expert but I do have a damn fine bullshit detector that goes troppo every-time I hear one of the Profits of the Green faith advocating stupidities like Gillard’s Carbon tax.
My usual test for those who knock my understanding of science is to ask them to enunciate the scientific method in their own words. So can you do that Zane?
Gee the Sandpit is not just about Bob Carter In fact I’ve only mentioned him here a couple of times, If the truth be known I am very big on environmental issues personally and as I look out of my window all I see is the trees and nature around my modest house, many of which I planted and nurtured…
No I have a very practical opposition to it: It will be very expensive to our economy and it will do NOTHING for the climate or the environment.
Don’t you just luv it, when the “thong brigade” get their danders up Iain ?
Iain’s point has been that the carbon devotees have the same figures everyone else has. It is the way these figure sets are being distorted , in an attempt to sustain an erred premise, by selective analysis that is the problem. Hell, even if you have studied basic statistics, you would know that you can get a set of figures, to say just about anything, depending on when you start, and finish ?
Those with a bit of common sense, are taking data sets from all over the place. Some old, some new, and some ancient. At the moment, with the science (and newer higher tech data collection methods), being relatively new, they are all looking for fame and the equivalent of the SETI program’s Wow Message ! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal)
Carter maybe a tool, but collectively, in their search for money and hero status, as their driving force, they are all collectively deriding the science, and making an extremely important sciencentic research unbelievable, and actually laughable to some extent. That is doing their entire branch of science more harm than good.
Current technological abilities are only at best, twenty plus years old. Only now can we get complex data sets, from many sources for comparison examination. Accurate forward projections, or modelling, (as I have said many times here), can only be deduced from data dated back to industrialisation. No further, beyond that, is there no comparable data to compare to. The basic parameters, basis of the data is different, as there are too many outside corrupters of the data sets.
All you guys that are challenging what is going on, have never taken this into account, anywhere in your floored arguments. You have all jumped aboard the Carbon Train without looking forward and realising that without facts to back it up, it will soon run out of fuel, and track, and as such, will come to a screaming halt ?
Open your eyes and scrutinese the crap you are being spoon fed guys !
[…] certain blogger decided to inform us all that Bob Carter does the Business, referring to the this presentation to the Sydney Mining Club. Others have praised Carter’s […]
Geez, I think I created a new word ?
Its a Cutie Sax 😉
With respect, Iain, you are dodging the essence of the challenges to your post.
I guess you are saying the science doesn’t matter, only the comfortable conclusion, however dishonestly your “expert” arrived at it. I note that at no point have you attempted any empirical support for Carters statistical chicanery. You introduced Carter and believed his point that CO2 mitigation is pointless, which follows only if one excepts his fraudulent exposition of the state of recent warming. Instead of facing this, you want to veer off into politics and leave the hocus-pocus of your “expert” behind.
Your post and this thread comprise a neat précis of the state of AGW denialism: ideologically driven “skeptics” must resort to cranks like Carter, Monckton, Plimer, et al. because every major scientific professional body in the world is against them. As the temperatures keep rising, the ice keeps melting, the droughts and storms become more severe, the denialism becomes more shrill–to the point of death threats and political witch hunts against scientists. It is a shameful spectacle, and I am sad to see you playing a part in it.
With equal respect I say to you that I do think the science matter but only insofar as it may be right or wrong. However there seems to be close to zero chance that there will be any meaningful mitigation of Co2 emissions in the sort of time scale that the likes of Tanimo et al claim is necessary. Can you agree that I am right about that? Well in that likely event and the possibility that you are right about the science then what is the sensible thing for individual countries doing in response to climate challenges? The answer is of course adaptation to change as and if it happens. This is why so many people here object to the mooted Carbon Tax and other futile schemes to save the planet. It is also why I think that arguing about mathematical semantics as Tanimo does is a waste of time. I am a practical man who makes things as a vocation (check out my car blog) so I know that sometimes rather than arguing about the accuracy of a measuring device you just have to try a part out and if it fits then you don’t worry about the measuring stick at all.
Whether or not it _will_ be reduced in the appropriate time is entirely beside the point; the question is _should_ it be reduced. Your constant navel gazing on this makes movement impossible; ‘See, I support no action, and there has been none. This will continue’.
Carter’s point that it is easier to solve the problem after it happens, rather than mitigate the possible impact, is absolute barking madness. Prevention is almost always cheaper than the cure, and I’d be interested to hear of any examples you have that refute this statement.
We are all in agreement here, that something should be done Evan, but it is the politicians “cash grab” snide attempt at defusing the wound up electorate, that is the problem here.
Again, doing this for twenty odd years, Carbon is not the problem. As one of the best conductors, if not the best on the planet, it will attach itself to anything it can.
Again, everything on this planet, is a carbon based lifeform. None of you guys have ever challenged that fact, but in response, none of you have agreed with that simple fact, or have introduced a plan to combat the problem, of the conjoined molecules, with that carbon base ? Where is your plan of action ? Introduce a new tax, and that will solve the problem ?
C’mon guys, do know how apathetic that makes you all sound ?
Use a bit of common sense. I gave you credit for at least that ?
Goodness Sax, I don’t even know where to start. You know we’re talking about carbon dioxide, right? This is different to carbon? The carbon tax phrasing is just short hand? Also, you know other gases are taxed as well? Some of those don’t even contain carbon.
Certainly, it may be just a slip of the tongue Ev, but they are using the term, to encase everything in this new tax ?
There are many reasons out there, as well as those ascertained by the white coats, none of which will be affected in the slightest by a new tax on carbon/carbon dioxide, or whatever they want to call it next week.
A few of them ?
Deforestation of the planet – hell no argument there. Just plant more trees, and convince those mass raping the planet (like Indonesia, Canada, and even Australia) to change tack ?
Mining The massive digging up of coal, then burning it. No argument there either perhaps ?
Here’s one I bet you haven’t heard ?
El Niño ?
The source may be sus, but it sort of fits with the work that people like us have been doing over that period of time ?
Question then becomes ?
Why haven’t we heard about this before now ?
Do you honestly think, that a carbon tax will make a skeric of difference to the above scenarios ?
Well I think that YOU miss the real point which is that as NO significant emitter at a global level is going with your desired action plan so it will make no difference if a very small player like us does perform an act of piety. Ergo no matter how “right” reducing emissions is at a theoretical level at a real and practical level our reducing emissions at great economic cost is going to be a total waste of money.
You overestimate the significance of the country in global terms on this matter Evan
Prevention is only ever cheaper if your efforts to prevent actually work, our efforts on their own won’t make any difference (even assuming that your expectations of warming are correct) So I suggest that you forget the aphorisms and ask yourself about effectiveness instead,
Mr Hall… Floating in the space between his two ears and confusing this for reality. Calling himself a conservative when he might as well be suggesting that we all emigrate to the moon to “adapt” to climate change. There is NOTHING conservative about schizophrenia, Mr. Hall.
Human civilisation has evolved for ten thousand years within a relatively stable climate still similar to the one we’ve known in our lifetime, made possible by agriculture. But rather than start using already available and viable technologies so as to preserve these conditions, Mr. Hall suggests we should adapt to climatic conditions similar to those the dinosaurs knew. That we should throw away ten thousand years of human experience to “adapt” to VIOLENTLY different conditions which will shake the very foundation on which civilisation stands.
This is the new definition of conservatism? I must’ve misunderstood the word.
At this point, Mr Hall will argue any of the following:
– That “CO2 is plant food” – as shown by experiments with cucumbers in greenhouses – (which is irrelevant if the weather can’t support agriculture on a scale sufficient to feed humanity… but hey! if it works for cucumbers in greenhouses… ).
– That Al Gore is in it for the money.
– That there IS no global warming, which is what other posts in Mr. Hall’s blog state, although he’s been arguing all along that we should adapt to it.
How can one at the same time argue there is no global warming and that we should adapt to it? If the point is to look smart winning arguments, because this is the new definition of conservatism, I guess it’s fine.
As for your second point, Mr. Hall, that’s funny. I’ve seen it said in the media of maybe a dozen countries, even the United States. A bogus argument to justify the injustifiable. Indeed. I guess no country on its own is very significant. So lets do nothing.
A fire is burning the house down. Don’t get water, as no one is able to agree on forming a chain and no one person could haul sufficient amounts. Instead, the “realistic” thing to do is to learn to live with the fire.
Right. Your forehead is overheating as well.
Firstly let me offer you a warm welcome to the Sandpit JC
Now you have posted a wide ranging comment to which I will offer a point by point response.because I suspect that rather than do the simple reading of this blog to find out what I actaully think about the issue you have just jumped to conclusions based on what you imaging my position to be.
You open with a rather confused sentence that does not set a good tone for the rest of your argument. You see unlike yourself I don’t harbour the delusion that it is politically possible to mitigate “climate change” by a global reduction of CO2 emissions, not because I think that it is the wrong thing to do scientifically but becuse I have studied history and politics which very strongly suggest that sufficient coordinated action just won’t ever happen. Now I’m a practical man so I think taht when one course of action is impossible to achieve then you have to seek another.
Oh take your hand off it , or you will go blind! The paleo-climate data suggests a great deal of natural variation in the climate over those 10,000 years and as I said above if you CAN’T stop the inevitable then you had better think about how to cope with the consequences of change rather than pissing into the wind with futile attempts to stop the unstoppable. If there is one thing taht history teaches us it is civilisations survive by adapting rather than trying desperately to keep the paradigms exactly as they desire them to be.
You have mistaken many things my friend , one of which is the nature of conservationism
Ah here comes the march of your straw men arguments:
You really have bought the whole “we are rooned ” version of the Warminista faith haven’t you?
As It happens I do think that Gore is in this for the money, but I also think that he is a self serving idiot. Not that I would have even mentioned him in this argument had you not cited him, Here in OZ he is essentially a laughingstock and irrelevant.
I can check just how many of my posts on thsi topic that you have read form the blogs stats but I suspect that its not that many (if any), Here is a hint, if you are going to argue with someone about a topic how about you do the work and find out what they actaully think about it rather than make silly assumptions that are essentially wrong.
My position is that I don’t dispute that there has been some warming but what I think has not been established is the nature and extent of a causal link between human activity and that perceived warming
Well I’m not actaully doing what you postulate in your straw man argument, but I’ll ask you this do you try to cross bridges before you come to them?
You are deeply in the thrall of the faith and if you are as I suspect from the USA that is understandable given the religiosity of your society in general because if you were a bit more practical then you would appreciate that no matter how just your cause is if the action postulated is entirely futile then that action is not justified or even worthwhile.
I was for some time a member of our local rural fire brigade mate and the first thing they teach you is that when you can’t put out a fire you don’t wast precious resources trying to fight it. You do your best to survive and to save what you can. You see if there is no way that you can get more than one bucket of water and it will cost you a huge amount to pour that small offering on the flames why on earth would you bother?
No I’m exceedingly calm about this issue .
Business done on Carter and his business.
Really Zane is that the best that you can do?
look further up this thread and you will notice a few fresh names and you will see the ping back notice from your citation.
Now as your general approach on this issue is to rely upon Argumentum ad Verecundiam why are you so keen on an argument form an anonymous blogger who makes circular arguments about the interpretation of graphs and statistics?
Yes, how dare you reply to a post linking to another person, with a link to a post written by another person.
Write something more substantial!
“circular arguments about the interpretation of graphs and statistics?” LOL. Iain you really are a complete and utter joke.
So Zane why are you citing an anonymous Blogger (tanimo) as an authority? I would think that for an Argumentum ad Verecundiam strategy your citation would have to have at least a PHD in climate science so why are you trusting what Tanimo says here?
Zane, this a genuine question and if you don’t want to answer it politely then please don’t answer it at all – just think about it.
You have trolled this site for some time now and the only real contribution you have made is to say things like that about the site’s owner. Then you go over to an anonymous sta*lking blog and repeat your dirt (or you were doing that – I don’t look at that site anymore). In my experience, people who behave so rudely like you do on the Internet are extremely insecure & self loathers. So my question is: What is your freakin’ self esteem problem mate?
“citing an anonymous blogger” I am not “citing” anything, I am pointing out someone (whoever) who easily takes Carter apart. So, anyone who refuses to admit that his/her support of Carter is at worst, ideological and at best stupid clearly has self esteem problems, problems to do with refusing to admit that they are ever..wrong.
” “The question of whether or to what extent human activities are causing global warming is not a matter of ideology, let alone of belief,” he said. “The issue is simply one of risk management. If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously and believed that we should take action to reduce global greenhouse emissions, then taking action and supporting and accepting the science can hardly be the mark of incipient Bolshevism.”
“”It is undoubtedly correct that there has been a very effective campaign against the science of climate change by those opposed to taking action to cut emissions, many because it does not suit their own financial interests, and this has played into the carbon tax debate,” he said.”
Malcolm Turnbull, not anonymous and not “cited”. See Iain, citing is something one does in academic writing. Pointing out what someone has said about something on a blog is not “citing” and as you continue to use such term we see what a massive chip you have on your shoulder, you actually think your writing should be comparable to academic thesis???? Or are you actually planning to sumit your entire blog to examiners towards a PhD or something??? “citing” LOL.
Mate, you need to do better than try to use semantics to win your argument, a citation is a reference and that is precisely what your posting a superfluous link to Taniomo’s blog is
Gee you must have been reading a different blog to the one that I read because Tanimo’s effort does no such thing. All he does is mount a long winded and strictly technical argument about the way that Carter interprets various graphs and data sets, all of which is highly debatable, but as you are , by your own admission, not qualified to access who is right what makes you so sure that Tanimo is correct here?
Even in terms of “risk management” you would be mad to pay a premium for insurance that is designed to NEVER pay out like Labor’s Carbon tax As I keep saying on these pages even if the CAGW claimants are right doing something futile is just expensive madness
Its not the scientific opinion that is being opposed its the lip-service and futile “cure”
I write better and more concise prose than you do Zane and that chip you think you see is totally invented by your foetid imagination.
Oh I’m quite proud of this blog mate, nearly 3K posts , nearly 40K comments to date and a growing readership , what’s not to like?
Zane you really should watch this:
“I write better and more concise prose than you do”. Chip? Shoulder?
Since your prose is so good Iain could you please point us to some professionally edited and published articles, so that we may order and pay for these books or magazines and read your excellent writing at our leisure, and of course contribute to your ongoing royalty payments as a professional author?
Or perhaps a newspaper or academic journal has also published you and we can source those full articles or at least their abstracts from archives on line?
And also, as a professional author of such good and concise prose, perhaps you could direct us to the number of times you’ve been properly cited, because as a professional standard writer you would of course, keep records of such citations? Through say, Google Scholar perhaps?
Still looking for external validation for everything I see 🙄
I don’t claim to be a professional Mate, just that I write clearer and more concise prose than you do, admittedly that is not a very high bar to clear but you can’t pretend that I claim any more than that. So your straw man goes up in flames! 😆
and it reminds me of this:
Actually on second thoughts you are more deserving of the Benny Hill version:
Or maybe the Teletubbies
You take all of this stuff far to seriously rather than having any sense of fun about it.
Which part of “than you do” don’t you get, Zane? Iain is hardly the world’s greatest blogger and he makes a lot of grammar & spelling errors. But, mate, you just write off-track gibberish. Fancy that, ZT pwned by Iain Hall – the bloke that ZT looks down his nose at. Well, actually, ZT looks down his nose at everyone. And it must be a strange perspective to look ‘down your nose’ when you’re lying flat on your back. All you’d see was your own Mr Johnson (or gut).
“I write better and more concise prose than you do”
Now Zane might be a troll Iain, but come on, don’t get too carried away.
And it must be a strange perspective to look ‘down your nose’ when you’re lying flat on your back. All you’d see was your own Mr Johnson (or gut).
You really should’ve got that fresh air Ray.
I did, LOL. We just got back from walking the puppies. That was SP speaking, not me. He comes out now & then!
Oh well, great night coming up – Saints on TV followed by Le Tour. Go Saints and go Cadel, eh?
The Saints have a better chance than Cadel, Ray. I think he’s a chance but no certainty.
No one is a “certainty” in Le Tour. Tonight will tell though – Cadel must hold those margins on the Schlecks up the mountains. Not let them get away again. Then he can win it tomorrow in the time trials.
Indeed it is possible, but it’s a tough gig and as you say it’s still open and times don’t mean too much at the moment. But it would be nice to see a local chap win it (and I do mean local, as he owns a home not far from here.)
“external validation”. LOL. But …ahh yes, now I understand, it is so much easier for someone such as yourself to stay inside your own little bubble of self assessment, where your delusions about actually being “a writer” can have free reign. Good luck with that.
I have absolutely no tickets on myself mate, not a one. I just enjoy a good argument about politics or any other topic suggested by my muse. You on the other had just seem to be desperate to win rather than to enjoy amiable debate, that alone puts your prose below mine because there is nothing that weakens an argument quicker than a lack of generosity to those you are debating with.
Yes, Zane, Iain has his own blog. That’s what blogs are mainly for – they’re little bubbles for ordinary folk (and wankers like, um, you) to delude themselves a little. Fantasise even.
So f*cking what? If you don’t like what he writes piss off and write your own blog. Oh, but wait … you do write one! And Christ …….. !!??!!!
Ray, can’t Iain fight his own battles these days?
I have only ever seen Zane comment to Iain here, so I’m not sure why it’s any of your business.
Or is your new role Iain’s blog attack dog? If so he should keen you muzzled.
Iain: argument form an anonymous blogger
Pseudonymous actually. Tamino’s identity is actually known – at least to those people paying attention.
His blog is very well respected and his postings are always insightful and informative (unlike the mess that populates denialist sites). He is also very well qualified to comment on this stuff, and the commenters on his blog are (largely) similarly well qualified and known.
Now who do you have on your side Iain?
1. Anthony Watts, ex-TV weatherman with a large financial interest in the “debate”, but not a qualified scientist
2. Lord Muck (sorry Munckton), fake non-member of the House of Lords, also unqualified (with a degree in Arts or Journalism or some such)
3. Ian Plimer who wrote a long book with several glaring errors on each page and who was known during his career as being more or less a gun-for-hire (not to suggest that he wasn’t a competent geologist, I’ve no expertise in that area so I can’t judge)
4. “Shawn Whelan” Canada’s most expert geologist and foremost automotive engineer in Detroit
5. Len, Sax and David Davidson who’ve all made (or turned over, not sure which) $100M flying planes and collecting dust (?) which apparently disproves AGW
6. A host of miscellaneous similar wanna-be’s who wouldn’t know scientific evidence if it bit them
Did I miss anyone?
Sorry Iain. The physical reality debate is over. You lost.
The political debate is over. You lost. The carbon price is here and it isn’t going away.
Get over it.
LOL (or TOI or whatever), you do not set the agenda here so kindly do not attempt to moderate my comments. Or I’ll moderate yours! Cheerio.
And then there’s “can’t get my facts straight, so I’ll make it up as I go, but who cares they won’t check” JM . One of the sole reasons why the green movement collectively can’t gather enough support, to fill a teaspoon ?
Sour grapes JM ? Attack the man, not the argument, which you continually have lost ?
There ladies and gentlement, is the exact reason, why the entire Green movement collectively, has absolutely no credibility, nor will they ever have any credibility !
It’s a real shame as well. There are many good people in the field, (not including me btw), doing some great work, only to see it thrown out the window, by loud mouthed numbnutts such as JM.
Wake up smell what you’re shovelling mate !
Gee who is surprised that You should pop up to take this silly line JM? certainly not this little black duck 🙄
Really? Name him then!
Precisely what qualifications are you claiming for him?
Me, myself, I mate 😆
Hmm the old “large financial interest in the debate” line eh? well lets not ignore the even bigger financial interest that is inherent in “climate research” where those in the AGW club have their collective noses in the taxpayer filled trough shall we?
And what precisely are your qualifications JM? Oh, that’s right its a super secret isn’t it?
Yeah just what is YOUR area of expertise?
It has been literally a couple of years since Shawn commented here and yet you still harp on about him… Serious man crush or what?
You have a nerve disputing the veracity of other commentators here when you use a pseudonym yourself 🙄
When you consider that I mostly talk about the politics of the issue here why should you expect a “scientific” debate? in any-case your refusal to nominate your own qualification suggests that you are no more qualified than any other commentator here anyway.
Only the person who can identify you, seeing you so often appeal to your own authority..
Really then why is there so much to and fro between differing opinions on thsi issue? Just asserting something does not make it so.
I see you share our learned friend’s taste for totalitarian solutions when you can’t win a debate. Now as the legislation has yet to be presented and we are witnessing deuling ads in our media how can any one in their right mind claim that the debate is over? Add to that the very real probability that this Tax may just be the end of Gillard , the Government and the Greens and it is ludicrous for you to be claiming that its “all over red rover!”
Nah You are the one who will have some getting over to do because even if Juliar manages to get this through the House, the chance of it enduring beyond the term of this government are so damn small I don’t think that any bookie will give you odds on it still being here by 2015.
“I have absolutely no tickets on myself”…then….”my muse”. LOL.
Well Zane as you are not that creative I don’t expect that you comprehend what an artist’s muse is or how having one is entirely unpretentious
Must be all that dangerous carbon in our atmosphere Iain ?
Didn’t know that carbon could cause all this oxygen narcosis ?