Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Are Heartland billboards the beginning of the end for climate denial?

The inversion of reality and morality has been a long-standing attribute of the climate “debate,” which reached a new watershed low a few days ago with the latest travesty from the Heartland Institute…

What’s next, Hitler was a vegetarian? Heartland Institute

The inversion of reality and morality has been a long-standing attribute of the climate “debate,” which reached a new watershed low a few days ago with the latest travesty from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago “think” tank.

Heartland posted on its website that “the people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

Murderers, tyrants, and madmen.

In support of this assertion, Heartland launched a billboard that featured Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber, accompanied by the slogan “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?” Future billboards were to show Charles Manson, a mass murderer, Fidel Castro, a tyrant, and “other global warming alarmists” including Osama bin Laden.

Murderers, tyrants, madmen, and terrorists.

All of them global warming “alarmists”.

Outside this inverted universe, in a land called reality, the laws of physics that underlie the fact that the globe is warming are accepted by the Vatican’s Academy of Science; the UK Royal Society, the world’s oldest scientific body; the National Academies of Science of all G8 countries; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; and virtually every other scientific organisation in the world. The consensus is supported by more than 90% of all experts and by all but a tiny handful of peer-reviewed scientific papers.

The chimerical construction of an ideologically-driven topsy-turvy reality by Heartland and its Australian equivalent, the IPA, is neither new nor surprising. And it is no more bizarre than the hallucination of Stanley Kubrick’s General Jack D. Ripper in “Dr Strangelove”, that fluoridation was a Soviet plot to poison American drinking water.

It is also no different from the inverted universe of the tobacco industry, which in an internal memo described medical research as “a vertically integrated, highly concentrated, oligopolistic cartel” that “manufactures alleged evidence.” No wonder Heartland and IPA are also long-standing champions of the tobacco industry.

The novelty of Heartland’s billboard campaign is that it signals the public convergence between ideologically motivated denial of science and the more robustly sociopathic fringe groups that believe, among other psychological nuggets, that Prince Phillip runs the world’s drug trade and is culling us for mass slaughter (or something like that).

Those fringe types recently waved a noose at a visiting climate scientist in Melbourne, perhaps pre-emptively volunteering as Heartland’s henchmen to execute all those murderers and tyrants who accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that the climate is changing due to human influence.

Western history’s only precedent for such confluence between vested interests, extremist ideology, and outright abdication of reality is the Weimar Republic of the 1920s and 1930s.

It now appears that the Heartland billboard may have been a watershed event.

Public outcry has forced Heartland to withdraw the Unabomber billboard. However, the tobacco tank refused to apologise, and its website is still referring to those who accept the geophysical reality of the planet as “murderers, tyrants, and madmen".

Microsoft described the billboard as “inflammatory and distasteful” and reaffirmed its commitment to climate action. Diageo, one of the world’s largest drink makers, has terminated funding for Heartland, stating that it “vigorously opposes climate skepticism.”

What will be next?

For now, Heartland still has some sponsors. It remains to be seen when they, too, will withdraw from this list of infamy. What is clear is that Heartland is imploding and that its tax-exempt status as a “charity” may be in jeopardy — labeling the world’s scientists “murders, tyrants, and madmen” is unlikely to qualify as charity work.

What will become of climate denial?

Much is known about what passes for cognition among those who deny overwhelming scientific evidence by resorting to conspiracy theories and scurrilous accusations against actual scientists.

The overwhelming tenor of this psychological knowledge is that, by definition, such denial will remain impervious to evidence as it is based on ideology and frantic defence of worldviews rather than the rational scepticism of actual science.

As the evidence for climate change continues to pile up, and as the frequency of severe weather events continues to sky-rocket, we can therefore be fairly certain that climate denial will take ever more scurrilous forms.

That much is certain, but given that even the conservative American commentator Andrew Sullivan has described the current American Right as “close to insane as well as depraved” over the Heartland billboard, exact predictions of this forthcoming maelstrom must elude rational grasp at the moment.

Join the conversation

184 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Christopher Wright

    Professor of Organisational Studies at University of Sydney

    Stephan,

    Nice commentary on the crazed world of climate change denial. The true horror is that this insanity seems to have captured mainstream public attitudes (courtesy of our media and vested interests). It is about time our political leaders accepted the overwhelming scientific evidence and acted in the interests of its citizens to maintain a habitable biosphere. As it is, humanity seems almost psychologically incapable of responding in any meaningful way. A truly wicked problem.

    report
  2. Ian Enting

    Honorary Senior Associate, Faculty of Science at University of Melbourne

    Stealing from a blog comment earlier today, the message looks like:

    If you believe in global warming you're even crazier than Ted Kaczynski.

    report
  3. Harrison Pitts

    Archaeology Student

    I guess this is a prime example of the inability of 'skeptics' to separate ideology and belief from scientific evidence. So what, if the Unabomber said he believes in evolution, breathing air and eating food, anyone who also believes those things will go out and blow people up?

    Looks like there aren't that many straws left to clutch at... there's only so many times one can say they are skeptical of the science yet never actually explain, in scientific terms, why they are skeptical of the consensus we now have. They just believe it doesn't exist, and belief has no place in a rational society.

    report
  4. Tim Scanlon

    Author and Scientist

    Heartland and the IPA were really hard to take seriously before. They are quickly becoming the modern day Flat Earth Society with their flagrant disregard for science and demonisation of reality.

    report
  5. Steven William Zwick

    logged in via Facebook

    @Stephan;

    Let's hope you're right -- I really think the science community needs to continue coming out on this, even though you guys don't like to get embroiled in idiotic arguments.

    By the way, you and I seem to agree on quite a lot of issues. Here is my take on the billboard fiasco:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/05/06/heartlands-unabomber-fiasco-is-par-for-the-course/

    And here is my take on Gleick:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/21/heroes-and-zeroes-in-the-heartland-gleick-says-he-leaked-docs/

    report
    1. Stephan Lewandowsky

      Chair of Cognitive Psychology at University of Bristol

      In reply to Steven William Zwick

      I tweeted your Forbes piece yesterday. Well put. It remains to be seen how this plays out but it may be a Sista Souljah moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment).

      Either way, this event will be diagnostic of the extremism and sociopathy of so-called "skeptics". In this context you may find this interesting: http://WWW.theage.com.au/environment/climate-sceptic-ad-backfires-20120507-1y8ef.html

      report
    2. John Berry

      Director

      In reply to Steven William Zwick

      I'm sorry, but you lose all credibility with the idea that Gleick "leaked" documents. A leak occurs when an insider exposes to the public eye documents that s/he was legally entitled to hold and decides that it is in the public interest that they be released.

      Peter Gleick committed wire fraud and identity theft at the very least. He did not leak anything, he stole them. He wilfully set up email accounts under the name of a real person to illegally obtain documents.

      He is a thief and to defend the actions of a thief is unbecoming of Ausralias so called intellectual elite. If you will excuse theft and identity theft, then please let the country know where you will draw the line.

      What illegal activities won't you support?

      report
    3. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to John Berry

      So Peter Gleick engaged in a little potentially planet-saving deception?

      How about the Heartland's wholesale (literally, as in sell-out) life-destroying deception?

      report
  6. Colin MacGillivray

    Architect, retired, Sarawak

    More lunacy from the USA.
    And possibly a Mormon president.
    Could some Conversation person write a piece on Joseph Smith and the plates of Nephi and other aspects of US madness?

    report
  7. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

    It was an awful billboard, but at least they didn't blow up any kids. Kids like Phillip and Tracy....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9-kblZwfv0

    No pressure! Was this video the end of alarmism, or will the continued mismatch between models and observations be the final nail? Perhaps it will the public's reaction to Steven Lewandowsky's constant whining.

    Steve McIntyre's latest post would have made a better headline.

    Yamal FOI Sheds New Light on Flawed Data
    http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/

    report
    1. Craig Somerton

      IT Professional

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc,

      I hate to break it to you but that video wasn't real, as much as you might like to believe it so because it was on the internet. Those children weren't actually blown-up by their teacher, nor was anyone else actually harmed. From within your insular little bubble of discontent, you may not be aware of "fiction" or the use of "special effects".

      If you really want to find-out the truth, you should stop reading opinion pieces and instead research facts gleaned from experts. These are people whose passion leads them to study a subject in great depth for a long period of time, consult widely with other experts, formulate theories and then try their darnedest to disprove their theories, and ultimately and publish their findings as peer-reviewed papers. Real experts don't just post their ideological opinions on a website because some company paid them to do so.

      report
    2. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Craig Somerton

      Craig, you are wasting you time on this guy.

      report
    3. Tim Scanlon

      Author and Scientist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Want to echo Craig's comments. Marc, the video was FICTIONAL. It was meant to be funny and highlight the point that we don't have time for people who aren't being part of the solution. It wasn't using spurious accusations and associations like the billboard campaign.

      report
    4. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Yes, hilarity with no end! Snuff films, tattooing, re-education camps... all have been humorously proposed as a solution to skeptics. Maybe this humor is something that only the ilk of Pol Pot or Joe Stalin can appreciate. As far as association, alarmists have never associated skeptics with murderous actions or people.... just ask Jim "death trains" Hansen. Billboards being way different than news items or blogs. I recall some people making a big deal about that murderous Norwegian being a skeptic..... but that's probably different in your view.

      So Heartland hurt some people's feelings. I'm really trying to sympathize, but, perhaps you see the difficulty getting there.

      report
    5. Tim Scanlon

      Author and Scientist

      In reply to James Sexton

      You're not a skeptic. You sir, are a denier.

      Skeptics are open minded and seeking the truth about something based upon solid evidence.

      Deniers are closed minded and will ignore good solid evidence.

      Denial is ignoring the vast amount of evidence that man made climate change is happening. Cry conspiracy a few more times and tread that Godwin Law path and tell me what peer reviewed science I have ignored, no cherry picking now ;)

      report
    6. Ian Enting

      Honorary Senior Associate, Faculty of Science at University of Melbourne

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      Pity about Marc Hendrickx. Back when he was a student he occasionally came up with something interesting - like red-noise statistics and climate records (OK, well interesting at least to maths nerds).
      These days he just re-cycles stuff from the usual suspects. Pressures of having a new job I guess.

      report
    7. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Ian Enting

      I wonder what the Hoofnagle brothers would say about that one Professor.

      Harry Hoo would say "amazing"

      report
    8. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Lol, oh, sorry, I thought we were discussing alarmist humor. Are ad homs and hand waving things often employed in your ag dept?

      But, I'll play..... "ignoring the vast amount of evidence...." Such as?

      Cry conspiracy? I don't believe I have. Could you point out where I stated such?

      Let me get this straight.... you accuse me, (without basis) of ignoring the vast amount of evidence...... and then you're asking me to tell you what "peer reviewed science" you've ignored........ Tim, how could I possibly know what you've ignored or haven't ignored? Do you understand how ridiculous that baiting appears?

      report
    9. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      "Cry conspiracy? I don't believe I have. Could you point out where I stated such?"

      Yup

      "So, if we asked the political persuasion of governmental scientists? How do we introduce that rating without subjective application? I rather think most governmental climate scientists swing to the left pretty hard. At least most of the vocal ones seem to. Clearly the IPCC is swayed in that direction. They enlisted a socialist economist who plainly stated they were talking about wealth redistribution. So, I'd like to see a rating of the other groups. I think it would be more telling about the person creating the matrix rather than the groups being evaluated."

      report
    10. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      By pointing out statistical accuracies I'm crying conspiracy? Get a grip. Are you refuting that the IPCC enlisted Ottmar Edenhofer to Co-chair of Working Group III ?

      He is a socialist economist, he did state that “climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth”. And he did this in reference to his position with the IPCC.

      So, in your world pointing out accuracies equates to crying conspiracy? It doesn't take a conspiracy to have like minded ideologues come to the same or similar conclusions.

      report
    11. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to James Sexton

      Oh my gawd .... It's like Obama care for the whole world!!!! Death panels everywhere ...

      So Jim, the science is wrong ... all of it. The solution is so wrong - redistributing our wealth (from their own socialist lips) - all of it wrong. The polar bears are holidaying in Jamaica, the trees don't record anything useful, the ice cores and the coral ... wrong, all wrong.

      So why is this happening Jim? Why is it left to you - a network administrator - to struggle on against these titanic forces of wrongness - and all for free.... unlike everyone else?

      report
    12. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Lol, given to hyperbole and overstatement much, Petey? Did I say all of the science is wrong? Did I even mention ice cores? Is handwaving and ad homs some sort of play book you guys operate under?

      I wish I could take sole credit, but, alas, I can not. There are millions more. I'm just one of the few who can tolerate these little inane asides with alarmists such as yourself.

      report
    13. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to James Sexton

      The Hyperbowl ? That's in Flawrida innit?

      Am I to infer that there is some of the alarming science you actually agree with Jim? You actually reckon the ice cores are kosher?

      Do tell us what bits you reckon they might have right? Can't hardly wait?

      Or anything else re Obamacare, the muslim president pretender, the UN, creeping socialist gun control, taxes, the Brady Bunch .... what bits about the Land of the Free aren't jes' going to hell in handbasket, you reckon Jim?

      report
    14. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      You didn't provide any statistics - and more importantly did not demonstrate that even if a) most scientists are leftist then b) those scientist have no professional ethics and therefore c) all of their work is suspect. You assumed a) and leapt to c).

      report
    15. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Is there not some sort of age requirement for this site? What are you, twelve? No, wait, I think I've got it...... you don't like conservatives and your biases and bigotry can't help but ooze out like puss from a weeping sore. Much like the ideology you embrace.

      report
    16. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      No, sis, you assumed and leapt. I'm pretty sure I didn't type "all".... but, I do appreciate the strawman form. It's very nice. There does seem to be a bit of evidence that some are lacking in the ethics department.

      report
    17. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to James Sexton

      "Did I say all of the science is wrong? Did I even mention ice cores?"

      Thet's what you said Jethro? I'm jes' awondering what bits of the science isn't wrong by your thinking. Thet's all.

      But I'd be areckoning thet it's all wrong - every darn bit of it - all a gawdless cawmewnist conspiracy.... thet's about it innit? Cos rilly it's all abaht wealth distreebushun innit ... this muslim foreign president and his secret plan to give all your money to his family back in Africa.... that'd be it yessiree.

      Redneck. My first tea-bagger.

      report
    18. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to James Sexton

      Glad to see you're still with us Jim lad.

      Now which bits of the alarmist science do you reckon are OK .... Ice cores presumably - what else do these "self-proclaimed experts have right?

      Let's see how objective you are when it comes to the science ... or is every single measurement, every inference, every bit of evidence totally bogus dude?

      report
  8. Mark Harrigan

    PhD Physicist

    For an interesting (and for me well argued and insightful) take on the ethics of public discourse in relation to the denial of established scientific consensus on matters of public policy look at what Lawrence Torcello (ethicist) has to say.

    He points out that actual skepticism is about positive inquiry and critical thinking, as well as proportioning one’s beliefs to the available evidence (not to mention being willing to alter those beliefs if and when the evidence changes significantly). Pseudoskepticism…

    Read more
    1. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Stephan Lewandowsky

      Thanks Stephan - looks very interesting. Would love to hear him speak. Alas, being Melbourne based, Perth is just a teeny bit far to go. Hopefully he has a large, wide audience though and prompts some exploration/discussion of this important issue

      report
  9. Tim Allman

    Medical Software Developer

    This billboard is so over the top that it's laughable. Well, maybe not quite.

    Those on the side of science have a really really hard time understanding what's going on in the heads of those who created this message and how anyone could be swayed by it. For us, the evidence for global warming is so compelling that we believe it. Even if that were not the case, we would still reject the billboard's message out of hand because our culture is so different.

    It's clear that there is an audience for…

    Read more
    1. Stephan Lewandowsky

      Chair of Cognitive Psychology at University of Bristol

      In reply to Tim Allman

      Tim, we have a former politician in Australia who referred to climate change as a "plot to deindustrialize the Western world: on national TV (Nick Minchin). Or something like that.

      The reasons for their attitudes are (in part) spelled out here: https://theconversation.edu.au/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050

      Do they actually believe what they say? At some level, perhaps, but judging by their frothing anger when they are challenged, I think they also have a deeper understanding of what is really going on.

      The key thing to realize is that conspiracist ideation is a nearly inevitable ingredient of denial: How else do you explain away the preponderance of evidence?

      report
    2. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Stephan Lewandowsky

      And not a word on alarmists blowing up kids in that 10:10 video. You're hypocrisy Stephen is plain for all to see.

      Stephen, The questions you ask and the points you make apply equally to extremists like you.

      Note to The Con: When are we going to hear from the lukewarmers?

      report
    3. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Or tattooing skeptics or putting them in re-education camps......
      Conversely, and even more oddly, nothing about fake death threats, or real murder because of climate change advocacy.....http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/africa/in-scramble-for-land-oxfam-says-ugandans-were-pushed-out.html?_r=4&scp=3&sq=uganda&st=cse

      I guess most here will pretend all of this never happened.... but, this is what they're good at. .

      report
    4. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to William Ferguson

      Thanks for your contribution Bill!
      I'm not sure that Stephen has been out playing with the Faeries as you say. But having read his ramblings here and elsewhere it's probably time that dear Stephen checked what he's been inhaling.

      report
    5. James Jenkin

      EFL Teacher Trainer

      In reply to Tim Allman

      Hi Tim

      Stefan's rhetorical question 'the beginning of the end for climate denial?' might be wishful thinking. A recent CSIRO survey suggested 40% of Australians don't believe AGW is true (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/poor-information-and-sense-of-irritation-hamper-climate-change-science/story-e6frg6nf-1226032922912).

      I don't think you'll win half the population over simply by telling them that they're captured by vested interests, or that they're crazy. Advocates for climate action should try to understand where doubters might have legitimate points - such as overreaching by proponents like Professor Flannery.

      Being equally critical of dogmatic, unscientific statements by environmental campaigners, as well as climate change deniers, would do a great service to climate science, and show what the scientific attitude is all about. (And it just might be a tactically smart move as well.)

      report
    6. Tim Allman

      Medical Software Developer

      In reply to James Jenkin

      Yes. I have worked for years trying to make changes locally such as banning the cosmetic use of pesticides. One of my greatest disappointments is proponents of my side using the dishonest techniques of the pesticide industry. My feeling is that if ever we are to be seen as the "good guys", we have to be clean beyond reproach.

      report
    7. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc, why is it when a specific topic is under discussion - ie the Heartland billboards, you want to require that every single misdeed be balanced by an example of egregious behaviour by some other group?

      If every discussion did that they would be odiously long. It is entirely possible for rational people to discuss an issue relating to a single entity without having to consider any other entity that did a bad bad thing (tm).

      In this case of course you are discussing an appallingly innappropriate video campaign by an environmental awareness group - the way you phrase it makes it sound like an actual act of terrorism.

      I note that David Cameron and Nick Clegg both supported the 10:10 campaign in the British Parliament (although not the specific video clip you mentioned).

      report
    8. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      James - was that rogue climate scientists forcing people from their homes? Or was it corrupt police and army officials doing it to clear land for a company backed by major international banks?

      report
    9. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      We're going to imagine their advocacy bears no responsibility in this? This is the logical outcome of their advocacy. Many assume mankind is an aberration to nature as opposed to being part of it. If one values nature over humanity, this is the result.

      Impoverishment, land deprivation, energy deprivation, lately we've turned to water deprivation. Regardless of how well meaning some may or may not be, these are the results.

      Ironic, isn't it? That if instead of investing in all of this advocacy, we would have invested in showing the people of the 3rd world nations how to generate proper electricity, and get at the water beneath them and farm properly we could have made great strides in improving the condition of humanity, instead, we've done this.....

      report
    10. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      Under your logic the geologists that identified the best drill site for the Deepwater Horizon oil rig are therefore equally culpable in all that followed the spill.

      Of course that is not the case - the geologists did their science and provided their advice - what followed was not their fault. If you choose to blame the consequences of the actions of a corporate entity on scientists who did original not-directly-related-research you had better be prepared to go after a vast number of scientists in all fields.

      "we would have invested in showing the people of the 3rd world nations how to generate proper electricity, and get at the water beneath them and farm properly"

      You somehow think the above is not being done? I have supported several projects in power generation in the developing world.

      report
    11. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Fantastic, so you've assisted them with coal or gas electric generation? Well done!

      But, my point was about resource allocation.

      As far as the comparisons of the work the geologists did to the alarmist advocacy, I think its a fallacy. The geologists were hired to find the best place within the confines of our laws. (Its well known that nearer the shore, the less damage potential) They weren't advocating drilling per se, But, spills and accidents are an eventuality and is part of the risk assessment. Was murder, property theft and energy deprivation part of the cost/benefit analysis done for alarmist advocacy? And were all participants aware and consented to such?

      report
    12. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Comparing 10:10's "No Pressure" with Heartland's billboards is comparing the peripheral to the central.

      10:10's "No Pressure" was the work of a small group of vocal activists (mainly from the entertainment industry) and “No Pressure” was condemned by many, including activists and scientists. I personally find it stupid and counterproductive to reasoned debate.

      Heartland is central to the climate change denial movement. It runs conferences and produces pseudo-science reports. It funds the Australian Climate Science Coalition, Bob Carter, Anthony Watts and others. 10:10 is peripheral to climate science but Heartland is central to climate change denial.

      report
    13. James Jenkin

      EFL Teacher Trainer

      In reply to Tim Allman

      Thanks Tim - I agree - that's a very interesting example.

      I'm curious why my comment had lots of negative ratings. Is it that controversial?

      report
    14. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Possibly dear chap because it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

      report
    15. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      No James, not coal since it was not available locally, gas yes, but produced from composting manure which was plentiful and cheap.

      You are either thick or just enjoy deliberately missing the point for the purpose of obfuscation - again, do you sincerely believe that a scientist in climate research who publishes observations is then responsible for the crimes you want to lay at their feet when in between is a chain of national and international policy decisions which spur investment decisions, then business case and project development plans followed by land purchases enabled by corrupt government officials.

      Blame the obstetrician who was at his birth for your grandfather's death, it's about the same causal relationship I.e. none.

      report
    16. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Yeh, these people are convincing me that they can see 50-100 years in the future but couldn't forsee these occurrences even after people such as myself were screaming that these things would occur. That these policies and advocacy would do much more harm to the third world than the developed. But, no, it's not their fault, their just reporting their ideology.... uhmm facts as they see them. You do realize there are many Malthusians amongst the alarmist factions.

      report
    17. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      It is clear that you see any scientist reporting facts that conflict with your worldview as operating with an ideological rather than scientific imperitive. On that basis I can only conclude that you will never be convinced by any scientific evidence. That really does dump you firmly in under the 'denier' label.

      report
    18. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Lol, and yet, you've offered no facts to conflict with. None. So, it's quite amazing you could jump to such a conclusion. Do you do that often?

      report
    19. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      Facts to conflict with what? In the particular thread of comments above you've provided nothing at all of substance - just tossed cow-pies vaguely in the direction of all climate scientists on the basis of the actions of a privately owned company.

      report
  10. James Sexton

    Network administrator

    Lol, you guys are a riot. ..... consensus .. over 90%.... tobacco.... the author hit upon nearly every vacant meme the alarmists have come up with. The projection of an ideology is fascinating as well.

    Even the headline is empty of thought..... "climate denial"? So, people are denying climate now? Overwhelming evidence of what? That the climate changes? That's hilarious!

    report
    1. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to James Sexton

      I know it's a facetious post, but hey, I've just eaten my breakfast and cracked my knuckles so it's all good.

      Firstly, the similarities between Tobacco 'skepticism' and now Climate Change 'Skepticism' are not hard to draw, especially when it's mostly the same think tanks, the same tactics, the same American senators pushing bills, and the same general cry of 'Well it's not happening... or it is, but it's not humans... or it is, but humans don't contribute noticeably...'.

      A headline is necessarily…

      Read more
    2. Ian Enting

      Honorary Senior Associate, Faculty of Science at University of Melbourne

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      A good (open access) article on characteristics of denialism
      is by Diethelm and McKee at

      http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full

      Things like tobacco-harm-denial and HIV denial are their
      main concern. The characteristics that they list are
      * indentification of conspairacies
      * use of fake experts
      * selectivity (aka cherry picking)
      * creating impossible expectations
      * misrepresentation and logical fallacies

      report
    3. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Well done, Harrison. Spoken like a true believer with the classic flip of the null hypothesis. I would provide said evidence if you were a bit more specific as to what the imaginary majority of scientists interpreted the data to mean.

      Whether you'd read it or not doesn't really matter because the mountains of science and evidence which runs contrary to the dogma is entirely ignored and the previously unsupported statements are simply repeated as if repeating makes it more true. It continues…

      Read more
    4. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to James Sexton

      It's always been about the rapid shift in climate. Just because the media has failed to actually grasp what it was that was actually being discussed has nothing to do with the actual science.

      I don't 'believe' as I am quite happy to change my stance... if evidence appears that requires me to. For the quick pace of climate change in recent history, see http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm. My work on historical climate shifts pre-holocene have also…

      Read more
    5. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Lol, well you'd have to offer the science you wish me to "address head on". The IPCC page you sent me to is silly, but I'll address the cute graphics.

      I don't doubt that the earth has generally warmed coming out of the LIA. It's expected, and beneficial to humanity. The fact that the record needs constant altering and revisions should cause any rational person to pause. How did the scientists come to the proper conclusions when the data they were using at the time was so faulty that it now…

      Read more
    6. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to James Sexton

      I'm unsure exactly why you think the page is 'silly', considering it's merely a collection of data and not just some random fellows blog, but I'm glad you'll at least address the information. Of course, we are not in possession of all the data, nor will we ever. Nor do we rely upon the evidence of just dendro for, as you stated, variabilities exist in the cause of changes. This is why we persue multiple lines of inquiry like stalactite analysis, non-pollen palynomorphs, seeds and other refuse in…

      Read more
    7. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to James Sexton

      As for polar bears, sea ice is gradually disappearing, so the effect is not immediate but gradual. Currently though there is a reduction in most species of Polar Bears, with one case of an increase in population and some data sets incomplete. This has been able to be linked to sea ice disappearance which in turn has been linked to climate change.

      http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-releases/15-Copenhagen.html

      http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1337/pdf/ofr20061337.pdf

      report
    8. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to James Sexton

      No links to peer reviewed science tells you all you need to know about this fake skeptic.

      "These facts alone call into question the validity of the entire "climate" community

      No they do not. They are simply untested assertions on your blog driven by your political views.

      Have you done any research?
      Have you published any science in peer-reviewed journals?

      report
    9. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      No James is a network administrator ... he has a desk and an office and maybe even a window ... so he knows all about stuff 'n everything... more than these climate scientists and the like anyway... besides he's found a nice comfy place to sit and sneer at 'em and that's enough innit... everyone James knows thinks the same ... all the guys on World of Warcraft and Call of Duty and stuff... all these friends he's never met ...so don't you go telling him nuffin ... cos he knows already. OK?

      But why wasn't his genius recognised? Where's his Nobel Prize? Why inney running Microsoft or Apple or sumfink? Why wouldn't no one dance wif 'im at the prom?

      Get a life Jim, before it's too late. You're just wasting your time and ours.

      report
    10. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Uhm, Mike, you want me to link articles to the fact that conifers have a very specific temperature range in which they can grow? Go look it up. Everything I stated is readily available on the internet. The growing season is irrefutable. As are the temperature ranges. With my comments, I do make the assumption readers haven't acquiesced their ability to think. Sorry.

      I wasn't stating untested assertions, this is common knowledge, tested and known for decades before that idiot hockey stick…

      Read more
    11. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Sorry Harrison, your information is a bit dated and the Southern Beaufort Sea isn't the only place the bear live. But, even your pbsg paper states that the bears population is still 20,000 and 25,000. I'm sorry to throw links to my blog at you but, they have multiple links and this is just easier. Go here http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/polar-bear-population-reducing/ and http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/canadian-calls-bs-on-polar-bear-doom-and-gloom/

      As to the sea ice, I'd say gradual.....-0.001 million sqkm anomaly for both poles combined as of April 16. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/why-reporters-dont-add-their-name-and-how-to-lose-all-credibility-in-less-than-two-paragraphs/

      report
    12. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to James Sexton

      As engaging as your rhetorical questions substituting for scientific skepticism are, I find it hard to push through your blog posts without a little question popping into my mind. Just what is it that scientists have to gain from fudging research?

      What I mean is that scientists who publish work which is quickly picked apart by other scientists get chewed up and spat out of the publishing rink. Many of the people I know work on papers for months making sure that their evidence is solid and all…

      Read more
    13. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Please..... upsidedown series used? Was Tiljander the only one? The other methods aside, can we agree the dendro is bunk? I haven't addressed or looked closely at the other methodologies, so I can't really comment on them one way or the other. But, I will.

      You state we'll see more extremes. I think if that were to occur it should have been very obvious by now. And, yet it isn't. Droughts more extreme? In the U.S. we've a long way to go before we match the mega-droughts which occurred…

      Read more
    14. Byron Smith
      Byron Smith is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Ministry assistant, ecologcal ethicist and PhD candidate at University of Edinburgh

      In reply to Ian Enting

      I use this meme as a basic litmus test for gullibility/bad faith. It is so easily and irrefutably disprovable that anyone advocating it is either naïve or acting in bad faith. Anyone continuing to do so after having the easily checked error pointed out is either deliberately deceptive or incapable of reassessing their position in the light of new evidence.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMunulJU7w

      report
    15. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to James Sexton

      "THE TREES CAN NOT RECORD EXTREME TEMPS"

      They don't need to. You're making a strawman argument. Phenomena like global warming are usually not about extremes (not yet anyway). Of course the extremes get stronger but the vast majority of the time the weather is not extreme, it is just a bit warmer than it used to be.

      "These facts alone call into question the validity of the entire "climate" community. Not so much that one scientist went rogue and invented this idiocy, but that it was so eagerly…

      Read more
    16. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris, as I stated above, I haven't looked into the non-dendro enough to comment on it. I only hope use of series such as Tilhander was isolated. As to the dendro itself, you can state that it agrees with whatever until the cows come home, it is psuedo-science.

      The tree rings don't record extreme (and even non-extreme) temps. They only grow in a range of about 46 -80 degrees F The trees selected have a growing season of 6-8 weeks out of the year. It is fallacious to believe one can invent a hemispheric mean based on such as short time period with no lower or top limits in the signal. Please don't take my word for it. look it up.

      report
    17. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      ".....quickly picked apart by other scientists get chewed up and spat out of the publishing rink." You mean like the dead floating polar bear study? Or Mann's dendro? Or the Rahmsy Tamino study that stated if things were different they'd be different? Or how about Andrew Dessler's peer-reviewed response to S&B 2011. It was released prior to publication. It was so error riddled it was altered after approval. There are countless other examples of very flawed peer-reviewed "science". So, we…

      Read more
    18. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Thanks Chris, but you were missing my point. Or, intentionally creating a strawman by taking a quote out of context. Let's try again....

      "But, if you've ever considered why the chronologies present a level shaft, it is because they must. THE TREES CAN NOT RECORD EXTREME TEMPS."

      That was a statement as to why the shaft of the hockey stick was shaped in the way it was. Because it has to be. You see how this significantly changes the meaning of the quote? You probably overlooked that, right?

      And, you have the gobsmacking audacity to lecture me about hypocrisy.

      Sigh, and this is what happens when people don't have a rational response to my comments. Or any skeptics. At least they simply don't censor like many other alarmist sites.

      report
    19. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to James Sexton

      "I haven't looked into the non-dendro enough to comment on it."

      So now the argument is that there are no proxies in existence that are capable of indicating temperature and that whatever agreement there is between dendro and non-dendro proxies is simply the result of a conspiracy between the two sets of proxies. Your conspiracy theories are mad.

      report
    20. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to James Sexton

      "You see how this significantly changes the meaning of the quote?"

      No, it does not change the meaning of the quote. You are missing MY point. The proxies do not need to distinguish between extremes to indicate a change in average. A change in average probably affects all temperatures, not just extremes.

      The gobsmaking audacity and arrogance is from yourself to assert that you understand these issues, when even I can see that you don't, and that professional scientists studying over many years and publishing in peer-reviewed journals don't. Your arrogance is breathtaking.

      report
    21. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      And you're inventing statements and attributing them to me. I didn't say anything about "no proxies in existence....." nor did I say anything about a conspiracy. These are inventions of your mind. Seek help!

      Let me try and interpret for you. When I stated "I haven't looked into the non-dendro enough to comment on it." This means I haven't formed an opinion on them, yet. How does that get to a conspiracy theory? Or how does that mean "there are no proxies in existence that are capable of indicating temperature...."?

      report
    22. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to James Sexton

      "Everything I stated is readily available on the internet"

      James Sexton and climate science denialism in a nutshell.

      report
    23. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Are you being intentionally dense? I was specifically speaking about the straight line of the graph. Thus, giving the shape of the handle of the hockey stick. Again, because the rings can't provide a signal for an exceptionally cold year, nor is there a signal when it is exceptionally warm, the graphic must produce a "shaft" shape.

      But, while you're dwelling in your absurdity......So, you can gather a mean without a high or a low value or how much of a high or low value. Got it. And, you…

      Read more
    24. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to James Sexton

      "Are you being intentionally dense?"

      I could ask the same question of you. Are you being intentionally dense, James? Because it certainly looks like it the way you seem incapable of getting my point.

      "because the rings can't provide a signal for an exceptionally cold year, nor is there a signal when it is exceptionally warm, the graphic must produce a "shaft" shape."

      What a failure of logic. This might be true if there were only exceptionally cold or exceptionally warm years but guess what, "exceptional" means the vast majority of years are not exceptionally cold or exceptionally hot. Thus there is a signal in the vast majority of years.

      "And, you can do that with less than 17% of the values and sometimes 0% of the values. Got it. Please show me your maths on that one."

      Amazing, you start spouting numbers and then ask me to show you the maths. You are a master of shameless hypocrisy.

      report
    25. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to James Sexton

      "I didn't say anything about "no proxies in existence.....""

      Then how about a little bit of logic and provide some explanation for why dendro and non-dendro proxies agree with each other to the extent they do. You can't dismiss dendro proxies without also dismissing non-dendro proxies because they both give the same long term temperature trends. So if you do dismiss dendro proxies then you are effectively saying the non-dendro proxies are no good either.

      report
    26. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Nah Chris ... when it comes to shameless hypocrisy I reckon this "James Sexton" is a rank amateur... still got his training wheels on... wobbles about like he doesn't believe what he's saying.

      See he takes it all on ... everything from tree rings to polar bears to socialist plots to hockey sticks and tries to deny the lot. Smarter ones - more seasoned players - just work on one bit of rather abstruse knowledge and hammer away at that.

      This is called "astro-turfing" in the trade ... designed…

      Read more
    27. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      It does cause one to pause, doesn't it? But, again, I have sufficiently looked at the other proxies. Now, if you've got something to add re. the dendro, I'd be more than happy to discuss it.

      report
    28. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      "exceptional" means the vast majority of years are not exceptionally cold or exceptionally hot. Thus there is a signal in the vast majority of years.
      ================================
      Thus, creating a graph which appears flatter than what it would if the more extreme signals were captured. This gives the errant appearance of a more stable temp signal.

      I gave you the numbers because you seem to be arguing that one can construct a temp signal from that amount of data. If you are stating otherwise…

      Read more
    29. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to James Sexton

      And off he goes our caped crusader .... back to the desk and the window... off to administer his network in some other far corner of the globe ...leaving a pile of unanswered questions steaming on the floor.

      Can't answer. Won't answer. Nothing is acceptable. The world is all just plain wrong. And gawdless. Everything sucks. Nothing is as it seems. And it's time to stop the rot, stand up for what you believe in, and drive Obama into the sea.

      Welcome to the wonderful world of the professional…

      Read more
  11. Peter Ormonde
    Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Farmer

    Excellent piece.

    Sadly it is not just the IPA that lurk under the skirts of Heartland ... John Nichol and his Australian Climate Science Coalition draw both their strategic thinking and their finances from the US lobby group.

    This is worth a look: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/web-leak-shows-trail-of-climate-sceptic-funding-20120217-1tegk.html

    (I've posted this link elsewhere on the Conversation yesterday but I think it's worth spreading this information about a bit... just so we know who we're dealing with).

    There's a madness to all of this. The horror of thinking that the myth of cheap endless energy might have a downside, might have limits.... it's the end of the world as they know it. Blind faith. Unaskable questions.

    report
    1. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      That's more hilarity. So, scientists should work for free? Or do you believe all scientists should feed at the public trough?

      report
    2. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to James Sexton

      James,

      You'll notice that TC carries on each article a little disclosure statement - who the author receives funds from... anything that might compromise the objectivity of their views. Sure these guys can take money from Exxon, Peabody, the tobacco industry and foreign political organisations like Heartland... but they should declare it... again so we know who we're dealing with.

      As to whether these characters are actually scientists - or are still scientists - that's another question altogether.

      Heartland, the IPA, the Australian Environment Foundation and the nest of little front groups we're talking about are not scientific researchers James. They do not publish in the peer reviewed literature or seek to influence scientific opinion. They are political... they readily admit to being PR spinners (hence these hoardings).... and Alan Jones and his audience is their target market.

      report
    3. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      It doesn't matter who you're dealing with.... either their statements are correct or they aren't. And, the door swings both ways. Sierra club, Greenpeace etc fund many .... but I never see scientists proclaim their funding from such advocacy groups. I don't worry about it much, because, again, either their statements are correct or they aren't. BTW, I think you'll find oil companies funding alarmist advocacy much more than you would skeptical advocacy. The U.S. natural gas industry sent millions to the Sierra Club to campaign against our coal industry.

      report
    4. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to James Sexton

      How did you find out about this "Sierra Club scandal" James? By your own logic, who cares? Either the statements are true or they're not... that right?

      No James, the US and Australia have policies and laws about political donations. It's about transparency and accountability. It's about being able to discount a particular view because the funding comes from the CSIRO, the EPA or the UN as the confusionistas do constantly.

      Personally I am disinclined to put much store in "science for hire" - be it from a pharmaceutical manufacturer or a coal company. There's facts and "facts" James.

      Be interested in any evidence you might provide for the allegation regarding oil company funding of "alarmists".

      I'm quite happy to provide you with a full list of the donors to the Heartland Institute - courtesy of Wikileaks ... but first up here's the budget for 2012:

      http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Heartland%20Budget%20%282%29.pdf

      report
    5. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      "It doesn't matter who you're dealing with.... either their statements are correct or they aren't."

      Actually it absolutely does matter. in an analytical process of rating the reliability of information it is common to use a matrix that considers the accuracy of the information (as determined by confirmation or verification where possible) and the reliability of the source (as determined by prior accuracy of information they have provided and critically - knowing their agenda in relation to the issue).

      There is no reason why any person should not apply this approach when they want to seriously assess the validity of information or the credability of the organisation that proffers it. That approach applies equally to Heartland or Greenpeace - and while both fail to some extent since Heartland are the topic de jour they can have my scorn rating of E4.

      report
    6. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Sure, Heartland is an advocacy group. But, I don't believe there is a neutral source of science or information.

      So, if we asked the political persuasion of governmental scientists? How do we introduce that rating without subjective application? I rather think most governmental climate scientists swing to the left pretty hard. At least most of the vocal ones seem to. Clearly the IPCC is swayed in that direction. They enlisted a socialist economist who plainly stated they were talking about wealth redistribution. So, I'd like to see a rating of the other groups. I think it would be more telling about the person creating the matrix rather than the groups being evaluated.

      report
    7. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Lol, no Peter, you don't know what you're talking about.

      http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/208477-sierra-club-took-26m-from-gas-industry-to-fight-coal

      You're disinclined to put much store in "science for hire"? But, you sent me to DeSmear? You think they blather their nonsense for free?

      I'm very familiar with the papers. Did DeSmear ever pull down the paper Gleick fabricated? How do you rate those guys? I'd be fascinated to see that one!

      While facts are facts, oddly, our EPA doesn't really bother with them much. So, shutting down the coal industry doesn't have to be factually based.

      report
    8. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to James Sexton

      Wealth redistribution???? Socialist? Economist? World Guvvermint! Taxes ATF, the FBI and the like!!!! Heck NO! No way! I'd rather burn in hell!!! Hey maybe I will! We all will! Oh well.

      All them things with letters on em - UN, IPCC, WTO, EPA, ... there's a whole alphabet of the varmints! Letters I ain't never heared of. Next they'll be takin' our howitzers! They're arready after my V8!!!

      Yep ... obviously a deep and sincere commitment to Truth and Science Jimmy.

      report
    9. Clifford Chapman

      Retired English Teacher

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Peter Ormonde, the man is not intelligent and it is not worth responding to him.

      As I've already said, this question of climate change is not really the major issue anyway - it is how we treat the environment in which we live and upon which we rely.

      Our core being, in my view, is not a civilised one, and most of the changes we are making, and have made, to industrial practices have been forced upon us. Some jokers, in their attempts to add sarcasm to their ignorant invectives, have even raised…

      Read more
    10. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Byron Smith

      Byron, do you have anything which refutes my statements? Did I strike a nerve with you and Petey? Or are these automatic responses written on a card somewhere?

      report
    11. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Clifford Chapman

      Interesting that you took that lesson from the book, and failed to grasp others.

      report
    12. Clifford Chapman

      Retired English Teacher

      In reply to James Sexton

      Au contraire, James Sexton, I took that lesson from real life, and was it a subconscious slip that made you see yourself in that paragraph, Roger perhaps? As I said, you can smell the fear in such men.

      Any other lessons I failed to grasp in that fevered imagination of yours, pale into insignificance compared with that one, let me give you the tip.

      report
    13. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      Refuting which statements? This one?

      "Sure, Heartland is an advocacy group. But, I don't believe there is a neutral source of science or information."

      Vague, weak brush strokes that describe Heartland as an "advocacy group". Then you say you don't believe there is a neutral source of science or information. Which kinda acknowledges that Heartland is not neutral. Also what you "believe" to be not neutral sources are to most observers just that.

      You then go on to imply that governmental scientists are left-leaning and that this must surely taint their science

      So what you have done is attempt to create a false dichotomy with a weak attempt to slander any scientist who's research does not meet the expectations of an ideological viewpoint that you hold.

      Refute what? A foul odour requires no refutation, just attribution to its origin, in this case clearly you.

      report
    14. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Clifford Chapman

      Fevered imagination? I'm not sure what you mean. Can you point to something I've stated in which you believe is something my mind invented? Or is snide irrelevant insults just something you in which you excel?

      report
    15. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      "Interesting that you took that lesson from the book, and failed to grasp others."

      I think that qualifies as a snide irrelevant insult...

      report
    16. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to James Sexton

      Mr Sexton - you make many shrill posts that seek to deny or refute the reality of climate science and fly in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus accepted by the vast majority of working climate scientists, atmospheric physicists and the like - not to mention every single national science body of credibility.

      Yet you offer little evidence, instead choosing to magnify uncertainties (and ignoring that such uncertainties - for example in climate sensitivity - cut both ways).

      Perhaps…

      Read more
    17. Byron Smith
      Byron Smith is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Ministry assistant, ecologcal ethicist and PhD candidate at University of Edinburgh

      In reply to James Sexton

      Yep. Your claim that climate science is distorted by a left-wing bias is refuted by noting not only that there are many right-wing climate scientists but that many organisations widely considered right wing accept the science as accurate, participate in funding and researching and aggressively lobby for responses that take the science seriously.

      report
    18. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Clifford Chapman

      Spot on Cliff....

      These denialists and confusionistas are dripping with fear ... they dress it up in a cloak of rational words and make some pretence at having a considered scientific understanding of the issues but underneath it all - the starting point is fear. Of limits, of change of the outside sneaking in.

      Still we must try and understand what it is like living in a declining empire ... threats everywhere - from within and without ... to Our Way of Life, to our homes and our freedoms…

      Read more
    19. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Oh, so you don't agree that many of the scientists are left leaning? Or are you stating that my calling them left leaning is slander? You're a riot.

      You don't think ideology plays a part in the climate discussion? You are more than welcome to idealize governmental scientists if you wish, I quit believing in the tooth fairy and Easter bunny many years ago.

      report
    20. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Aww, Mark, now I'm disappointed. You seem to think I don't alter my views when I encounter evidence contrary to my views. I do and I have.

      I am a bit disappointed. I had the pdf open and everything, but then I read "Please don't bother replying if you haven't actually read Professor Torcello's paper for which I have provided the link."

      Mark, I don't take reading assignments from you. I'll get to it when I get to it.

      You do realize appeals to authority isn't evidence, right? You realize that correct?

      And, Mark, if you read my comments here, they are specific responses to comments. And, I offer more than enough evidence specific to the comments. Or, would you care to actually give an example instead of disparaging my comments?

      What would you have me do? Rebut the IPCC in a reply to asking me proof of the nat gas industry supporting the Sierra Club?

      Your protests are handwaving and red herrings.

      report
    21. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Byron Smith

      Rather than simply stating it is so, do you have any examples of right wing organizations or scientists you can refer me to?

      report
    22. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to James Sexton

      James - it wasn't an assignment - but a request - that's what the word please means.

      In any case you are wrong - you have made the classic amateur philiosophy mistake - appeals to authrority arguments are not always fallacious. As Torcello himself remarks

      "First, regarding fallacious appeals to authority: it ought to be remembered that not every
      appeal to authority is fallacious. It stands to reason that when true expertise exists on a topic, it is
      not fallacious to appeal to that expertise…

      Read more
    23. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      20 seconds of Google gave 5 in one Reuters news article: Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brigham Young University geochemist Barry Bickmore, Richard Alley, geoscientist at Penn State University, Calvin DeWitt, an environmental scientist who researches climate change at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Katharine Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University.

      From the same article an interesting quote: "Tim Phillips, president…

      Read more
    24. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      "You don't think ideology plays a part in the climate discussion? You are more than welcome to idealize governmental scientists if you wish, I quit believing in the tooth fairy and Easter bunny many years ago."

      Ideology absolutely plays a part in the climate discussion - but not in the underlying science.

      You are such a slippery little eel on any issue "Oh, so you don't agree that many of the scientists are left leaning? Or are you stating that my calling them left leaning is slander? You're a riot."

      Did I ever claim that many are not left leaning - just your generalisation of all government scientists as left leaning. Tell me, do you seek to know a surgeon's political views before they operate on you in the ER?

      You seem to think that professionalism is not a trait common to scientists. I would oppose that view vigoursly.

      report
    25. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      It is highly amusing that if he had read the paper first he would perhaps have seen the logic from Torecello around expert appeals to authority. I find it fascinating that in online debates people are very quick to leap onto logical fallacy identification as a form of refutation alone. It happens on all sides of arguements.

      report
    26. Clifford Chapman

      Retired English Teacher

      In reply to James Sexton

      Strange that you should need to ask, even quite quaint.

      'Interesting that you took that lesson from the book, and failed to grasp others.'

      Run that pass me one more time? You haven't read this book, have you?

      The novel ends with Ralph laying on the beach and only being saved from certain death by the captain and crew of a passing destroyer. And that ship only stopped because of the smoke, caused directly by Jack and his tribe having set the entire island on fire in order to flush Ralph out…

      Read more
    27. Clifford Chapman

      Retired English Teacher

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Grendels, as I've just responded to him, he reveals subconsciously without seeming to realise it. Even in saying to you 'I'll give every bit as good as I get' is laden with irony when you consider the meaning of the word 'good'.

      report
    28. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      What's funny is you two didn't understand what I stated and simply lept to an errant conclusion. But, I'll address your errant conclusion first. Expertise should be demonstrated first before it is accepted. For the most part, I see no reason to be that charitable.

      But, that's not what I said. I said, "You do realize appeals to authority isn't EVIDENCE, right?"

      There's a very good reason not to accept the self proclaimed experts as experts. The depth and breadth of the issues don't allow for people to be total authorities on the subject of our climate.

      report
    29. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Clifford Chapman

      How about treatment of people who are a bit different than the mob? Was that in the book somewhere? Or how about the destructive force of tribalism? Did you manage to glean that from learned perspective?

      The rest of your banter is pretty much projection from where I sit.

      report
    30. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to James Sexton

      "There's a very good reason not to accept the SELF PROCLAIMED experts as experts. The depth and breadth of the issues don't allow for people to be total authorities on the subject of our climate. " (emphasis added).

      Now there you go again James to quote from some American President. These fella's aren't self-proclaimed anything - they're recognised as the best in the business ... that's what peer review is all about. You know - people who know what they're talking about - who do more than just troll through a pile of blogs and decide they're "experts".

      See otherwise Jim, we'd all be getting on-line and asking our Network Administrators about it all. Or my plumber. The IPCC doesn't have a single Network Administrator in its review panels as far as I know. There might be a plumber.

      Seems you only open your mouth to change gear, mate.

      Now answer the question I posted this morning - what bits of the alarmist science do you actually agree with?

      report
    31. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      You're certainly welcome to that opinion. I don't happen to share it. Do I ask a surgeons views? No, but then I don't see that as a proper parallel. Human anatomy is pretty much a well known study. There's much that isn't known about our climate, still. It's silly to pretend otherwise. When I see climatologists working with as much vigor to disprove their hypothesis as they do making up imaginary evidence to prove their hypothesis' then I may change my opinion.

      Have you ever wondered why…

      Read more
    32. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Yeh, I remember laughing at that article. I've no doubt that it wasn't written by a Republican. BTW, there is no party or group in the party which demands denial of global warming.

      But, Republican and right wing are not synonymous. Heck, Republican and conservative isn't synonymous. In fact, the Republican nominee for president is mostly regarded as a moderate. Which is about where I'd put Emanuel as well. I don't regard Heyhoe as a conservative. In spite of her work with Gingrich I was quite surprised that she counted herself as a Republican. The others I'm not so familiar with. Strange bedfellows, eh?

      Grendels, I don't put ideology over the science. I'm still waiting on the science.

      report
    33. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      No, you appear to be waiting-on-the-science-you-prefer.

      It doesn't exist. I wish it did - AGW is not something anyone desires and every person I know working in the field (not a terribly large number to be frank) earnestly hopes that their analysis would turn out to be in error, however with each year their doubts lessen - and they weren't that optomistic in the first place.

      report
    34. Clifford Chapman

      Retired English Teacher

      In reply to James Sexton

      Irony aside, you wouldn't argue that 'How about treatment of people who are a bit different than the mob?', is implicit in the boys' savage killings of Simon and Piggy, as well as the hunting and intention to kill Ralph? Roger had sharpened a stick at both ends, one to stick into the ground, the other on which to impale Ralph's decapitated head once they'd murdered him. I think these instances reveal quite starkly the treatment of people who are, euphemistically speaking, 'a bit different' than the mob, wouldn't you say, maybe just a tad?

      And your 'Or how about the destructive force of tribalism?', might connect, not just with the above but with the boys' destroying their own environment by setting it alight in order to kill Ralph.

      Yeah, I don't really think in an 'O' Level Literature paper I'd have much trouble covering those earth-shattering lessons in my references.

      report
    35. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      Wow - really? Because you did not find a scientist who did not share the views of their peers you thought it best to become a skeptic just so there were skeptics?

      But wait - what about those lists of scientists we keep hearing about who are skeptical?

      Would you ever entertain the possibility that you are not hearing from skeptical climatologists because they are largely now confident that all their previous efforts to disprove the hypothesis have in fact confirmed it?

      report
    36. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to William Ferguson

      But feeding them is the only way to keep them occupied for long enough for the sun to rise and have them turn to stone! Or so I am led to understand in the popular mythology.

      Point taken however.

      report
    37. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to William Ferguson

      No you're right William don't feed 'em ... and feeding them involves taking them at all seriously... they love to be taken seriously - to be part of the discussion ... to be "contesting the space"....

      So no I just have a bit of light entertainment at Jim's expense really ... he takes himself seriously enough for the both of us actually.

      But after a bit it gets boring and one day Jim will find a nice gal - maybe one of those Brady Bunch gals - or heck maybe one of the boys - and settle down and find something useful to do in life .... like mow the lawn, or polish the Chevvy. But this is the high point of his career - his moment in the sun - don't take that away... not that too.

      Two dimensional - at best - like arguing with a cartoon... maybe Elmer Fudd.

      Quite an intriguing mind state actually.

      report
    38. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to James Sexton

      James - it would appear you deliberately obfuscate.

      Nothing that Torcello says is invalidated by your retreat. You offer no evidence, despite being challenged to do so. Instead you refute the conculsions of the experts who have studied the evidence based on a real nderstanding of the science - which you have not demonstrated - nor any credible claim to expertise.

      But knock yourself out on this

      http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/understanding-climate-change/~/media/climate-change/prof-plimer-101-questions-response-pdf.pdf

      Thought I have no doubt, given your track record - that you will continue to practice your pseudo-skepticism. You claimed to have adjusted your beliefs - on what exactly? No record on any thread of the TC despite your erros being pointed out to you.

      report
    39. Ian Enting

      Honorary Senior Associate, Faculty of Science at University of Melbourne

      In reply to James Sexton

      Normally, I'd regard colleagues' political affiliations as a private matter, but::

      Barrie Hunt, who, until he retired, was head of the CSIRO climate modelling program.
      Since Barrie sought liberal party pre-selection on oocasion (I think one time successfully) I guess his liebral party membership is a matter of public record.

      report
    40. Ian Enting

      Honorary Senior Associate, Faculty of Science at University of Melbourne

      In reply to James Sexton

      "Where was that skeptical climatologist in regards to Mann's stick?"

      Germany actually.

      Hans von Storch (author of a monumental book on climate statistics)
      and his collaborators.
      Figured out that Mann et al were underestimating their uncertainties.
      Normal stuff of scence-- read the paper and think about it and whether you can do better.
      No need for the political stunts of McKitrick et al. (see John Mashey's "Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report").

      report
    41. Clifford Chapman

      Retired English Teacher

      In reply to Clifford Chapman

      How quiet James has become.

      Maybe he's thinking his 'destructive force of tribalism' should more accurately be: 'the veneer that is civilised man'?

      That's what you get for relying on Coles Notes instead of actually reading the book.

      report
    42. Clifford Chapman

      Retired English Teacher

      In reply to James Sexton

      Blimey, you just can't help revealing your old subconscious - it virtually runs on auto-drive.

      You started reasonably well with 'The rest of your banter is pretty much projection', but you just couldn't resist adding 'from where I sit.'

      'Ay, there's the rub.
      For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come'

      report
    43. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Clifford Chapman

      A precis of Coles Notes at best Clifford - or whatever can be gleaned in a quick skim of the net most like.

      But it wouldn't really matter - I suspect he could spend the rest of his life reading Golding and not get it at all.

      So outside their understanding of the world, beyond their ken.

      True believers like James don't do bleak.

      report
    44. Clifford Chapman

      Retired English Teacher

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Peter, it really is not a desire to mock or ridicule because it is, at bottom, sad.

      Look at the silly way he keeps addressing you - he just draws attention to himself.

      You know, I know, and countless other millions know, that we cannot just continue treating the planet as we have been.

      report
    45. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to James Sexton

      James

      How do you define 'government climate scientists'? And how do you form a view that most of them swing to the left? James Hansen for example is a registered Republican.

      Let me put forward an alternative hypothesis for you to contemplate. Most Climate Scientists - in fact most Scientists - can separate the political views from their scientific judgements. The Laws of Physics after all don't have a political leaning.

      Rather there are some folks, yourself included perhaps, who do see the…

      Read more
  12. John Knowles Stretch

    Arid Rangeland resident

    This reads like 'rent a crowd' revisited but before we all become too smug,
    better we remember again, our own main-stream-politic support for extractive industry as the Australian economic mainstay.

    For Big Coal continues to consume the Hunter, strip mining is now prospective for the Tarkine and collectively as a nation our eco-footprint is far from light.

    report
  13. Felix MacNeill

    Environmental Manager

    Heartland dog whistles and the predictable dogs obediently bark in the predictable way.

    Meanwhile, the grown-ups recover from their understandable sense of disgust and get back to the business of behaving like rational human beings.

    Business as usual, then.

    report
  14. Ian Ashman

    Manager

    Heartland's Billboards are the far end of the crazy denial spectrum but it is all the little steps along the denialist path that has let them feel they could get away with such abuse.

    Like in Australia, the oh-so-clever "Juliar" name tag at the carbon tax rallies (not to mention the "Bob Brown's Bitch' sign) and Alan Jones wanting to throw the Australian Prime Minister into the sea in a chaff bag. To Graeme Morris suggesting she should be 'kicked to death'.

    To the death threats to climate scientists...Heartland's sign exposes the ugly truth of the denialist mind.

    report
  15. Alex Cannara

    logged in via Facebook

    Oops, we've got Marc (with a "c") & JamesS batting for Heartland and the US Petroleum Institute again, and all the way Down Under! The reach of our un-American orgs is amazing. Apologies again to all Aussies.

    Still waiting to hear of that bond for your offspring to use, just in case climate does go bad, M & J. Maybe Heartland will appreciate the misinformation and chip in?
    ;]

    report
    1. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex,

      I am aware of allegations of you lot exporting toxic products to third world countries... just cut it out immediately or I'll be posting you a bunch of cane toads.

      More seriously, I am actually amazed that an outfit like Heartland can send large sums offshore and hire local stringers to skew the political discussion here... it's deeply subversive... reminds me of the old stories of the "Moscow gold" that supposedly funded communist organisations all over the world during the 1950s. And Heartland and its backers would have been leading the charge in denouncing that as a threat to democracy and freedom. Trouble is this stuff is for real.

      Have you yanks privatised the CIA or something?

      report
    2. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Alex, why do you think the U.S. petroleum industry cares about this issue? You realize most of the proposed solutions (realistic or otherwise) to this imaginary problem doesn't effect the oil industry in the least. And the proposed solutions which may effect the oil industry have no chance of being adopted.

      But, even if we managed to throttle demand for oil a bit, what would they care? They'd just decrease production, exactly as they have in the past.

      This is one of the common memes which puzzle me the most. What is it, exactly, that you alarmists believe the oil industry is concerned about?

      report
    3. Byron Smith
      Byron Smith is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Ministry assistant, ecologcal ethicist and PhD candidate at University of Edinburgh

      In reply to James Sexton

      Because if we want to have at least a 2 in 3 chance of staying below an already very dangerous 2ºC temp rise, then we can only burn about 20% of proven fossil fuel reserves (excluding non-conventional sources).
      http://www.carbontracker.org/carbonbubble

      Since the market value of fossil fuel companies is based on their proven reserves, and since we either don't burn all these reserves or we unleash truly catastrophic warming and disruption, then this way of valuing fossil fuel companies represents…

      Read more
    4. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to James Sexton

      I suspect you are being disingenuous in that you know exactly what the big fossil fuel companies are concerned about although I would not rule out the possibility that you are completely clueless.

      But let us spell it out

      Already in 2011, the world has used over a third of its 50-year carbon budget of 886GtCO2, leaving 565GtCO2.

      All of the proven reserves owned by private and public companies and governments are equivalent to 2,795 GtCO2

      Fossil fuel reserves owned by the top 100 listed…

      Read more
    5. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Byron Smith

      Byron, you either didn't understand what I was stating or simply ignored it. You are correct, the oil companies aren't stupid. The rest of your statement is part of the imaginary solution which can't possibly occur anytime soon. Certainly not in our lifetimes. And, seeing that you mentioned non-conventional sources, we see that our reserves are set for another couple of centuries.

      Oil companies aren't concerned with fantasies. Even developed nations don't have the resources to convert our…

      Read more
    6. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Mike, it isn't me who is clueless, it's you. You talk at me about carbon budgets, but you ignore what must occur before the world can significantly lessen their petroleum consumption. And, that's what I'm getting at.

      You are conflating various fuels as if they were the same thing.... they are not. Oil doesn't care that alarmists are trying to destroy the coal industry. Oil and the nat gas industry support those efforts. Especially natural gas. They've profited tremendously in the U.S…

      Read more
    7. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to James Sexton

      "Oil doesn't care that alarmists are trying to destroy the coal industry. Oil and the nat gas industry support those efforts."

      So now it is a conspiracy of climate science in hand with the oil and gas industry. Tin foil hat territory.

      James read the comments again

      "Fossil fuel reserves owned by the top 100 listed coal and top 100 listed OIL and GAS companies represent total emissions of 745GtCO2

      The rest of your post is "argument from personal incredulity".

      report
    8. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Thanks Mark, I'm watching/listening, but Amory has been at this for decades. His soft energy advocacy from way back in the 70s is still decades away from any significant contributions. Mostly because we still can't store AC energy. Fuel cells are fascinating but they don't fix the energy density difficulties. And again, batteries aren't going to run the heavier automobiles or mass transit for goods such as shipping.

      And whether or not DOD is supporting his current thrust doesn't make it reality…

      Read more
    9. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Dear God Mike..... if you are ignorant of events, you could ask before you cast dispersions and incoherently blather nonsense.

      Read this, it is just one example of the nat gas industry teaming up with the Sierra Club to attack coal..... http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/208477-sierra-club-took-26m-from-gas-industry-to-fight-coal and http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/#more-7805

      And…

      Read more
    10. Ian Enting

      Honorary Senior Associate, Faculty of Science at University of Melbourne

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Peter,
      you seem to be taking a socialist approach of ignoring battling small business. Sure the 'denialism services industry" is small (and paid in US$ which aren't what they used to be) but hey -- apple started in a garage. We have some world leaders here -- Plimer is right up there with Viscount Monckton. Didn't notice any specific business assistance for denialism services in Mr Swan's budget speech, but no doubt Mr Abbott will fix that.

      PS didn't cane toads come from the US (Hawaii)?

      report
    11. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Ian Enting

      This comment comes from someone with the title of "professor". As Harry Hoo would say..."amazing".

      What next Shtarker?

      report
    12. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Clifford Chapman

      Clifford, do you think in 200 years the policies we set today will even be remotely relevant to what is occurring then? I think if we let natural innovation take place, in that time period the internal combustion engine will be something only seen in museums. But, we have to get out of the way, first, and quit wasting our resources on unrealistic solutions.

      report
    13. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Byron Smith

      Byron, I'm not sure you understand my position on the quest for alternative fuels and energy. I'm all for them. I simply believe we should let innovation happen without attempting to pick the technologies which will naturally occur. I don't believe our current direction presents viable alternatives to our current energy and fuels sources.

      report
    14. Byron Smith
      Byron Smith is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Ministry assistant, ecologcal ethicist and PhD candidate at University of Edinburgh

      In reply to James Sexton

      Technologies don't naturally occur. They are human inventions and necessity is the mother of invention, which is why wars are so frequently times of great technical innovation.

      But my point was that you pay more attention to the stubborn economic and political constraints on human action than on the physical and chemical constraints. In the end, the "constraints" that the former bring are remarkably flexible in comparison with the laws of nature. Once again, necessity is the mother of economic and political invention too.

      report
    15. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Ian Enting

      Yes Ian my heart goes out to the struggling cottage industry that is denialism ... having to scrimp and make do while cobbling together those fantastic towers of falsehoods out in the shed that serves as a fabrication shop.

      The guvvermint shudda done sumfink ... like make Alan Jones a charity or match Heartland's contributions dollar for dollar. It's a disgrace!

      I shall whip off a quick epistle to Martin Ferguson immediately. It might not be too late.

      report
    16. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Byron Smith

      Agreed, but, necessity isn't artificially, or rather shouldn't be artificially construed. And, coming up against necessity is natural. We didn't create a shortage of horses to cause the innovation of the assembly line. And that's my point. The thought that government can choose what we're going to innovate better than the innovator seems a bit silly to me.

      report
    17. James Sexton

      Network administrator

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Yeh, pointing out truths about the differences in fossil fuels is aspersions. Or was it my demonstrating nat gas's advocacy that caused you to assign such a characterization?

      report
    18. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to James Sexton

      No - I was attempting to quietly and unobtrusively point out that in suggesting Mike was casting 'dispersions' you might lead people to think he is handing out free cash and get him mugged when what you wanted to do was indicate he was (in your view) casting 'aspersions'.

      report
  16. Christina Macpherson

    teacher

    General Jack D Ripper was not alone in his doctrine about fluoridation. Indeed Australia was proudly represented in the anti-fluoride campaign, (And probably still is). Especially in North Eastern Victoria, in the 1970s, when Eric Butler's League of Rights flourished - there were books in country libraries setting out the evils of fluoridation. Shepparton Cityy Library had a fine example, a text-book like format, complete with graphs that showed how fluoridated water made people vote Labor. (Of course in those days, Labor was seen as some sort of left wing organisation.)

    report
  17. Clifford Chapman

    Retired English Teacher

    I've stated this on another thread on Climate Change: the skeptics, such as these 'thinkers', are similar to showing little or no concern for man's behaviour and treatment of animals to the point of their extinction, simply because over billions of years evolution has seen Nature fill vacuums with 'new' life forms and animals to replace animals that have become naturally extinct. Thus Nature 'will take care of it.'

    It's an appalling level of ignorance.

    report
  18. Clifford Chapman

    Retired English Teacher

    The real issue, though, when push comes to shove, is not really even climate change but how we treat our world and the environment on which we depend for life and to live. Our inability to recognise and/or take on board the negative effects on the environment of much of our industrial practices borders on insanity and cretinism.

    This isn't alarmist at all, it is pure common sense, and there are examples of times and situations when drastic action was forced upon governments in order to deal with…

    Read more
  19. Daryl Deal

    retired

    A most interesting article.

    It reminded me of two countries different reactions to Chris Monckton dropping the "N" word in May, 2011. In one country, where the epithet was directed to too, it created a storm of outrage, in the other country where it was said, they just went back to sleep, as it was not in their backyard.

    Link :- http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2765990.html

    Nimby :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

    The time is now long overdue to "Hug the Monster" within.

    Link :- http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/05/hug-the-monster-for-realistic-hope-in-global-warming-or-how-to-transform-your-fearful-inner-climate/

    It is the old story, choose your experts wisely, on the peer reviewed subject they know best.

    report