Thanks Bernhard J (#121), Yes... I might need a new computa with windas an all that or sumthin. Because my postin on this blog has bin a bit selective. Must be sumthin about you smarty pantsez not wanting to know what I may know - do you think ? :-) Surely we 'Deniers' cain't be all that dangerous ? ;-)
The beginning of the end for man made global warming. Thanks to Australian voters.
It will be established within the next three years with global cooling that the theory of man made global warming will get the fate of cold fusion and will result in the end of the fear mongering.
People may find What have Wegman and Said Done Lately to be of interest over at Deep Climate. Folks may have heard of the Wegman report (2006), by Edward Wegman, David Scott, Yasmin Said.
Briefly, for 20 years, Wegman has run the Interface Foundation of North America, mainly to do an (interesting) yearly conference, mostly of statisticians and computer scientists talking about recent work. The last one was June.
I thought he and Said had stopped doing climate anti-science a few years ago, but I was wrong. *After* sending out the 2nd announcement, which had almost all the sessions in detail, April 16, somehow, by mid-June, 2 new sessions magically appeared, organized by Said with Wegman as session chair.. with some names people might recognize:
1
Fred Singer, reusing talk from Heartland#4.
2
*Jeff Kueter (President of the George C. Marshall Institute)
Likely reusing talk from Heartland#3.
*Don Easterbrook (well, Tim wrote of him recently).
Likely reusing talk from Heartland#4.
*Yasmin Said on Climategate, those awful paleo folks, and how more statisticians must be engaged to fix them.
The conference got some financial sponsorship from two sections of the American Statistical Association. They may well have been surprised. So may have most of the members of the Program Committee.
A UK group, the Comino Foundation, is actively spreading climate doubt, even though they were spreading the word on the seriousness of global warming in 2008.
Are they just misguided, or have they been suborned?
Tweedledum and Tweedledee (AKA Putin and Medvedev) are suddenly alarmed about global warming, now that their country is burning down around their ears. That is encouraging, I suppose, but what tune will they sing if Moscow is buried under record snow in January?
I reckon the American Statistical Association (ASA) just have to take their lumps on this one. Obviously they must choose somewhat ahead of time which conferences to provide with financial support. Unfortunately, many conferences have fluid agendas, although two new sessions popping up that late in the piece is a bit rich. The ASA decision makers may or may not be unhappy with this turn of events, but then they know who the organisers are so the horse has bolted on this one, I'm afraid.
While Wegman et al may or may not have been sneaky, there are still fair and reasonable actions that may be taken.
Perhaps those with the familiarity of their pet topics could turn up and ask scientifically relevant - and challenging - questions of the speakers? Sharply focussed questions requiring fairly specific answers would make it difficult for the speaker to dodge without appearing to waffle on cluelessly; well, one can hope.
re: #4
Well, people (especially any ASA members) might politely ask ASA if they knew this is what they were getting, and would they sponsor it again next year if such sessions can be expected? Since ASA is not a government organization, they are perfectly free to answer "Yes, it's OK with us" or "We think the conference is overall worthwhile."
Individual Sections of ASA can do what they want, I'd guess.
And isn't it wonderful that climate change is dominating the Australian election once again, right?
W(h)ither environmental issues?
[e.g. the Murray-Darling Basin, dryland salinity, clearing of native vegetation, unsustainable logging of native forests, unrestrained mining rights &c &c &c ad nauseum].
Anyone who votes for Tony Abbott thoroughly deserves him. I'm reluctant to disappoint them.
Since it's almost impossible to distinguish any valid consequential difference between the "policies" of the Abbott and Gillard clans wrt to environmental issues, I intend to vote Green in any capacity I can (above the line, below the line, ignoring the line, and 2.223546827km off to the side of the line if I have to), simply because it's the only sane alternative left (if I discount the unpredictable and possibly unwholesome merits of the sundry "independent" candiadates). Yes, I am fully aware that you hold the Greens responsible for the failire of the Rudd CPRS, and you may well be proven to be partly correct. But unless and until the Greens are given sufficient representation in both upper and lower houses to make any kind of substantial policy contribution, we're never going to know whether they're worth their salt.
And if the only choice is between Gillard and Abbott, what's there to lose?
It's pretty clear that neither side gives a stuff about any environmental issue - to the extent that it interferes with their key constituencies or economic prescriptions. The Greens of course are decent, but they'll waste all their energy in the next few years dragging the intransigent away from awful positions.
@10, I'm not sure I entirely agree. Though overall, yes I concede that while Labor are busily stabbing each other in the back, it might end up a "who do you not want as Prime Minister" type of election.
At least Gillard does acknowledge the AGW issue with slightly more honesty than the uber-conservative Abbott, who seeks to actively deceive on it. Mind you, if people prefer something resembling a far-right wing Australian theocracy, Abbott might be the go. (rolleyes)
Let's face it. We rarely get the chance to vote for a perfect government - even if you and I both voted for the same party we're sure to have differing opinions about elements within the stated policies.
If no-one appeals to you, vote for the least worst option. And voting green in the lower house, you still have to state a preference. Once again, take the least worst road.
If you were driving and were forced to take a detour on an unsurfaced road, you'd still prefer that to driving straight off a bridge or a cliff. Not fun, but at least not fatal.
I'm not so sure the Greens are much chop either - their recent ad made absolutely zero mention of any Green issues.
I've always had plenty of respect for Bob Brown, but he doesn't have his party on a tight leash and the rest of the bizarros his party has attracted are constantly straying into Green-irrelevant "social issues".
If I had no candidate I thought worthy of my vote I would produce an informal vote. Just because you are compelled to physically turn up at the ballot box doesn't mean you have to actually give anyone your vote.
It may be an option for you. But I feel it as abandoning my power and letting others whom you don't know and have no reason to trust to determine things for you. Not an option for me.
Surely, inserting into a discussion of proxy reliability prior to 1500AD a quote specifically about the 1670s onwards without mentioning the period itself must be the most disingenuous thing ever on the Planet Disingenuous! You gotta watch these pea and thimble guys...
Just inserted this over at Keith's....
We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!
This is one of handful of one-line money quotes pushed around the net, alongside Schneider's 'http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html', John Houghton's 'Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen' and Phil Jones' 'Why should I make the data available to you...?'. It has gained a wide currency, quoted by Montford, Monckton, Tim Ball and many more. An insensitive commentator might observe that the quote was seized upon like crack cocaine by those wishing to spin an anti-climate-science narrative.
The phrase comes to us via David Deming. His claim is that after publishing a piece in Science in line with the concensus, a senior climate scientist assumed that Deming must be a 'Team' player, let slip a key strand of the battle plan to him in a personal email. Rather oddly, Deming deleted the vital evidence, still he felt confident enough to repeat the phrase in testimony to the US Senate.
Andrew Montford certainly likes the quote, and deploys it early on, citing an article in a fringe science publication and writing :-
"This sudden flash of light on a particularly murky shadow of climatological practice is probably unique. Suddenly it was possible to see that the Hughes and Diaz retake on the Medieval Warm Period was not considered enough. The aim was to erase it from the climatological record in its entirety. Although Deming himself did not indentify the email's author, Richard Lindzen of MIT has confirmed that the email was written by Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona. It was evident to anyone who was watching that, in some quarters at least, there was a concerted effort to rewrite the Earth's climate history so that the Medieval Warm Period disappeared."
Only problem is - in one of the illictly-released CRU mails, Overpeck asserts that he had never before heard of Deming, that he had no memory of ever emailing him, that he had no knowledge of ever using the quoted phrase, that he never would use it in the context being ascribed to him, it was bogus and that he found the whole thing rather upsetting. In the absence of the actual mail, the quote thus has the status of uncorroborated hearsay, strongly contested by the alleged quotee. This is not what historians would call a reliable primary source. Such ammunition is just too good to lose, though. Instead of mentioning this bombshell upfront and alongside the quote itself, or even adding a footnote, readers of the book must wait another 400-odd pages before the Overpeck mail is included in a hastily-added chapter on the CRU mails at the very end of the volume.
Judith Curry wrote, "Montfordâs book is a history of science tome, not a journal article. In reviewing it like a journal article or a blog post on climateaudit, Taminoâs review missed the mark, independent of whether his scientific arguments are somehow more âtrueâ than those made by Montford. "
Dr Curry also says the book contains 'an element of spin'. I speculate that, in spinning his anti-science narrative, Montford relaxed the normal standards of honest reporting. An actual science historian would likely discard this quote, or at the least footnote or discuss the dubious provenance. But then there would be scant evidence of 'a concerted effort to rewrite the Earth's climate history'.
re: #18 Phil
You might visit Wikipedia HSI talk page, and add some of that Deming/Overpeck stuff at the end of the "RC Review" section. I've done my duty there for a while.
If anyone hasn't seen that discussion, it's a true classic, already having accumulated at least 3 archioves
tamino's post at RC is *not* a reliable source, but the list of those so proposed is ...eclectic.
Hopefully, at some point, it will be a good case study for Wikipedia.
Nah, Billy Bob Hall, you'll never be able to justify the purchase of "one of th[o]se apple computer things so [that you] can do sum computin and modlin", because to do either of those activities one requires a modicum of nouse.
If your history of posting on Deltoid is anything to go by, you are singularly devoid of even a skerrick of any such talent.
Spend your money on a P-ONG unit instead. It's an interactive real-time pseudo-Newtonian kinetic simulator with audio feedback, perfectly suited for one with your particular skill-set.
Taking the Pollyanna view of the citizens' bunfest, I'm hoping that this will allow some discussion of tax and transfer.
Then we might have some arguments about whether to take one of 2 courses of action rather than choosing between ETS and nothing. Remember, the senate won't change until next July regardless of the election result. So the prospect of getting any climate change related legislation through before then is not very positive.
>*I can't decide whether Gillard's proposal for a "Citizen's Assembly on climate change" is a stroke of political brilliance, or reason for despair.*
I'm a fan of direct democracy, and in many circumstances would favour a citizen assembly, but I haven't heard enough about the questions to be considered and the way the product will be used by government. My guess is that is will be just another input like the Garnaut review. (From the public reaction so far I think the ideas is dead).
To be valid a Citizen Assembly should not be used to bring down a statement on the science, rather it should be used to bring down a statement on the ethical implications of AGW and statement level of cost the "informed" citizens are prepared to pay to mitigate risks.
Citizen juries have some similarity with Athenian democracy were decision makers in key position were citizens temporarily in the position rather than specialist judges. The thinking was that they are more representative and less corrupted than the machinery and power involved in self interested wealth dominated politics.
But in this situation any decision from a CA still needs the go ahead from our current government. Hence I fear its just buying time. But buying time is better than going backwards.
Once alerted to the scientific case that climate change is happening and why, and how we can stop it, it is really up to us to decide whether we want to do something about it now or put up with the consequences.
I think that this part of the debate is the only one that is legitimately open to discussion, since it is a moral issue and not a scientific one. "Do we have the right to put people who live in vulnerable areas through the suffering they will endure if we do nothing?", versus "Is it convenient for my costs to go up?"
I have to say I am an unabashed pessimist seeing the radical shift on public opinion once the hip pocket seemed in imminent danger of being affected...
"I have to say I am an unabashed pessimist seeing the radical shift on public opinion once the hip pocket seemed in imminent danger of being affected..."
I'm not an unabashed optimist, but I do think that this really comes down to the issue of leadership. You don't even need a charismatic leader, just one who brings out the best in people rather than appealing to the worst.
And it's not just appealing. It's about emphasis. If you constantly mention the negative, then people first think of the negative. If you talk about the good, better, best, people first consider those rather than the bad, worse, worst.
Of course, the main thing is to make sure that you say it's doable. Not that you have to be able to solve all problems all at once, but that every single thing you do can be chosen on the better rather than the worse trajectory. And if you can, one way or another, tap into people's generosity and kindness rather than selfishness and distaste you're on a winner.
Anyone who votes for Tony Abbott thoroughly deserves him. I'm reluctant to disappoint them.
Since it's almost impossible to distinguish any valid consequential difference between the "policies" of the Abbott and Gillard clans wrt to environmental issues
You've convinced me. I will vote for Abbott. It's not just the people who vote for him anyway who thoroughly deserve him but the Greens as well. They need some reminding of Abbott's level of denialism and just won't see it unless he is in power.
>*And it's not just appealing. It's about emphasis. If you constantly mention the negative, then people first think of the negative. If you talk about the good, better, best, people first consider those rather than the bad, worse, worst.*
Very good point, I fell into the trap of talking about the "*level of cost the "informed" citizens are prepared to pay to mitigate risks*. Good policy will reduce our emission and our standard of living.
Yet Nordic nations already have green taxes and a higher standard of living than in Australia.
>*It's not just the people who vote for him anyway who thoroughly deserve him but the Greens as well.*
Unlike Chris O'Neill I won't be telling blog readers not to vote for the Greens. Just so reader know that not everyone here endorses Chris O'Neill's political pitch.
Wow. Tamino posts the most beautiful correlation [here.](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/urban-wet-island/#comments) Humidity anomalies for the last thirty years overlaid with the GISS temperature anomaly chart (scaled). Humidity changes exactly track temperature changes - both remorselessly upward. Yet another vindication of the GISS record. All those good Watts Brigade people taking pictures of thermometers next to air conditioners really are wasting their time.
It's not just the people who vote for him anyway who thoroughly deserve him but the Greens as well.
Unlike Chris O'Neill I won't be telling blog readers not to vote for the Greens. Just so reader know that not everyone here endorses Chris O'Neill's political pitch.
Unless you want your vote to be worthless, you'll put one major party ahead of the other regardless of who you put first. (Australia has a preferential voting system for those who don't know). A few people need a lesson in what a denialist government is like, not to mention all of Abbott's other "qualities".
Chris O'Neill is correct on non-equivolence in climate of the effect of a preferential vote going to Labor or Coalition.
In addition to various levels of inaction percieved with either party, a vote for the Coalition will be spun by deniers (Bolt, Akerman, The Oz Editor) as a mandate for the science of "climate change is crap". It was the issue of price on carbon that was the drive behind the change in liberal leadership. A vote for Abbott is a huge backward step on climate.
Chris is also correct about our perferentail voting system. It gives Australians the chance to indicate a policy direction they prefer even if its not offered by either of the major parties.
I thought the Greens' position was it made very little difference which major party was in government.
For example:
it's almost impossible to distinguish any valid consequential difference between the "policies" of the Abbott and Gillard clans wrt to environmental issues
I see that that app, 'Our Climate' is not free. If it were, I'd have added it to my iPhone as it's bound be good for a laugh, but the authors are not getting a single penny from me.
If you are under the impression that iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads are the main tools used for "computin and modlin", your world is even stranger than I thought.
BTW I speak on my own behalf, not as spokesperson for a Labor or the Greens.
Chris @35, you might note these points are not mutually exclusive:
>*In addition to various levels of inaction percieved with either party, a vote for the Coalition [...] A vote for Abbott is a huge backward step on climate.*
McIntyre has pointed out at CA that UEA was unable to provide email attachments in response to his FOI requests.
Predictably the first few comments are indignant about lying, avoidance, unresponsiveness, etc. etc.
My first thought (having dealt with the IT departments of several British universities) was that many institutions automatically junk attachments from emails older than a few months. That may not be what's happened in this case, of course, and the FOI response doesn't actually clarify this - but I'd be surprised because in my experience its a pretty standard practice.
>I see that that app, 'Our Climate' is not free. If it were, I'd have added it to my iPhone as it's bound be good for a laugh, but the authors are not getting a single penny from me.
I think it highly unlikely the app will make much money. You're right about it being good for a laugh, it sounds pretty atrocious from John Cook's description! He says it has
>contributors including notable sceptics such as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and even the UK's own Lord Christopher Monckton.
But they probably know little of their 'contributions', the authors have likely just used some of their arguments.
I noticed in the comments at the Gruaniad that everyone's favourite phyisicist/sociopath Lubos showed up. He said:
>This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
Somewhat buried in the Monckton vs. Scott Mandia thread, here is a sign that the HoL is finally reacting to the continous false claims of membership by the Laird.
Politics has certainly come a long way since 2007 now that the Australian Liberal party can run elections ads promising "no carbon tax". Can you imagine what would have happened if they had done that back in 2007? That would have been electoral poison. But now? Ha.
Despite claiming to have policies to address AGW, the Coalition either don't believe in their prosposed actions or don't belive that market mechanisms are more effiecnt than government central planning.
>A striking example is the free pass that has been given to Tony Abbott on his repeated claim that a $40/tonne tax on carbon would âdouble the price of electricity, on top of recent 35 per cent increasesâ. Five minutes with a calculator and a recent electricity bill would have shown any reporter who bothered to check that this claim is nonsense...
What was starkly apparent was that there were two distinct views on the matter: that taken by the realists who understand about limits to growth (fi! not the Club of Rome?!); and that taken by those who believe that growth can continue forever, that soils, water, fuels and other resources are infinite, and that it is economically sound to build an economy on a ponzi scheme based on stealing other countries' skilled workers.
Sadly, it seems that some of our country's wealthiest businessfolk can't see past their noses when it comes to long-term economic sustainability. (As an aside, it just goes to show that one doesn't need to be intelligent to succeed in business, just cunning.)
Sadly, too, some folk continue to confuse a desire to avoid overpopulation with racism, even after the problem is explained to them.
It never ceases to astonish me how disparate are the views between those with a scientific interest, and many of those with a business interest. Still, it's definitely pushed the matter into the spotlight, and I hope that Australia might actually proceed in a mature manner to discuss the elephant that has been growing ever bigger in its corner of the room.
I wonder if such maturity will be demonstrated, in every case, in response to this post?
Just pointing out an example of someone who needs a lesson in what difference a real denialist government makes.
Oh joy, someone else who thinks I need to be taught a lesson. Take a numbered ticket and join the queue.
Sarcasm aside, what strikes me about your posts is that despite an open invitation to point out some positive, cogent and compelling reasons why I (and presumably others) should vote ALP, the only one you can come up with is that a vote for the ALP is a vote against the Coalition. But then given the absence of any real policy commitment to acting on climate change (and environmental issues more broadly) from the ALP that's not surprising. For all that the Coalition is not much more than a taxpayer-funded home for climate change "sceptics", any differences in action on climate change after 3 more years of the ALP will be so slight as to be indiscernible. Gillard's approach to tackling climate change is a policy vacuum (unless you count 150 hand-picked idiots savant to populate yet another committee no-one needs as policy), though it's a pity the "Cash for Clunkers" scheme wasn't running when Rudd & Wong put up their ETS - maybe we could have traded it in for something that polluted less.
Your comment @44....
Politics has certainly come a long way since 2007 now that the Australian Liberal party can run elections ads promising "no carbon tax". Can you imagine what would have happened if they had done that back in 2007?
...is correct but is also telling, since you conveniently paint only part of the picture. Were it not for the unwarranted, unholy cock-up the Rudd government made of its obvious mandate to act on climate change (an ETS hardly anybody outside the ALP wanted), we wouldn't be where we are now - no viable ETS, and a "choice" of inaction on climate change in two flavours:
1. climate change "scepticism" (with a lick of green paint that's so fresh it's still wet) from the Coalition; or
2. delay from the ALP (with a few sops thrown in to make it look like they're doing something).
In History, Nations with limited manpower are frequently extinguished by Nations that have more.
An Australia that limits itself to a population of 25,000,000 will be unable to field the army necessary to defend itself from a neighbouring islamic state with a population of 500,000,000. In addition, the limited tax base would prevent us from acquiring a competitive quantity of high-tech military hardware.
Of course, some people choose to believe that History has stopped and Australia will never be on the receiving end of the neo-imperial aspirations of a predatory religious philosophy which openly advocates murder, violence, contempt for secular Law, and the extinction of competing cultures.
We need an immigration policy tailored to the reality of the world we live in, not to the day-dreams of the ivory-tower-dwellers.
>*In History, Nations with limited manpower are frequently extinguished by Nations that have more.*
In history, and in repeatable experiments, organisms that exceed their environment's carry capacity experience mass death. (including pressure to invade neighbors).
A recipe to accelerate mass death is increase population and consumption, building a war machine can aid the rise in consumption.
>*In History, Nations with limited manpower are frequently extinguished by Nations that have more.*
Using this as an argument for population growth means that we need a population race. But a population race increased the pressure towards war. Its thus a circular argument.
We'd be better off building a lasting strong mutually beneficial relationship with our neighbors. And rejecting past policies support for military coups and the resulting [political genocide that followed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_to_the_New_Order).
You still don't get it and perhaps you never will. The government consists of both houses of parliament.
By the way, I'm not interested in your opinion of cogent and compelling reasons for voting for anyone, I just pointed out an example of someone who thinks it makes very little difference on environmental issues which major party is in power.
An Australia that limits itself to a population of 25,000,000 will be unable to field the army necessary to defend itself from a neighbouring islamic state with a population of 500,000,000.
That's right, Australia needs a population of 500,000,000.
Another likely recipe to accelerate mass death is to continue â¥BAU, as changed precipitation patterns and rising sea levels adversely affect the availability in space and time of potable water resources.
SteveC, while I don't personally advocate Australia push for a mega-population, a proper analysis considers these things.
Your response would seem to indicate that you are in the "History has stopped" camp. In that respect, you resemble the climate-denialists who can't bring themselves to worry about the long-term effects of their actions today.
And Jakerman, Australia (along with all "Western" nations, China, and a few others) already have or can easily control our populations at sustainable levels. This is of not much use if other large and populous nations continue with unrestricted population growth. It's even more dangerous when those populations are under the sway of a dangerous and violently expansionist politico-religious philosophy.
A one-sided halt to population growth on our part necessarily means that in the fullness of time, nations with unrestricted growth will eventually and inevitably decide to take our "under-utilised" resources by force. With an aged population supported by a small taxbase, we will not be able to resist the inexorable tide of History.
I believe Neville Chamberlain was a fan of the "build strong relationships" pipe-dream. It doesn't work when you're dealing with a force you cannot control. In the long term, for a Nation to remain a Nation, it must have a strong economy, an effective military, and a socially cohesive society. I believe it is the function of National government to make decisions in the best interest of the Nation.
>*And Jakerman, Australia (along with all "Western" nations, China, and a few others) already have or can easily control our populations at sustainable levels. This is of not much use if other large and populous nations continue with unrestricted population growth.*
Is your proposed solution to global over population,to increase our population? I would have though doing everything we can to promote human rights (especailly womens rights) and education would be a better solution.
>*It's even more dangerous when those populations are under the sway of a dangerous and violently expansionist politico-religious philosophy.*
Indosenia is not under the sway of "expansionist politico-religious philosophy", but extremists religious philosophy is a growing concern. It grew as [a response injustice](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/open_thread_52.php#comment-2722…) of intervention and suppression supported by westerners trying to kill another percieved threat.
Just like indigenous support for extreamists like the Taliban is growing the more westerners try to pacify extremists via projection of force.
>*A one-sided halt to population growth on our part necessarily means that in the fullness of time, nations with unrestricted growth will eventually and inevitably decide to take our "under-utilised" resources by force.*
A one sided view that produces zero solution. For a multisided view you need to understand the view the perspetive of our neighbors. You need to consider why our neighbour have such large population and what global incentives will work to provide feedback mechanisms in time to prevent ecological collapse.
>*I believe Neville Chamberlain was a fan of the "build strong relationships" pipe-dream. It doesn't work when you're dealing with a force you cannot control.*
Fail via Godwins law. Indonisia are not annexing anyone, they are not in a threatening mode of miliatary expansion. They are dealing with small section of internal fundamentalist. People pushing neo cold war thinking creates the failed polices that strengthen support for these loons.
while I don't personally advocate Australia push for a mega-population, a proper analysis considers these things.
Any "proper analysis" considers the impacts of any significant population increase (including the social environmental costs, which is what jakerman has been trying to drive into your head).
Your response would seem to indicate that you are in the "History has stopped" camp
Your post appeared to indicate an acute bout of reactionary xenophobia.
...It's even more dangerous when those populations are under the sway of a dangerous and violently expansionist politico-religious philosophy
The Balinese are going to take up arms and invade us? Really??
A one-sided halt to population growth on our part necessarily means that in the fullness of time, nations with unrestricted growth will eventually and inevitably decide to take our "under-utilised" resources by force. With an aged population supported by a small taxbase, we will not be able to resist the inexorable tide of History. I believe Neville Chamberlain was a fan of the "build strong relationships" pipe-dream. It doesn't work when you're dealing with a force you cannot control. In the long term, for a Nation to remain a Nation, it must have a strong economy, an effective military, and a socially cohesive society. I believe it is the function of National government to make decisions in the best interest of the Nation.
This has been an advertisement on behalf of the Populate or Perish Party. Spoken by Vince Whirlwind, authorised by the ghost of the late John Curtin.
>*Your response would seem to indicate that you are in the "History has stopped" camp*
Perhaps SC would prefer to name his own camp? He might chose the camp called "Validated by both History and Science".
>*In history, and in repeatable experiments, organisms that exceed their environment's carry capacity experience mass death. (including pressure to invade neighbors).*
>*A recipe to accelerate mass death is increase population and consumption, building a war machine can aid the rise in consumption.*
Interesting that some people leap to write off as "reactionary xeonophobia" the completely crazy idea that Nations periodically fall under the sway of militarists and invade their neighbours.
Looks like Denial to me!
And Jakerman - go to west Papua and then tell us about our "friendly neighbours" who aren't annexing anybody but regularly erase entire villages using military force.
Indonesia is a neo-colonial empire which actively seeks to exterminate diversity of culture, ethnicity and opinion.
"It's all america's fault from the 1960's" is pointless recrimination, not analysis.
Persecution and murder of people who reject islam is a daily occurrence in Indonesia. And that's a "moderate" islamic country. With Wahhabism on the up-and-up thanks to the oil industry, Indonesia is steadily moving towards a becoming our local Saudi Arabia. The Vice Police are already out, forcing women to cover-up and stay indoors.
45 years of turning a pragmatic blind eye to the nastiness to our North has seen Indonesia slide ever closer to the islamic dictatorship it will inevitably become.
As Neville Chamberlain proved, appeasement isn't a productive strategy and wishing away military solutions doesn't make them go away.
>*45 years of turning a pragmatic blind eye to the nastiness to our North has seen Indonesia slide ever closer to the islamic dictatorship it will inevitably become.*
>*The purging of two secularist parties, the Nationalists and the Communists, had a notable side effect of giving greater space for the development of Islamism in Indonesia. [...]It widely believed by observers of Indonesian history and politics that Suharto's forces whipped up anti-Communist sentiment in part by exploiting conservative Muslims' fears of "godless" Communism to instigate a jihad against the leftists.*
>*As for more mainstream groups, conservative Islamic groups (called the "Central Axis") became a prop of the regime for some time after the change of regime. Liberal Islamic groups, on the other hand, are believed to have defected during the wave of protests before the Indonesian Revolution of 1998.*
>*the British Department of Trade provided almost a billion pounds worth of so-called soft loans, which allowed Suharto buy Hawk fighter bombers. The British taxpayer paid the bill for aircraft that dive-bombed East Timorese villages, and the arms industry reaped the profits. However, the Australians distinguished themselves as the most obsequious. In an infamous cable to Canberra, Richard Woolcott, Australia's ambassador to Jakarta, who had been forewarned about Suharto's invasion of East Timor, wrote: "What Indonesia now looks to from Australia . . . is some understanding of their attitude and possible action to assist public understanding in Australia. . . "*
You again offer no solution to the identified problem of popualtion or consumption, you again fail via Godwins law.
So if you want to turn away for the science an turn this into an 'Islamist are wrecking the world' argument please answer this, what is driving the support for Islamic fundamentalists? What are they reacting to? An answer please.
Alternatively please offer your soltion to problem under discussion, over population.
Uh, in other news, I saw an ad on TV for the Climate Sceptics Party last night. It was everything you would expect from such a reasonable, well-balanced group of people, and it did not at all make me laugh out loud.
Fortunately, they seem to have hired someone who knows how to work those new-fangled intertubes, so you can see it too!
>*So if you want to turn [...] this into an 'Islamist are wrecking the world' argument please answer this, what is driving the support for Islamic fundamentalists? What are they reacting to? An answer please.*
Do you think given the "West's' support for the war on Islamic contries, that an Austrlia's muscling up with military buildup would increase or decrease the standing of Islamic Fundamentalists in our north?
I wonder if they would have Hawkes invoke Nevil Chamberlin and say "we can appease Australia when must attck them so they will not attack us."
>*And Jakerman - go to west Papua and then tell us about our "friendly neighbours" who aren't annexing anybody but regularly erase entire villages using military force.*
Why do you need to concoct spurios quotes of "friendly neighbours"?
I support West Papuan independence & despise the violent attacks by miltiary style force. Yet Indonesia in the process overseeing the ceeding of West Papau to an semi independent provence. This is a gradual reversal of the Dutch Colonial aquisition. It is very differnt [to this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement).
But since you invoked Hitler, you should also consider the environemnt that enable Hilter to suceed. You might want to compare that to the environment that increased support for terrible abusers.
>*Indonesia is a neo-colonial empire which actively seeks to exterminate diversity of culture, ethnicity and opinion.*
Indonesia is diversity. The question is in what environement do the tolerent an peaceful segments florish and in which does the opposite occur?
>*"It's all america's fault from the 1960's" is pointless recrimination, not analysis.*
Why the need to fabricate a false quote? Why not address the point that our interventions have played a part in [supporting Suharto](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB242/index.htm)? And that Suharto committed mass murder to purge political dissent? And those action involved both:
a) playing to Islamic fanatics, and:
b) creating a vacumme which was partially filled by islamics fanatics?
>*Persecution and murder of people who reject islam is a daily occurrence in Indonesia. And that's a "moderate" islamic country. With Wahhabism on the up-and-up thanks to the oil industry, Indonesia is steadily moving towards a becoming our local Saudi Arabia. The Vice Police are already out, forcing women to cover-up and stay indoors.*
Please refer to above:
>*Indonesia is diversity. The question is in what environement do the tolerent an peaceful segments florish and in which does the opposite occur?*
As General Peter Cosgrove said (and if he doesn't have a clue, no-one does), doubling Australia's population to expand our military forces is completely useless. Heck, even quadrulpling our population wouldn't offer any significant deterent to a determined invader if their own population was in the order of hundreds of millions of people. All the more so if they moved with conscripted as well as with enlisted soldiers... think about the average Australian's reluctance to enlist, let alone to accept conscription!
Having said that, I have no ivory-tower illusion myself that once Peak Oil/Coal really starts to bite, and/or when AGW alters global productivity sufficiently to make irresistible the snaffling of another country's goodies, nations won't start eyeing-off former allies' resources, and taking them by force.
And as Cosgrove and others have said, the strategy in this case is to have the political relationships and the technology to present a formidable resistance. As much as I personally detest nuclear weaponry for example, an Australia with such would present a different prospect than one without. Of course, if the rest of South-East Asia was so armed, we'd then be living under the fear of a hair-trigger mutual anhihilation, but at least your fears of disproportionate manpower would be moot...
The thing is, where in the past the might of numbers has won out in military encounters, to argue for such in the future is to miss the point of the cause of much conflict in the the first place - the ever-growing desire for more resources. At some point in the human story we need to eschew what is really a painting-over the-rust approach to defence. And we're at the point where the clunker is being held together with paint...
To repeat, 50 million or a hundred million Australians wouldn't deter 500 SE Asians if their governments decided that they wanted a piece of us, and it certainly wouldn't deter 1.5 billion Chinese if the political milieu in 40 or 50 years time was such that walking into the country was an attractive option.
However, even 30 million Australians living at the current level of affluence will eventually grind the ancient, nutrient poor ecosystems of the country into the dust. We've paved over much of our best farmland; and acidified, and/or salinated and/or de-topsoiled a lot of the rest. We've already strained the limits of many water catchments beyond their sustainable cpapcities for providing water, and fanciful ideas of piping the Ord from west to east are science-fiction, pie-in-the-sky wet dreams of developers, who typically make like a [wombat](http://i34.tinypic.com/2vwu5nd.jpg) in any case.
Whatever deterent 50 million Australians might actually offer against a future aggressive neighbour would be transitory as alliances, technologies and other populations change, and within a generation or two our decendents would find themselves in a war against their own environment as its resilience finally collapses.
Whether it's Nature's taxman, ferryman, piper or whatever, the invoice will come, and payment will be exacted one way or another. Using a population Ponzi scheme isn't going to get Australia out of the challenges that it faces.
I can't find anything to disagree with in what you have written, Bernard, in contrast to the lefty-loopy non-analysis Jakerman gives us - can anybody explain how Indonesia will ever give "independence" to their biggest single source of government revenue? Another starry-eyed bit of lefty self-delusion.
East Timor happened: comprehensive mass-murder and systematic rape to eliminate an ethnic minority while the lefties desperately tried to pretend Indonesia was our friend and closed their eyes to the genuine refugees arriving here escaping from Indonesian persecution. A *majority* of women and girls aged 10 and over during the occupation were raped by the Indonesian military. Normally, lefties pretend to care about this sort of thing. And normally the lefties are delighted to recognise when religion informs this kind of behaviour.
I do think it's worth adding that a nuclear deterrent is ineffective against the mentality that drives a suicide bomber and that our first line of defence is to defend the coastline, a significant consideration in the minds of many Australians which could soon deliver power to an otherwise extremely unpalatable Tony Abbott.
East Timor happened because the U.S. and U.K. gave the green light for it to happen. Suharto would not have invaded East Timor for a second in 1976 if then U.S. president Gerald Ford had told him then that the U.S. had 'no interest in the internal affairs of Indonesia' when the two leaders met in Washington and Suharto hinted at his wish to invade East Timor. Furthermore, the U.S. and U.K. continued to arm and support this mass murderer virtually to the very end of his rule. The U.K. sold him fighter aircraft under the cover of the Official Secrets Act that were used to strafe villages in East Timor and in full knowledge that that was how they were going to be used. Paul Wolfowitz, who spent many years as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia and defended Suharto throughout his time there, lamented Suharto's ousting as late as 2002. The only reason Suharto was deposed was because the U.S. pulled the plug and Clinton said 'the game's up' in 1998 when it was clear that Suharto had to go; this was just three years after a senior Clinton official called Suharto 'our kind of guy'. This shows that the U.S. could have ousted Suharto at any time during the preceding 22 years, and as JAkerman correctgly points out, it was the U.S., U.K. and Australia who helped Suharto into power in 1966. Mark Curtis (in 'Web of Deceit') and John Pilger (in 'The New Rulers of the World') have made excellent accounts of the coup ousting Sukarno and the role played by these countries in facilitating it.
I was wondering if the nuclear deterrent you talk about also works against powerful states intent on expansion; the only country that has not ruled out first use is the United States, who have threatened its use against Iran. I think your rant against 'lefties' is therefore misguided; so-called liberals made the war in Iraq possible, and many at the moment are keeping silent as the U.S. and Israel vamp up their rhetoric against Iran. The so-called liberal press in America is hardly that; read the NY Times and Washington Post and you find that many of their articles on foreign policy appear to be more like Pentagon or State Department Press releases. The recent Wiki-leaks revelations re: the Afghan war has damaged their credibility somewhat, but even now the Iraq War has been packaged as a 'victory' and the same is being said of the endgame in Afghanistan, which is in reality all but lost.
I can't quite believe that anyone with any conscience could type this with a straight face...
A majority of women and girls aged 10 and over during the occupation were raped by the Indonesian military. Normally, lefties
pretend to care about this sort of thing. And normally the lefties are delighted to recognise when religion informs this kind of
behaviour
... and not hang their head in shame. That you neglect to provide a single skerrick of evidence to support your revoltingly snide attempt to link those whose political opinions you don't like with the rape of Indonesian women and girls says something, if only I could be bothered to waste the time figuring out what it is.
And for the record, if anyone calling themselves a "lefty" had written such similarly baseless and execrable bile about anyone who espoused "right-wing" politics, I'd be equally appalled.
I'm used to finding denialist give the same empty abuse as a substitute to substance when they can't answer the questions.
Lets recap Vince's position: Vince wants to increase population. Why? to protect us from Indonesia. How? By consuming our resources faster they won't be there to tempt Indonesia.
He also is scared of Islamic fundamentalist, So scared that he likens Indonesia to Nazi Germany. As such we should hasten a military buildup against another Islamic threat. We should prepare for a third war with Islamic nations at once.
Vince is not prepared to say what is driving the growing support for Islamic fundamentalists. I wonder why? I also wonder why Vince would rather dish out empty abuse rather than address this key question:
>*Indonesia is diversity. The question is in what environement do the tolerent an peaceful segments florish and in which does the opposite occur?*
To some extent I do sympathise with Vince's stance on a possible future Indonesian threat to Australia, especially as it has demonstrated form: It took a lot of work to prise Timor from its fingers, and I doubt that they will release their grip on Papua any time soon without significant political coersion.
However, let us not think that Western countries are in any way without stain. It was only 7 years ago that Australia joined the USA and the UK, amongst other willing allies, in an illegal invasion of a sovereign state. As I and many others have commented, had Iraq's major resource been broccoli it is doubtful that there would have been any war in the first place...
But all this distracts from the subject of what size population Australia and its ecosystems can support without loss of chunks of its biodiversity, of its ecosystem services, and of its future citizens' quality of life.
On a different matter entirely, this time next week will mark the first anniversary of [Wormtongue's appearance on Deltoid](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). It's surprising, really, how much new ignorance he has accumulated in the space of twelve months. He gives PhDs - or rather, the process by which some institutions allow them to be handed out - a bad name.
Bernard, one of the major reasons (second probably only to the idiot in charge at the time) was that the west and especially "The Leader Of The Free World" couldn't give two shits for East Timor.
Georgia was invaded but the people who did that didn't consider that Russia WOULD care.
Same for Malvinas.
Or Iraq, possibly (Junior getting back at those eye-rabs for how they treated papa).
> The recent Wiki-leaks revelations re: the Afghan war has damaged their credibility somewhat, but even now the Iraq War has been packaged as a 'victory' and the same is being said of the endgame in Afghanistan, which is in reality all but lost.
While on the subject: what does it mean when, even after the leaking of the Afghan War Diary and the publishing of the Top Secret America journalism piece, there's still close to zero action or activism in cleaning up the mess that's the US military-industrial complex?
Yeah, yeah, we keep talking about how the media aren't doing their job, but now, even when the media start reporting something useful, still nothing is happening. The US's screwed; the world's screwed.
> > Q: What material (if any) beyond e-mails was contained on the CRUBAK3 server [in CRU] and may thus have been subject to unauthorised disclosure?
> First, please could you amend the notes to use the correct name CRUBACK3. This is not really a problem as there is no ambiguity, but I thought it best to be precise.
> The entire "C:" partition of a Windows PC, or the "Users" directory of a Mac, or the "/home" directory of a Linux PC would be backed up, with certain exceptions: some Windows system files and directories were ignored (pagefile.sys, hiberfil.sys, RECYCLER, System Volume Information, Temporary Internet Files) and two directories intended for storing data that did not need backing up (scratch, static). In addition, specific directories could be excluded where the size would overwhelm the server.
Interesting spin, so you ignore western intervtion to support Suharto
There's blame on all sides: the labour movement and the extreme left wing were happy to agitate violently against the Dutch presence in West Papua, not so much on the Indonesian annexation of the same...
Indeed, there are multiple lessons to take away, including:
a) We should support information sharing such that activists pay attention to injustice that gain little attention, and;
b) We should recognize that our enabling for Suharto' coup (intellegence support, kill lists, military arms support, provision of diplomatic coverage) had the effect of establishing a patter of power and model of intervention that promoted what we fear (Islamic fundamentalism) and promoted what we despise (a pattern of military style death purges).
[Tom Scott](http://www.tomscott.com/warnings/) has some fancy innovative warning signs for newspaper articles. This should be adopted everywhere - a Jonathan Leake label would already be a great help!
I think some people are missing the point - on the question of analysing future threats to Australia, it really doesn't matter who gave the green light to Indonesia to invade East Timor, the fact is that Indonesia did invade, just as they invaded West Papua, and just as they continue to impose their corrupt militaristic (and increasingly islamicist) rule over other areas of their far-flung neo-colonialist empire.
When a future leader of a superpower says "we have no interest in Australia", how do we defend ourselves if our Nation consists of 20,000,000 old-age pensioners, no manpower to build an army from and no taxbase from which to equip them?
The fans of appeasement display their true colours with rubbish like "Lets recap Vince's position: Vince wants to increase population".
I've given no such opinion and you should be ashamed of such shallow argumentation.
I'm asking you to get out of denial and recognise that threats to Australia's existence will exist and proposing you come up with some sort of argument on how we can ensure our survival in the face of bigger, badder countries with which to oppose those whose argument consists of "let's stick with the philosophy of never-ending growth as the fundamental to our economy".
So far, "If we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us" seems to be the lefty argument and it is a million miles away from being a grown-up strategy for protecting our Nation's long-term security interests.
Vince, I simply do not understand how increasing the Oz population could address your concerns with bigger neighbours - Indonesia's not the only one.
We double and redouble and where are we, 90 million (thirsty) souls. And what has happened to the populations of other countries in the region in the meantime? Even if they stabilise they'll still be much, much bigger than us.
We are resource rich only in what's under the ground. On the surface we have thin exhausted soils in all but a couple of places, added to uncertain or erratic water supply which is only going to get more difficult to manage with increasing population.
>*The fans of appeasement display their true colours with rubbish like "Lets recap Vince's position: Vince wants to increase population".*
Funny how you call me a fan of appeasement, again its yet other bogus claim or your. This is at least the third time your set up a strawman to knock down Vince.
Now pery tell me how I misrepresented your preference to increase population? Here is a reminder:
>*An Australia that limits itself to a population of 25,000,000 will be unable to field the army necessary to defend itself from a neighbouring islamic state with a population of 500,000,000. In addition, the limited tax base would prevent us from acquiring a competitive quantity of high-tech military hardware.*
>*I'm asking you to get out of denial and recognise that threats to Australia's existence will exist and proposing you come up with some sort of argument on how we can ensure our survival in the face of bigger, badder countries with which to oppose those whose argument consists of "let's stick with the philosophy of never-ending growth as the fundamental to our economy".*
That's funny Vince, cos I have been proposing vital questions that you have been avoiding. I have also provided contextual backgroud and lessons learned from history. I have Included assessment of ecological carrying capacity, and encouraged you to look beyond a one sided view of the situation.
But now your latest claims is that all I've come up with is:
Well Vince, though you make a dismal caricature of the complex reasoning, even your caricature of my argument stands up a lot better than your argument that unless we increase our population we'll have resource which will tempt bad bad people.
You don't like my solution, but your offer none of your own.
Dave H, Michael, and SteveF can spin the word "killfile" however they like, but the fact remains that the word "killfile" comprises the words "kill" and "file". "Kill", of course, literally means to murder, to slaughter, to terminate with extreme prejudice! And "file", of course, refers to the secret ring binder containing lists of climate "denialists" undesirables which they'll send to their secret Scientific Ninja Inquisitors so that they can enforce their UN-funded Communist agenda!
There can only be one conclusion: the "killfile" Dave H alludes to is a hit list! Remember, the Nazis used to keep a killfile of Jews, the Catholic Inquisitors used to keep a killfile of heretics, and Stalin used to keep a killfile of, well, lots of people. If the True Record of History has taught us anything, it is that a killfile is a thing of unparalleled evil, and we must do all that is in our power to purge the world of this great evil! God Bless the Second Amendment!
> During his [Obama's] campaign and his first year in office, he held to a blind faith in bipartisanship, even as the Republicans voted as a bloc against his legislation. He is, perhaps, ill-suited in these respects for an era of bruising political warfare.
> His advisers have clearly reinforced these inclinations.
Indeed. I've said this before, and I'll say this again: Bipartisanship is not a suicide pact. Stop this "bipartisanship" bullshit right now, Mr. Obama!
It wasn't the insinuation so much as the absurdity.
Come on, it WAS pretty funny.
And, if you feel that people were offended, consider this: what sort of a place would you have to think this was to have people calling out their list of murders on a public blog?
This aint no evangelical anti-abortion site, you know!
I think you were likely the only person who thought anything shady was being insinuated John W, but you weren't to know the whacky ways and evolving expressions of teh intertubes intercourse.
Wow said: "I preferred the ninja manicurists, frank."
Me too, although it did momentarily take me back more years than I care to remember to when steel combs were banned at school. Presumably to prevent some poor unfortunate's hair getting too thorough a mussing.
A'mussin' ??
Lawdy, I do declare I'm turning into Huckleberry Finn.
There is another nice article from Bob Ward over at The Guardian. This time he is exposing some of Andrew Montford's/Bish Hill's inaccuracies, misrepresentations and general delusion:
Another pig-headed argument against the global warming theory: 'There's no such thing as global warming... because global warming mitigation is illegal!'
Well, if I had to call it, I'd say that the Abbott "global warming is crap" conservative coalition has the numbers in the Australian election.
If so, expect no government action at all on anthropogenic climate change for at least three more years.
The Denialati will be happy, but history will mark this as one of the events at a critical juncture, in the narrow window of opportunity, where an apparently educated society condemned generations of it decendants, and of those of the rest of the world, to a future worse than it otherwise need have been.
Oh, and Australia's internet capacity will be sent back to the last century, rather than having an opportunity to actually compete on the global stage.
expect no government action at all on anthropogenic climate change for at least three more years.
Well done Greens. Tony Abbott's victory would never have been possible without your support.
Oh, and Australia's internet capacity will be sent back to the last century, rather than having an opportunity to actually compete on the global stage.
I'd say this will only apply to the country. We can already get NBN speeds in the city if we want them. Of course, country voters are getting what they deserved by supporting Tony Abbott.
Just a thought: In the Australian House of Reps election on August 21, the Greens got 340 votes for every vote received by the Climate Sceptics Party. In the Senate it was 67 to 1 in favour of the Greens.
Now Satellites NOAA-17 and 18 Suffer Calamities
While NOAAâs Nero fiddles âRomeâ continues to burn and the satellite network just keeps on falling apart. After NOAA-16 bit the dust last week NOAA-17 became rated âpoorâ due to âscan motor degradationâ while NOAA-18âs gyroâs are regarded by many now as good as dead. However, these satellites that each cross the U.S. twice per day at twelve-hour intervals are still giving âdirect readoutâ(HRPT or APT) or central processing to customers. So please, NOAA, tell us - is this GIGO still being fed into official climate models?
NOAA-17 appears in even worse condition. On February 12 and 19 2010 NOAA-17 concedes it has â AVHRR Scan Motor Degradationâ with âProduct(s) or Data Impacted.â
Beleaguered NOAA customers have been told, âdirect readout users are going to have to deal with the missing data gaps as best they can.â
On August 9, 2010, NOAA 17 was listed as on âpoorâ with scan motor problems and rising motor currents. NOAA admits, âConstant rephase by the MIRP was causing data dropouts on all the HRPT stream and APT and GAC derivatives. Auto re-phase has now been disabled and the resulting AVHRR products are almost all unusable.â
NOAA continues with tests on â17â with a view to finding a solution. On page 53 we find that NOAA-17 has an inoperable AMSU Instrument. The status for August 17, 2010 was RED (not operational) and NOAA is undertaking âurgent gyro tests on NOAA 18.â For further details see here. More evidence proving NOAA is running a âdegradingâ satellite network can be read here.
Dr. Anderson sums up saying; âIt is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth.â
>*A carbon tax on consumption (not production) would include imports and domestic outputs consumed locally, but exclude exports. It avoids the first-mover disadvantage of imposing a local carbon price in the absence of global action-one of the many issues plaguing the CPRS. A carbon consumption tax could be implemented in Australia through a minor modification of the GST.*
Here's a recent example of what the UK's BBC likes to project as 'balance'.
On the Newsnight program was an item on the floods in Pakistan with the subtext 'could they be blamed on global warming'?
In the blue corner was Dr Ghassem Asrar, who is currently the Director of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) in Geneva, Switzerland. Prior to this position, he served as the Deputy Administrator for Natural Resources and Agricultural Systems with Agricultural Research Service (ARS), of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 2006â2008, after 20 years of service with the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Ghassem served as the chief scientist for the Earth Observing System in the Office of Earth Science at NASA headquarters prior to being named the Associate Administrator for Earth Science in 1998. Ghassem is the recipient of the U.S. Presidential Distinguished Rank Executive Award (2002) and is an elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (2001). He has received numerous awards and honors, including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Goddard Memorial Lecture Medal, NASA Distinguished Leadership Medal and the Space Systems Award from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Ghassem earned graduate degrees in civil engineering and environmental physics from Michigan State University, United States of America.
He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific and technical papers, primarily in the fields of biosphere and atmosphere studies, and has edited several reference books on remote sensing.
And in the red corner, blogger Andrew Montford with a BSc in chemistry, a career in accountancy and who wrote a conspiracy book.
In the interests of balance, Montford was allowed the last word. "I think mankind is affecting the climate but whether it's a little bit or a lot, I think in reality we just don't know".
That royal "we" is a nice touch implying that Montford speaks for us all, when in reality it's to prevent him sounding clueless and saying "I don't know".
>The head of the UN's climate science panel did not abuse his position to enrich himself, according to an independent review of his finances by the accountants KPMG that was published publicly for the first time today.
Adam R,
Is it normal for Australians to disparage politicians in other countries or is it just a 'virility symbol' for you to show your mates?
Thanks Bernhard J (#121), Yes... I might need a new computa with windas an all that or sumthin. Because my postin on this blog has bin a bit selective. Must be sumthin about you smarty pantsez not wanting to know what I may know - do you think ? :-) Surely we 'Deniers' cain't be all that dangerous ? ;-)
The beginning of the end for man made global warming. Thanks to Australian voters.
It will be established within the next three years with global cooling that the theory of man made global warming will get the fate of cold fusion and will result in the end of the fear mongering.
People may find What have Wegman and Said Done Lately to be of interest over at Deep Climate. Folks may have heard of the Wegman report (2006), by Edward Wegman, David Scott, Yasmin Said.
Briefly, for 20 years, Wegman has run the Interface Foundation of North America, mainly to do an (interesting) yearly conference, mostly of statisticians and computer scientists talking about recent work. The last one was June.
I thought he and Said had stopped doing climate anti-science a few years ago, but I was wrong. *After* sending out the 2nd announcement, which had almost all the sessions in detail, April 16, somehow, by mid-June, 2 new sessions magically appeared, organized by Said with Wegman as session chair.. with some names people might recognize:
1
Fred Singer, reusing talk from Heartland#4.
2
*Jeff Kueter (President of the George C. Marshall Institute)
Likely reusing talk from Heartland#3.
*Don Easterbrook (well, Tim wrote of him recently).
Likely reusing talk from Heartland#4.
*Yasmin Said on Climategate, those awful paleo folks, and how more statisticians must be engaged to fix them.
The conference got some financial sponsorship from two sections of the American Statistical Association. They may well have been surprised. So may have most of the members of the Program Committee.
A UK group, the Comino Foundation, is actively spreading climate doubt, even though they were spreading the word on the seriousness of global warming in 2008.
Are they just misguided, or have they been suborned?
Tweedledum and Tweedledee (AKA Putin and Medvedev) are suddenly alarmed about global warming, now that their country is burning down around their ears. That is encouraging, I suppose, but what tune will they sing if Moscow is buried under record snow in January?
Alas, I think we all know the answer.
I reckon the American Statistical Association (ASA) just have to take their lumps on this one. Obviously they must choose somewhat ahead of time which conferences to provide with financial support. Unfortunately, many conferences have fluid agendas, although two new sessions popping up that late in the piece is a bit rich. The ASA decision makers may or may not be unhappy with this turn of events, but then they know who the organisers are so the horse has bolted on this one, I'm afraid.
While Wegman et al may or may not have been sneaky, there are still fair and reasonable actions that may be taken.
Perhaps those with the familiarity of their pet topics could turn up and ask scientifically relevant - and challenging - questions of the speakers? Sharply focussed questions requiring fairly specific answers would make it difficult for the speaker to dodge without appearing to waffle on cluelessly; well, one can hope.
Good to know the Bonn talks are swiftly dealing with the real issues.
And isn't it wonderful that climate change is dominating the Australian election once again, right?
re: #4
Well, people (especially any ASA members) might politely ask ASA if they knew this is what they were getting, and would they sponsor it again next year if such sessions can be expected? Since ASA is not a government organization, they are perfectly free to answer "Yes, it's OK with us" or "We think the conference is overall worthwhile."
Individual Sections of ASA can do what they want, I'd guess.
As a whole, ASA has this, which seems fine.
Anyone who votes for Tony Abbott thoroughly deserves him. I'm reluctant to disappoint them.
George D:
W(h)ither environmental issues?
[e.g. the Murray-Darling Basin, dryland salinity, clearing of native vegetation, unsustainable logging of native forests, unrestrained mining rights &c &c &c ad nauseum].
Chris O'Neill:
Since it's almost impossible to distinguish any valid consequential difference between the "policies" of the Abbott and Gillard clans wrt to environmental issues, I intend to vote Green in any capacity I can (above the line, below the line, ignoring the line, and 2.223546827km off to the side of the line if I have to), simply because it's the only sane alternative left (if I discount the unpredictable and possibly unwholesome merits of the sundry "independent" candiadates). Yes, I am fully aware that you hold the Greens responsible for the failire of the Rudd CPRS, and you may well be proven to be partly correct. But unless and until the Greens are given sufficient representation in both upper and lower houses to make any kind of substantial policy contribution, we're never going to know whether they're worth their salt.
And if the only choice is between Gillard and Abbott, what's there to lose?
Sorry, I should have used sarcasm tags!
It's pretty clear that neither side gives a stuff about any environmental issue - to the extent that it interferes with their key constituencies or economic prescriptions. The Greens of course are decent, but they'll waste all their energy in the next few years dragging the intransigent away from awful positions.
It's now reasonably confirmed that the web site climategate.com is owned by an "Internet opportunities" entrepreneur Mark Fleming:
http://ijish.livejournal.com/16104.html
@10, I'm not sure I entirely agree. Though overall, yes I concede that while Labor are busily stabbing each other in the back, it might end up a "who do you not want as Prime Minister" type of election.
At least Gillard does acknowledge the AGW issue with slightly more honesty than the uber-conservative Abbott, who seeks to actively deceive on it. Mind you, if people prefer something resembling a far-right wing Australian theocracy, Abbott might be the go. (rolleyes)
Let's face it. We rarely get the chance to vote for a perfect government - even if you and I both voted for the same party we're sure to have differing opinions about elements within the stated policies.
If no-one appeals to you, vote for the least worst option. And voting green in the lower house, you still have to state a preference. Once again, take the least worst road.
If you were driving and were forced to take a detour on an unsurfaced road, you'd still prefer that to driving straight off a bridge or a cliff. Not fun, but at least not fatal.
I'm not so sure the Greens are much chop either - their recent ad made absolutely zero mention of any Green issues.
I've always had plenty of respect for Bob Brown, but he doesn't have his party on a tight leash and the rest of the bizarros his party has attracted are constantly straying into Green-irrelevant "social issues".
adelady,
Or stop the car and turn around.
If I had no candidate I thought worthy of my vote I would produce an informal vote. Just because you are compelled to physically turn up at the ballot box doesn't mean you have to actually give anyone your vote.
Voting informal.
It may be an option for you. But I feel it as abandoning my power and letting others whom you don't know and have no reason to trust to determine things for you. Not an option for me.
Tim,
Surely, inserting into a discussion of proxy reliability prior to 1500AD a quote specifically about the 1670s onwards without mentioning the period itself must be the most disingenuous thing ever on the Planet Disingenuous! You gotta watch these pea and thimble guys...
Just inserted this over at Keith's....
We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!
This is one of handful of one-line money quotes pushed around the net, alongside Schneider's 'http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html', John Houghton's 'Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen' and Phil Jones' 'Why should I make the data available to you...?'. It has gained a wide currency, quoted by Montford, Monckton, Tim Ball and many more. An insensitive commentator might observe that the quote was seized upon like crack cocaine by those wishing to spin an anti-climate-science narrative.
The phrase comes to us via David Deming. His claim is that after publishing a piece in Science in line with the concensus, a senior climate scientist assumed that Deming must be a 'Team' player, let slip a key strand of the battle plan to him in a personal email. Rather oddly, Deming deleted the vital evidence, still he felt confident enough to repeat the phrase in testimony to the US Senate.
Andrew Montford certainly likes the quote, and deploys it early on, citing an article in a fringe science publication and writing :-
"This sudden flash of light on a particularly murky shadow of climatological practice is probably unique. Suddenly it was possible to see that the Hughes and Diaz retake on the Medieval Warm Period was not considered enough. The aim was to erase it from the climatological record in its entirety. Although Deming himself did not indentify the email's author, Richard Lindzen of MIT has confirmed that the email was written by Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona. It was evident to anyone who was watching that, in some quarters at least, there was a concerted effort to rewrite the Earth's climate history so that the Medieval Warm Period disappeared."
Only problem is - in one of the illictly-released CRU mails, Overpeck asserts that he had never before heard of Deming, that he had no memory of ever emailing him, that he had no knowledge of ever using the quoted phrase, that he never would use it in the context being ascribed to him, it was bogus and that he found the whole thing rather upsetting. In the absence of the actual mail, the quote thus has the status of uncorroborated hearsay, strongly contested by the alleged quotee. This is not what historians would call a reliable primary source. Such ammunition is just too good to lose, though. Instead of mentioning this bombshell upfront and alongside the quote itself, or even adding a footnote, readers of the book must wait another 400-odd pages before the Overpeck mail is included in a hastily-added chapter on the CRU mails at the very end of the volume.
Judith Curry wrote, "Montfordâs book is a history of science tome, not a journal article. In reviewing it like a journal article or a blog post on climateaudit, Taminoâs review missed the mark, independent of whether his scientific arguments are somehow more âtrueâ than those made by Montford. "
Dr Curry also says the book contains 'an element of spin'. I speculate that, in spinning his anti-science narrative, Montford relaxed the normal standards of honest reporting. An actual science historian would likely discard this quote, or at the least footnote or discuss the dubious provenance. But then there would be scant evidence of 'a concerted effort to rewrite the Earth's climate history'.
And we couldn't have that, could we?
PC
Houghton: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quot…
Schneider: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html
Overpeck http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=868
re: #18 Phil
You might visit Wikipedia HSI talk page, and add some of that Deming/Overpeck stuff at the end of the "RC Review" section. I've done my duty there for a while.
If anyone hasn't seen that discussion, it's a true classic, already having accumulated at least 3 archioves
tamino's post at RC is *not* a reliable source, but the list of those so proposed is ...eclectic.
Hopefully, at some point, it will be a good case study for Wikipedia.
Finally !
[Global Warming 'Denial' App !](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/aug/06/iphone-climate-d…\
Now I can justify a purchase of one of these apple computer things so I can do sum computin and modlin ! :-)
Nah, Billy Bob Hall, you'll never be able to justify the purchase of "one of th[o]se apple computer things so [that you] can do sum computin and modlin", because to do either of those activities one requires a modicum of nouse.
If your history of posting on Deltoid is anything to go by, you are singularly devoid of even a skerrick of any such talent.
Spend your money on a P-ONG unit instead. It's an interactive real-time pseudo-Newtonian kinetic simulator with audio feedback, perfectly suited for one with your particular skill-set.
It'll keep you occupied for weeks.
I can't decide whether Gillard's proposal for a "Citizen's Assembly on climate change" is a stroke of political brilliance, or reason for despair.
I mean, what better way to "decide" a complex scientific issue than with a panel of laypeople?
> ...a stroke of political brilliance, or reason for despair.
I frequently find the two to be not mutually exclusive :-(
Taking the Pollyanna view of the citizens' bunfest, I'm hoping that this will allow some discussion of tax and transfer.
Then we might have some arguments about whether to take one of 2 courses of action rather than choosing between ETS and nothing. Remember, the senate won't change until next July regardless of the election result. So the prospect of getting any climate change related legislation through before then is not very positive.
>*I can't decide whether Gillard's proposal for a "Citizen's Assembly on climate change" is a stroke of political brilliance, or reason for despair.*
I'm a fan of direct democracy, and in many circumstances would favour a citizen assembly, but I haven't heard enough about the questions to be considered and the way the product will be used by government. My guess is that is will be just another input like the Garnaut review. (From the public reaction so far I think the ideas is dead).
To be valid a Citizen Assembly should not be used to bring down a statement on the science, rather it should be used to bring down a statement on the ethical implications of AGW and statement level of cost the "informed" citizens are prepared to pay to mitigate risks.
Citizen juries have some similarity with Athenian democracy were decision makers in key position were citizens temporarily in the position rather than specialist judges. The thinking was that they are more representative and less corrupted than the machinery and power involved in self interested wealth dominated politics.
But in this situation any decision from a CA still needs the go ahead from our current government. Hence I fear its just buying time. But buying time is better than going backwards.
V. infernalis,
Once alerted to the scientific case that climate change is happening and why, and how we can stop it, it is really up to us to decide whether we want to do something about it now or put up with the consequences.
I think that this part of the debate is the only one that is legitimately open to discussion, since it is a moral issue and not a scientific one. "Do we have the right to put people who live in vulnerable areas through the suffering they will endure if we do nothing?", versus "Is it convenient for my costs to go up?"
I have to say I am an unabashed pessimist seeing the radical shift on public opinion once the hip pocket seemed in imminent danger of being affected...
"I have to say I am an unabashed pessimist seeing the radical shift on public opinion once the hip pocket seemed in imminent danger of being affected..."
I'm not an unabashed optimist, but I do think that this really comes down to the issue of leadership. You don't even need a charismatic leader, just one who brings out the best in people rather than appealing to the worst.
And it's not just appealing. It's about emphasis. If you constantly mention the negative, then people first think of the negative. If you talk about the good, better, best, people first consider those rather than the bad, worse, worst.
Of course, the main thing is to make sure that you say it's doable. Not that you have to be able to solve all problems all at once, but that every single thing you do can be chosen on the better rather than the worse trajectory. And if you can, one way or another, tap into people's generosity and kindness rather than selfishness and distaste you're on a winner.
SteveC:
You've convinced me. I will vote for Abbott. It's not just the people who vote for him anyway who thoroughly deserve him but the Greens as well. They need some reminding of Abbott's level of denialism and just won't see it unless he is in power.
>*And it's not just appealing. It's about emphasis. If you constantly mention the negative, then people first think of the negative. If you talk about the good, better, best, people first consider those rather than the bad, worse, worst.*
Very good point, I fell into the trap of talking about the "*level of cost the "informed" citizens are prepared to pay to mitigate risks*. Good policy will reduce our emission and our standard of living.
Yet Nordic nations already have green taxes and a higher standard of living than in Australia.
>*It's not just the people who vote for him anyway who thoroughly deserve him but the Greens as well.*
Unlike Chris O'Neill I won't be telling blog readers not to vote for the Greens. Just so reader know that not everyone here endorses Chris O'Neill's political pitch.
Wow. Tamino posts the most beautiful correlation [here.](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/urban-wet-island/#comments) Humidity anomalies for the last thirty years overlaid with the GISS temperature anomaly chart (scaled). Humidity changes exactly track temperature changes - both remorselessly upward. Yet another vindication of the GISS record. All those good Watts Brigade people taking pictures of thermometers next to air conditioners really are wasting their time.
Spam attacks...
Thought people might like to know that an article about John Abraham I published on my blog is being targeted by spammers, probably a botnet.
I am getting dubiuous 'drugs' related comments on the article. No other post on the blog is being targeted.
Wonder if anyone else is having the same problem?
Unless you want your vote to be worthless, you'll put one major party ahead of the other regardless of who you put first. (Australia has a preferential voting system for those who don't know). A few people need a lesson in what a denialist government is like, not to mention all of Abbott's other "qualities".
Chris O'Neill is correct on non-equivolence in climate of the effect of a preferential vote going to Labor or Coalition.
In addition to various levels of inaction percieved with either party, a vote for the Coalition will be spun by deniers (Bolt, Akerman, The Oz Editor) as a mandate for the science of "climate change is crap". It was the issue of price on carbon that was the drive behind the change in liberal leadership. A vote for Abbott is a huge backward step on climate.
Chris is also correct about our perferentail voting system. It gives Australians the chance to indicate a policy direction they prefer even if its not offered by either of the major parties.
Quiggen has a [comment on this](http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/07/29/splitting-the-prog…).
The opposite really shut them up after the last election.
I thought the Greens' position was it made very little difference which major party was in government.
For example:
20 Billy Bob,
I see that that app, 'Our Climate' is not free. If it were, I'd have added it to my iPhone as it's bound be good for a laugh, but the authors are not getting a single penny from me.
If you are under the impression that iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads are the main tools used for "computin and modlin", your world is even stranger than I thought.
Chris @36
You quote someone else, not I.
BTW I speak on my own behalf, not as spokesperson for a Labor or the Greens.
Chris @35, you might note these points are not mutually exclusive:
>*In addition to various levels of inaction percieved with either party, a vote for the Coalition [...] A vote for Abbott is a huge backward step on climate.*
I.e. despite labor promising little and [choking in the eyes of some](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labors-great-climate-c…), the Coalition are worse.
McIntyre has pointed out at CA that UEA was unable to provide email attachments in response to his FOI requests.
Predictably the first few comments are indignant about lying, avoidance, unresponsiveness, etc. etc.
My first thought (having dealt with the IT departments of several British universities) was that many institutions automatically junk attachments from emails older than a few months. That may not be what's happened in this case, of course, and the FOI response doesn't actually clarify this - but I'd be surprised because in my experience its a pretty standard practice.
I didn't say I was. Just pointing out an example of someone who needs a lesson in what difference a real denialist government makes.
TS @37
>I see that that app, 'Our Climate' is not free. If it were, I'd have added it to my iPhone as it's bound be good for a laugh, but the authors are not getting a single penny from me.
I think it highly unlikely the app will make much money. You're right about it being good for a laugh, it sounds pretty atrocious from John Cook's description! He says it has
>contributors including notable sceptics such as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and even the UK's own Lord Christopher Monckton.
But they probably know little of their 'contributions', the authors have likely just used some of their arguments.
I noticed in the comments at the Gruaniad that everyone's favourite phyisicist/sociopath Lubos showed up. He said:
>This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
Oops. Never mind.
I hope McI has paid for that work to be done, rather than expanding the cost of the UEA for taxpayers and students in the UK, the sleazy leech.
Somewhat buried in the Monckton vs. Scott Mandia thread, here is a sign that the HoL is finally reacting to the continous false claims of membership by the Laird.
http://friendsofginandtonic.org/files/867576d3dfe135ff8dcd26715bd86ac5-…
Politics has certainly come a long way since 2007 now that the Australian Liberal party can run elections ads promising "no carbon tax". Can you imagine what would have happened if they had done that back in 2007? That would have been electoral poison. But now? Ha.
>*Liberal party can run elections ads promising "no carbon tax".*
The Coalition are trying to have it both ways. They claim they will [reduce carbon emissions](http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Environment.aspx), but despise a price signal.
Despite claiming to have policies to address AGW, the Coalition either don't believe in their prosposed actions or don't belive that market mechanisms are more effiecnt than government central planning.
[This survey](http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5703) might give a clue as to which is the case.
>*Liberal party can run elections ads promising "no carbon tax".*
Rather than taxing actvity that is both damaging and unsustainable the Coalition prefered to have a great big [tax everything](http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/if-its-tax-reform-you-want-tr…).
>*Liberal party can run elections ads promising "no carbon tax".*
If a carbon tax is so bad why can't Abbott critique it with real rather than [spurious figures](http://www.apo.org.au/commentary/tony-abbott-and-carbon-taxes)?
>A striking example is the free pass that has been given to Tony Abbott on his repeated claim that a $40/tonne tax on carbon would âdouble the price of electricity, on top of recent 35 per cent increasesâ. Five minutes with a calculator and a recent electricity bill would have shown any reporter who bothered to check that this claim is nonsense...
The ABC [screened a documentary tonight](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/populationpuzzle/video.html#top) featuring Dick Smith discussing the issue of Australia's inexorable population increase.
There was a [special episode of Q&A](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2981403.htm) afterward.
What was starkly apparent was that there were two distinct views on the matter: that taken by the realists who understand about limits to growth (fi! not the Club of Rome?!); and that taken by those who believe that growth can continue forever, that soils, water, fuels and other resources are infinite, and that it is economically sound to build an economy on a ponzi scheme based on stealing other countries' skilled workers.
Sadly, it seems that some of our country's wealthiest businessfolk can't see past their noses when it comes to long-term economic sustainability. (As an aside, it just goes to show that one doesn't need to be intelligent to succeed in business, just cunning.)
Sadly, too, some folk continue to confuse a desire to avoid overpopulation with racism, even after the problem is explained to them.
It never ceases to astonish me how disparate are the views between those with a scientific interest, and many of those with a business interest. Still, it's definitely pushed the matter into the spotlight, and I hope that Australia might actually proceed in a mature manner to discuss the elephant that has been growing ever bigger in its corner of the room.
I wonder if such maturity will be demonstrated, in every case, in response to this post?
Chris O'Neill @ 40:
Oh joy, someone else who thinks I need to be taught a lesson. Take a numbered ticket and join the queue.
Sarcasm aside, what strikes me about your posts is that despite an open invitation to point out some positive, cogent and compelling reasons why I (and presumably others) should vote ALP, the only one you can come up with is that a vote for the ALP is a vote against the Coalition. But then given the absence of any real policy commitment to acting on climate change (and environmental issues more broadly) from the ALP that's not surprising. For all that the Coalition is not much more than a taxpayer-funded home for climate change "sceptics", any differences in action on climate change after 3 more years of the ALP will be so slight as to be indiscernible. Gillard's approach to tackling climate change is a policy vacuum (unless you count 150 hand-picked idiots savant to populate yet another committee no-one needs as policy), though it's a pity the "Cash for Clunkers" scheme wasn't running when Rudd & Wong put up their ETS - maybe we could have traded it in for something that polluted less.
Your comment @44....
...is correct but is also telling, since you conveniently paint only part of the picture. Were it not for the unwarranted, unholy cock-up the Rudd government made of its obvious mandate to act on climate change (an ETS hardly anybody outside the ALP wanted), we wouldn't be where we are now - no viable ETS, and a "choice" of inaction on climate change in two flavours:
1. climate change "scepticism" (with a lick of green paint that's so fresh it's still wet) from the Coalition; or
2. delay from the ALP (with a few sops thrown in to make it look like they're doing something).
Hobson's Choice I think it's called.
In History, Nations with limited manpower are frequently extinguished by Nations that have more.
An Australia that limits itself to a population of 25,000,000 will be unable to field the army necessary to defend itself from a neighbouring islamic state with a population of 500,000,000. In addition, the limited tax base would prevent us from acquiring a competitive quantity of high-tech military hardware.
Of course, some people choose to believe that History has stopped and Australia will never be on the receiving end of the neo-imperial aspirations of a predatory religious philosophy which openly advocates murder, violence, contempt for secular Law, and the extinction of competing cultures.
We need an immigration policy tailored to the reality of the world we live in, not to the day-dreams of the ivory-tower-dwellers.
>*In History, Nations with limited manpower are frequently extinguished by Nations that have more.*
In history, and in repeatable experiments, organisms that exceed their environment's carry capacity experience mass death. (including pressure to invade neighbors).
A recipe to accelerate mass death is increase population and consumption, building a war machine can aid the rise in consumption.
>*In History, Nations with limited manpower are frequently extinguished by Nations that have more.*
Using this as an argument for population growth means that we need a population race. But a population race increased the pressure towards war. Its thus a circular argument.
We'd be better off building a lasting strong mutually beneficial relationship with our neighbors. And rejecting past policies support for military coups and the resulting [political genocide that followed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_to_the_New_Order).
SteveC:
You still don't get it and perhaps you never will. The government consists of both houses of parliament.
By the way, I'm not interested in your opinion of cogent and compelling reasons for voting for anyone, I just pointed out an example of someone who thinks it makes very little difference on environmental issues which major party is in power.
Also by the way:
It no ETS AT ALL. Try to get the facts right.
Vince Whirlwind:
That's right, Australia needs a population of 500,000,000.
Another likely recipe to accelerate mass death is to continue â¥BAU, as changed precipitation patterns and rising sea levels adversely affect the availability in space and time of potable water resources.
Chris O'Neill:
You don't say...
My mistake, I'd thought you were interested in debating an important issue.
I stand corrected and will endeavour to state the case correctly again in 3 years' time, when we still won't have one.
Vince Whirlwind @ 50 (August 12, 2010 6:47 PM):
I trust that post is an attempt at parody...
SteveC, while I don't personally advocate Australia push for a mega-population, a proper analysis considers these things.
Your response would seem to indicate that you are in the "History has stopped" camp. In that respect, you resemble the climate-denialists who can't bring themselves to worry about the long-term effects of their actions today.
And Jakerman, Australia (along with all "Western" nations, China, and a few others) already have or can easily control our populations at sustainable levels. This is of not much use if other large and populous nations continue with unrestricted population growth. It's even more dangerous when those populations are under the sway of a dangerous and violently expansionist politico-religious philosophy.
A one-sided halt to population growth on our part necessarily means that in the fullness of time, nations with unrestricted growth will eventually and inevitably decide to take our "under-utilised" resources by force. With an aged population supported by a small taxbase, we will not be able to resist the inexorable tide of History.
I believe Neville Chamberlain was a fan of the "build strong relationships" pipe-dream. It doesn't work when you're dealing with a force you cannot control. In the long term, for a Nation to remain a Nation, it must have a strong economy, an effective military, and a socially cohesive society. I believe it is the function of National government to make decisions in the best interest of the Nation.
>*And Jakerman, Australia (along with all "Western" nations, China, and a few others) already have or can easily control our populations at sustainable levels. This is of not much use if other large and populous nations continue with unrestricted population growth.*
Is your proposed solution to global over population,to increase our population? I would have though doing everything we can to promote human rights (especailly womens rights) and education would be a better solution.
>*It's even more dangerous when those populations are under the sway of a dangerous and violently expansionist politico-religious philosophy.*
Indosenia is not under the sway of "expansionist politico-religious philosophy", but extremists religious philosophy is a growing concern. It grew as [a response injustice](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/open_thread_52.php#comment-2722…) of intervention and suppression supported by westerners trying to kill another percieved threat.
Just like indigenous support for extreamists like the Taliban is growing the more westerners try to pacify extremists via projection of force.
>*A one-sided halt to population growth on our part necessarily means that in the fullness of time, nations with unrestricted growth will eventually and inevitably decide to take our "under-utilised" resources by force.*
A one sided view that produces zero solution. For a multisided view you need to understand the view the perspetive of our neighbors. You need to consider why our neighbour have such large population and what global incentives will work to provide feedback mechanisms in time to prevent ecological collapse.
>*I believe Neville Chamberlain was a fan of the "build strong relationships" pipe-dream. It doesn't work when you're dealing with a force you cannot control.*
Fail via Godwins law. Indonisia are not annexing anyone, they are not in a threatening mode of miliatary expansion. They are dealing with small section of internal fundamentalist. People pushing neo cold war thinking creates the failed polices that strengthen support for these loons.
Vince @ 58:
Any "proper analysis" considers the impacts of any significant population increase (including the social environmental costs, which is what jakerman has been trying to drive into your head).
Your post appeared to indicate an acute bout of reactionary xenophobia.
The Balinese are going to take up arms and invade us? Really??
This has been an advertisement on behalf of the Populate or Perish Party. Spoken by Vince Whirlwind, authorised by the ghost of the late John Curtin.
>*Your response would seem to indicate that you are in the "History has stopped" camp*
Perhaps SC would prefer to name his own camp? He might chose the camp called "Validated by both History and Science".
>*In history, and in repeatable experiments, organisms that exceed their environment's carry capacity experience mass death. (including pressure to invade neighbors).*
>*A recipe to accelerate mass death is increase population and consumption, building a war machine can aid the rise in consumption.*
Interesting that some people leap to write off as "reactionary xeonophobia" the completely crazy idea that Nations periodically fall under the sway of militarists and invade their neighbours.
Looks like Denial to me!
And Jakerman - go to west Papua and then tell us about our "friendly neighbours" who aren't annexing anybody but regularly erase entire villages using military force.
Indonesia is a neo-colonial empire which actively seeks to exterminate diversity of culture, ethnicity and opinion.
"It's all america's fault from the 1960's" is pointless recrimination, not analysis.
Persecution and murder of people who reject islam is a daily occurrence in Indonesia. And that's a "moderate" islamic country. With Wahhabism on the up-and-up thanks to the oil industry, Indonesia is steadily moving towards a becoming our local Saudi Arabia. The Vice Police are already out, forcing women to cover-up and stay indoors.
45 years of turning a pragmatic blind eye to the nastiness to our North has seen Indonesia slide ever closer to the islamic dictatorship it will inevitably become.
As Neville Chamberlain proved, appeasement isn't a productive strategy and wishing away military solutions doesn't make them go away.
>*45 years of turning a pragmatic blind eye to the nastiness to our North has seen Indonesia slide ever closer to the islamic dictatorship it will inevitably become.*
Interesting spin, so you ignore [western intervtion](http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/indo3-j21.shtml) to support Suharto resulting in this:
>*The purging of two secularist parties, the Nationalists and the Communists, had a notable side effect of giving greater space for the development of Islamism in Indonesia. [...]It widely believed by observers of Indonesian history and politics that Suharto's forces whipped up anti-Communist sentiment in part by exploiting conservative Muslims' fears of "godless" Communism to instigate a jihad against the leftists.*
>*As for more mainstream groups, conservative Islamic groups (called the "Central Axis") became a prop of the regime for some time after the change of regime. Liberal Islamic groups, on the other hand, are believed to have defected during the wave of protests before the Indonesian Revolution of 1998.*
[Here is](http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pilger_John/Suharto_US_Killer.html) some of your "*45 years of turning a pragmatic blind eye to the nastiness to our North*:
>*the British Department of Trade provided almost a billion pounds worth of so-called soft loans, which allowed Suharto buy Hawk fighter bombers. The British taxpayer paid the bill for aircraft that dive-bombed East Timorese villages, and the arms industry reaped the profits. However, the Australians distinguished themselves as the most obsequious. In an infamous cable to Canberra, Richard Woolcott, Australia's ambassador to Jakarta, who had been forewarned about Suharto's invasion of East Timor, wrote: "What Indonesia now looks to from Australia . . . is some understanding of their attitude and possible action to assist public understanding in Australia. . . "*
You again offer no solution to the identified problem of popualtion or consumption, you again fail via Godwins law.
So if you want to turn away for the science an turn this into an 'Islamist are wrecking the world' argument please answer this, what is driving the support for Islamic fundamentalists? What are they reacting to? An answer please.
Alternatively please offer your soltion to problem under discussion, over population.
Uh, in other news, I saw an ad on TV for the Climate Sceptics Party last night. It was everything you would expect from such a reasonable, well-balanced group of people, and it did not at all make me laugh out loud.
Fortunately, they seem to have hired someone who knows how to work those new-fangled intertubes, so you can see it too!
>*So if you want to turn [...] this into an 'Islamist are wrecking the world' argument please answer this, what is driving the support for Islamic fundamentalists? What are they reacting to? An answer please.*
Vince, no answer, let me give you [a clue](http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/rawagallery.php?mghash=dc96d38caecd6694…). And [this](http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/I…).
Do you think given the "West's' support for the war on Islamic contries, that an Austrlia's muscling up with military buildup would increase or decrease the standing of Islamic Fundamentalists in our north?
I wonder if they would have Hawkes invoke Nevil Chamberlin and say "we can appease Australia when must attck them so they will not attack us."
>*And Jakerman - go to west Papua and then tell us about our "friendly neighbours" who aren't annexing anybody but regularly erase entire villages using military force.*
Why do you need to concoct spurios quotes of "friendly neighbours"?
I support West Papuan independence & despise the violent attacks by miltiary style force. Yet Indonesia in the process overseeing the ceeding of West Papau to an semi independent provence. This is a gradual reversal of the Dutch Colonial aquisition. It is very differnt [to this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement).
But since you invoked Hitler, you should also consider the environemnt that enable Hilter to suceed. You might want to compare that to the environment that increased support for terrible abusers.
>*Indonesia is a neo-colonial empire which actively seeks to exterminate diversity of culture, ethnicity and opinion.*
Indonesia is diversity. The question is in what environement do the tolerent an peaceful segments florish and in which does the opposite occur?
>*"It's all america's fault from the 1960's" is pointless recrimination, not analysis.*
Why the need to fabricate a false quote? Why not address the point that our interventions have played a part in [supporting Suharto](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB242/index.htm)? And that Suharto committed mass murder to purge political dissent? And those action involved both:
a) playing to Islamic fanatics, and:
b) creating a vacumme which was partially filled by islamics fanatics?
>*Persecution and murder of people who reject islam is a daily occurrence in Indonesia. And that's a "moderate" islamic country. With Wahhabism on the up-and-up thanks to the oil industry, Indonesia is steadily moving towards a becoming our local Saudi Arabia. The Vice Police are already out, forcing women to cover-up and stay indoors.*
Please refer to above:
>*Indonesia is diversity. The question is in what environement do the tolerent an peaceful segments florish and in which does the opposite occur?*
[Vince](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/open_thread_52.php#comment-2722…):
As General Peter Cosgrove said (and if he doesn't have a clue, no-one does), doubling Australia's population to expand our military forces is completely useless. Heck, even quadrulpling our population wouldn't offer any significant deterent to a determined invader if their own population was in the order of hundreds of millions of people. All the more so if they moved with conscripted as well as with enlisted soldiers... think about the average Australian's reluctance to enlist, let alone to accept conscription!
Having said that, I have no ivory-tower illusion myself that once Peak Oil/Coal really starts to bite, and/or when AGW alters global productivity sufficiently to make irresistible the snaffling of another country's goodies, nations won't start eyeing-off former allies' resources, and taking them by force.
And as Cosgrove and others have said, the strategy in this case is to have the political relationships and the technology to present a formidable resistance. As much as I personally detest nuclear weaponry for example, an Australia with such would present a different prospect than one without. Of course, if the rest of South-East Asia was so armed, we'd then be living under the fear of a hair-trigger mutual anhihilation, but at least your fears of disproportionate manpower would be moot...
The thing is, where in the past the might of numbers has won out in military encounters, to argue for such in the future is to miss the point of the cause of much conflict in the the first place - the ever-growing desire for more resources. At some point in the human story we need to eschew what is really a painting-over the-rust approach to defence. And we're at the point where the clunker is being held together with paint...
To repeat, 50 million or a hundred million Australians wouldn't deter 500 SE Asians if their governments decided that they wanted a piece of us, and it certainly wouldn't deter 1.5 billion Chinese if the political milieu in 40 or 50 years time was such that walking into the country was an attractive option.
However, even 30 million Australians living at the current level of affluence will eventually grind the ancient, nutrient poor ecosystems of the country into the dust. We've paved over much of our best farmland; and acidified, and/or salinated and/or de-topsoiled a lot of the rest. We've already strained the limits of many water catchments beyond their sustainable cpapcities for providing water, and fanciful ideas of piping the Ord from west to east are science-fiction, pie-in-the-sky wet dreams of developers, who typically make like a [wombat](http://i34.tinypic.com/2vwu5nd.jpg) in any case.
Whatever deterent 50 million Australians might actually offer against a future aggressive neighbour would be transitory as alliances, technologies and other populations change, and within a generation or two our decendents would find themselves in a war against their own environment as its resilience finally collapses.
Whether it's Nature's taxman, ferryman, piper or whatever, the invoice will come, and payment will be exacted one way or another. Using a population Ponzi scheme isn't going to get Australia out of the challenges that it faces.
I can't find anything to disagree with in what you have written, Bernard, in contrast to the lefty-loopy non-analysis Jakerman gives us - can anybody explain how Indonesia will ever give "independence" to their biggest single source of government revenue? Another starry-eyed bit of lefty self-delusion.
East Timor happened: comprehensive mass-murder and systematic rape to eliminate an ethnic minority while the lefties desperately tried to pretend Indonesia was our friend and closed their eyes to the genuine refugees arriving here escaping from Indonesian persecution. A *majority* of women and girls aged 10 and over during the occupation were raped by the Indonesian military. Normally, lefties pretend to care about this sort of thing. And normally the lefties are delighted to recognise when religion informs this kind of behaviour.
I do think it's worth adding that a nuclear deterrent is ineffective against the mentality that drives a suicide bomber and that our first line of defence is to defend the coastline, a significant consideration in the minds of many Australians which could soon deliver power to an otherwise extremely unpalatable Tony Abbott.
Vince,
East Timor happened because the U.S. and U.K. gave the green light for it to happen. Suharto would not have invaded East Timor for a second in 1976 if then U.S. president Gerald Ford had told him then that the U.S. had 'no interest in the internal affairs of Indonesia' when the two leaders met in Washington and Suharto hinted at his wish to invade East Timor. Furthermore, the U.S. and U.K. continued to arm and support this mass murderer virtually to the very end of his rule. The U.K. sold him fighter aircraft under the cover of the Official Secrets Act that were used to strafe villages in East Timor and in full knowledge that that was how they were going to be used. Paul Wolfowitz, who spent many years as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia and defended Suharto throughout his time there, lamented Suharto's ousting as late as 2002. The only reason Suharto was deposed was because the U.S. pulled the plug and Clinton said 'the game's up' in 1998 when it was clear that Suharto had to go; this was just three years after a senior Clinton official called Suharto 'our kind of guy'. This shows that the U.S. could have ousted Suharto at any time during the preceding 22 years, and as JAkerman correctgly points out, it was the U.S., U.K. and Australia who helped Suharto into power in 1966. Mark Curtis (in 'Web of Deceit') and John Pilger (in 'The New Rulers of the World') have made excellent accounts of the coup ousting Sukarno and the role played by these countries in facilitating it.
I was wondering if the nuclear deterrent you talk about also works against powerful states intent on expansion; the only country that has not ruled out first use is the United States, who have threatened its use against Iran. I think your rant against 'lefties' is therefore misguided; so-called liberals made the war in Iraq possible, and many at the moment are keeping silent as the U.S. and Israel vamp up their rhetoric against Iran. The so-called liberal press in America is hardly that; read the NY Times and Washington Post and you find that many of their articles on foreign policy appear to be more like Pentagon or State Department Press releases. The recent Wiki-leaks revelations re: the Afghan war has damaged their credibility somewhat, but even now the Iraq War has been packaged as a 'victory' and the same is being said of the endgame in Afghanistan, which is in reality all but lost.
Vince Whirlwind @68 (August 13, 2010 4:51 AM):
I can't quite believe that anyone with any conscience could type this with a straight face...
... and not hang their head in shame. That you neglect to provide a single skerrick of evidence to support your revoltingly snide attempt to link those whose political opinions you don't like with the rape of Indonesian women and girls says something, if only I could be bothered to waste the time figuring out what it is.
And for the record, if anyone calling themselves a "lefty" had written such similarly baseless and execrable bile about anyone who espoused "right-wing" politics, I'd be equally appalled.
>*the lefty-loopy non-analysis Jakerman gives us*
I'm used to finding denialist give the same empty abuse as a substitute to substance when they can't answer the questions.
Lets recap Vince's position: Vince wants to increase population. Why? to protect us from Indonesia. How? By consuming our resources faster they won't be there to tempt Indonesia.
He also is scared of Islamic fundamentalist, So scared that he likens Indonesia to Nazi Germany. As such we should hasten a military buildup against another Islamic threat. We should prepare for a third war with Islamic nations at once.
Vince is not prepared to say what is driving the growing support for Islamic fundamentalists. I wonder why? I also wonder why Vince would rather dish out empty abuse rather than address this key question:
>*Indonesia is diversity. The question is in what environement do the tolerent an peaceful segments florish and in which does the opposite occur?*
To some extent I do sympathise with Vince's stance on a possible future Indonesian threat to Australia, especially as it has demonstrated form: It took a lot of work to prise Timor from its fingers, and I doubt that they will release their grip on Papua any time soon without significant political coersion.
However, let us not think that Western countries are in any way without stain. It was only 7 years ago that Australia joined the USA and the UK, amongst other willing allies, in an illegal invasion of a sovereign state. As I and many others have commented, had Iraq's major resource been broccoli it is doubtful that there would have been any war in the first place...
But all this distracts from the subject of what size population Australia and its ecosystems can support without loss of chunks of its biodiversity, of its ecosystem services, and of its future citizens' quality of life.
On a different matter entirely, this time next week will mark the first anniversary of [Wormtongue's appearance on Deltoid](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). It's surprising, really, how much new ignorance he has accumulated in the space of twelve months. He gives PhDs - or rather, the process by which some institutions allow them to be handed out - a bad name.
Bernard, one of the major reasons (second probably only to the idiot in charge at the time) was that the west and especially "The Leader Of The Free World" couldn't give two shits for East Timor.
Georgia was invaded but the people who did that didn't consider that Russia WOULD care.
Same for Malvinas.
Or Iraq, possibly (Junior getting back at those eye-rabs for how they treated papa).
> The recent Wiki-leaks revelations re: the Afghan war has damaged their credibility somewhat, but even now the Iraq War has been packaged as a 'victory' and the same is being said of the endgame in Afghanistan, which is in reality all but lost.
While on the subject: what does it mean when, even after the leaking of the Afghan War Diary and the publishing of the Top Secret America journalism piece, there's still close to zero action or activism in cleaning up the mess that's the US military-industrial complex?
Yeah, yeah, we keep talking about how the media aren't doing their job, but now, even when the media start reporting something useful, still nothing is happening. The US's screwed; the world's screwed.
SteveC:
Then leave out the blame-shifting.
You don't say.
Which is what the Greens preferred.
http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/29%20March%20Salmon%20response.pdf
> > Q: What material (if any) beyond e-mails was contained on the CRUBAK3 server [in CRU] and may thus have been subject to unauthorised disclosure?
> First, please could you amend the notes to use the correct name CRUBACK3. This is not really a problem as there is no ambiguity, but I thought it best to be precise.
> The entire "C:" partition of a Windows PC, or the "Users" directory of a Mac, or the "/home" directory of a Linux PC would be backed up, with certain exceptions: some Windows system files and directories were ignored (pagefile.sys, hiberfil.sys, RECYCLER, System Volume Information, Temporary Internet Files) and two directories intended for storing data that did not need backing up (scratch, static). In addition, specific directories could be excluded where the size would overwhelm the server.
jakerman@63
Interesting spin, so you ignore western intervtion to support Suharto
There's blame on all sides: the labour movement and the extreme left wing were happy to agitate violently against the Dutch presence in West Papua, not so much on the Indonesian annexation of the same...
>*There's blame on all sides*
Indeed, there are multiple lessons to take away, including:
a) We should support information sharing such that activists pay attention to injustice that gain little attention, and;
b) We should recognize that our enabling for Suharto' coup (intellegence support, kill lists, military arms support, provision of diplomatic coverage) had the effect of establishing a patter of power and model of intervention that promoted what we fear (Islamic fundamentalism) and promoted what we despise (a pattern of military style death purges).
We should use this understanding to inform our relations with Indonesia, together with another key question [I nominated](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/open_thread_52.php#comment-2723…).
[Tom Scott](http://www.tomscott.com/warnings/) has some fancy innovative warning signs for newspaper articles. This should be adopted everywhere - a Jonathan Leake label would already be a great help!
I think some people are missing the point - on the question of analysing future threats to Australia, it really doesn't matter who gave the green light to Indonesia to invade East Timor, the fact is that Indonesia did invade, just as they invaded West Papua, and just as they continue to impose their corrupt militaristic (and increasingly islamicist) rule over other areas of their far-flung neo-colonialist empire.
When a future leader of a superpower says "we have no interest in Australia", how do we defend ourselves if our Nation consists of 20,000,000 old-age pensioners, no manpower to build an army from and no taxbase from which to equip them?
The fans of appeasement display their true colours with rubbish like "Lets recap Vince's position: Vince wants to increase population".
I've given no such opinion and you should be ashamed of such shallow argumentation.
I'm asking you to get out of denial and recognise that threats to Australia's existence will exist and proposing you come up with some sort of argument on how we can ensure our survival in the face of bigger, badder countries with which to oppose those whose argument consists of "let's stick with the philosophy of never-ending growth as the fundamental to our economy".
So far, "If we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us" seems to be the lefty argument and it is a million miles away from being a grown-up strategy for protecting our Nation's long-term security interests.
Vince, I simply do not understand how increasing the Oz population could address your concerns with bigger neighbours - Indonesia's not the only one.
We double and redouble and where are we, 90 million (thirsty) souls. And what has happened to the populations of other countries in the region in the meantime? Even if they stabilise they'll still be much, much bigger than us.
We are resource rich only in what's under the ground. On the surface we have thin exhausted soils in all but a couple of places, added to uncertain or erratic water supply which is only going to get more difficult to manage with increasing population.
>*The fans of appeasement display their true colours with rubbish like "Lets recap Vince's position: Vince wants to increase population".*
Funny how you call me a fan of appeasement, again its yet other bogus claim or your. This is at least the third time your set up a strawman to knock down Vince.
So Vince dishes out empty abuse while also resorting to making up my position. I note he also keep dodging the [vital question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/open_thread_52.php#comment-2723…)
Now pery tell me how I misrepresented your preference to increase population? Here is a reminder:
>*An Australia that limits itself to a population of 25,000,000 will be unable to field the army necessary to defend itself from a neighbouring islamic state with a population of 500,000,000. In addition, the limited tax base would prevent us from acquiring a competitive quantity of high-tech military hardware.*
>*I'm asking you to get out of denial and recognise that threats to Australia's existence will exist and proposing you come up with some sort of argument on how we can ensure our survival in the face of bigger, badder countries with which to oppose those whose argument consists of "let's stick with the philosophy of never-ending growth as the fundamental to our economy".*
That's funny Vince, cos I have been proposing vital questions that you have been avoiding. I have also provided contextual backgroud and lessons learned from history. I have Included assessment of ecological carrying capacity, and encouraged you to look beyond a one sided view of the situation.
But now your latest claims is that all I've come up with is:
>*If we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us*
I don't recall stating this was my solution. Perhaps you came to the conclusion that this interrelationship was essential given the answer to [the question that you keep avoiding](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/open_thread_52.php#comment-2723…).
Well Vince, though you make a dismal caricature of the complex reasoning, even your caricature of my argument stands up a lot better than your argument that unless we increase our population we'll have resource which will tempt bad bad people.
You don't like my solution, but your offer none of your own.
Off-topic continuation of the McShane and Wyner thread:
Dave H, Michael, and SteveF can spin the word "killfile" however they like, but the fact remains that the word "killfile" comprises the words "kill" and "file". "Kill", of course, literally means to murder, to slaughter, to terminate with extreme prejudice! And "file", of course, refers to the secret ring binder containing lists of climate "denialists" undesirables which they'll send to their secret Scientific Ninja Inquisitors so that they can enforce their UN-funded Communist agenda!
There can only be one conclusion: the "killfile" Dave H alludes to is a hit list! Remember, the Nazis used to keep a killfile of Jews, the Catholic Inquisitors used to keep a killfile of heretics, and Stalin used to keep a killfile of, well, lots of people. If the True Record of History has taught us anything, it is that a killfile is a thing of unparalleled evil, and we must do all that is in our power to purge the world of this great evil! God Bless the Second Amendment!
Via Climate Progress: The Unnecessary Fall of Barack Obama:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/16/tnr-the-unnecessary-fall-of-barac…
> During his [Obama's] campaign and his first year in office, he held to a blind faith in bipartisanship, even as the Republicans voted as a bloc against his legislation. He is, perhaps, ill-suited in these respects for an era of bruising political warfare.
> His advisers have clearly reinforced these inclinations.
Indeed. I've said this before, and I'll say this again: Bipartisanship is not a suicide pact. Stop this "bipartisanship" bullshit right now, Mr. Obama!
I preferred the ninja manicurists, frank.
:-(
Dave H,
Regarding my comment to you on M & W thread here at Deltoid.
I did not know what a killist was when you mentioned it.
I apologize for insinuating anything toward you.
John
It wasn't the insinuation so much as the absurdity.
Come on, it WAS pretty funny.
And, if you feel that people were offended, consider this: what sort of a place would you have to think this was to have people calling out their list of murders on a public blog?
This aint no evangelical anti-abortion site, you know!
I think you were likely the only person who thought anything shady was being insinuated John W, but you weren't to know the whacky ways and evolving expressions of teh intertubes intercourse.
Wow said: "I preferred the ninja manicurists, frank."
Me too, although it did momentarily take me back more years than I care to remember to when steel combs were banned at school. Presumably to prevent some poor unfortunate's hair getting too thorough a mussing.
A'mussin' ??
Lawdy, I do declare I'm turning into Huckleberry Finn.
There is another nice article from Bob Ward over at The Guardian. This time he is exposing some of Andrew Montford's/Bish Hill's inaccuracies, misrepresentations and general delusion:
[Climate sceptics mislead the public over hacked emails inquiry](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/19/climate-sce…)
Another pig-headed argument against the global warming theory: 'There's no such thing as global warming... because global warming mitigation is illegal!'
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/297
Well, if I had to call it, I'd say that the Abbott "global warming is crap" conservative coalition has the numbers in the Australian election.
If so, expect no government action at all on anthropogenic climate change for at least three more years.
The Denialati will be happy, but history will mark this as one of the events at a critical juncture, in the narrow window of opportunity, where an apparently educated society condemned generations of it decendants, and of those of the rest of the world, to a future worse than it otherwise need have been.
Oh, and Australia's internet capacity will be sent back to the last century, rather than having an opportunity to actually compete on the global stage.
Vale the remnants of the once-Clever Country.
Well done Greens. Tony Abbott's victory would never have been possible without your support.
I'd say this will only apply to the country. We can already get NBN speeds in the city if we want them. Of course, country voters are getting what they deserved by supporting Tony Abbott.
Just a thought: In the Australian House of Reps election on August 21, the Greens got 340 votes for every vote received by the Climate Sceptics Party. In the Senate it was 67 to 1 in favour of the Greens.
Now Satellites NOAA-17 and 18 Suffer Calamities
While NOAAâs Nero fiddles âRomeâ continues to burn and the satellite network just keeps on falling apart. After NOAA-16 bit the dust last week NOAA-17 became rated âpoorâ due to âscan motor degradationâ while NOAA-18âs gyroâs are regarded by many now as good as dead. However, these satellites that each cross the U.S. twice per day at twelve-hour intervals are still giving âdirect readoutâ(HRPT or APT) or central processing to customers. So please, NOAA, tell us - is this GIGO still being fed into official climate models?
NOAA-17 appears in even worse condition. On February 12 and 19 2010 NOAA-17 concedes it has â AVHRR Scan Motor Degradationâ with âProduct(s) or Data Impacted.â
Beleaguered NOAA customers have been told, âdirect readout users are going to have to deal with the missing data gaps as best they can.â
On August 9, 2010, NOAA 17 was listed as on âpoorâ with scan motor problems and rising motor currents. NOAA admits, âConstant rephase by the MIRP was causing data dropouts on all the HRPT stream and APT and GAC derivatives. Auto re-phase has now been disabled and the resulting AVHRR products are almost all unusable.â
NOAA continues with tests on â17â with a view to finding a solution. On page 53 we find that NOAA-17 has an inoperable AMSU Instrument. The status for August 17, 2010 was RED (not operational) and NOAA is undertaking âurgent gyro tests on NOAA 18.â For further details see here. More evidence proving NOAA is running a âdegradingâ satellite network can be read here.
Dr. Anderson sums up saying; âIt is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth.â
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/hxt
Contrary to claims of its critics, a price on carbon, rather than drive industry overseas, actually [improves competitiveness](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2010/2977448.htm).
It drives jobs via [innovation and investment](http://www.actu.org.au/Images/Dynamic/attachments/6971/ACF_Jobs_report_…). And gives primary expertise to early adopters. Investors are lacking certainty presently, which is retarding investment decisions.
And there is [no incentive to drive jobs off-shore](http://www.ceda.com.au/research/current-topics/ace/2010/02/27/carbon_ta…):
>*A carbon tax on consumption (not production) would include imports and domestic outputs consumed locally, but exclude exports. It avoids the first-mover disadvantage of imposing a local carbon price in the absence of global action-one of the many issues plaguing the CPRS. A carbon consumption tax could be implemented in Australia through a minor modification of the GST.*
One point, with the carbon tax. To remove the incentive to drive jobs offshore, we need a [destination (consumption) tax](http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10716&page=0) rather than the simpler origin (production) tax.
Abbott's promise to stop the new taxes and stop the waste are [mutually contradictory](http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10696&page=0).
John McLean's latest 'exposé' of the IPCC commits many of the same errors he himself so vehemently rails against:
http://ijish.livejournal.com/16873.html
Here's a recent example of what the UK's BBC likes to project as 'balance'.
On the Newsnight program was an item on the floods in Pakistan with the subtext 'could they be blamed on global warming'?
In the blue corner was Dr Ghassem Asrar, who is currently the Director of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) in Geneva, Switzerland. Prior to this position, he served as the Deputy Administrator for Natural Resources and Agricultural Systems with Agricultural Research Service (ARS), of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 2006â2008, after 20 years of service with the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Ghassem served as the chief scientist for the Earth Observing System in the Office of Earth Science at NASA headquarters prior to being named the Associate Administrator for Earth Science in 1998. Ghassem is the recipient of the U.S. Presidential Distinguished Rank Executive Award (2002) and is an elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (2001). He has received numerous awards and honors, including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Goddard Memorial Lecture Medal, NASA Distinguished Leadership Medal and the Space Systems Award from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Ghassem earned graduate degrees in civil engineering and environmental physics from Michigan State University, United States of America.
He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific and technical papers, primarily in the fields of biosphere and atmosphere studies, and has edited several reference books on remote sensing.
And in the red corner, blogger Andrew Montford with a BSc in chemistry, a career in accountancy and who wrote a conspiracy book.
In the interests of balance, Montford was allowed the last word. "I think mankind is affecting the climate but whether it's a little bit or a lot, I think in reality we just don't know".
That royal "we" is a nice touch implying that Montford speaks for us all, when in reality it's to prevent him sounding clueless and saying "I don't know".
[Rajendra Pachauri cleared of financial misdealings](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/26/rajendra-pachauri-cle…)
>The head of the UN's climate science panel did not abuse his position to enrich himself, according to an independent review of his finances by the accountants KPMG that was published publicly for the first time today.
It's time that Pachauri stood on his front foot and instructed his lawyer - if not for his own sake, then for the integrity of climate science.