The Non-Conference

It’s all I can think of calling it. The MSM aren’t touching it; you even have to search WUWT carefully to find much mention of it.

Perhaps it’s because of the sadly damp weather in Durban at the moment (in keeping with the record low temperatures experienced during the Cancún Global Warming summit, and the snowblocked Copenhagen Global Warming summit—truly, man proposes, God disposes; it even seems to be snowing a bit on this blog at the moment). Still, there is a chance of a bit of fun in the sun, in the early South African summer.

If this was a privately financed affair, then we really couldn’t care less how many warmists jet in from around the world in order to decry everybody else’s greenhouse gas emissions. But, of course, it isn’t. And when you’re spending other people’s money on yourself, there really is no limit to your generosity towards yourself and your friends. Why, just look at the cavalcade of functionaries and activists who simply had to be there—over fourteen thousand participants, according to the UNFCCC’s own list. Forty-six delegates from the Australian government alone, plus a conga line of government-funded or government-subsidized hangers-on from such disparate groups as the Australian Conservation Foundation, Climate Action Australia, Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, Australian National University, Australian Youth Climate Coalition, among others. One of Andrew Bolt’s readers has distilled a list of some of the more inexplicable attendees; inexplicable, that is, for any reason other than the chance at a free overseas trip at someone else’s expense. One does wonder if all this talk of climate “tipping points” might need to be taken seriously after all: this shindig might just be what pushes the planet over the edge.

Pity then, that the conference is doomed to achieve precisely nothing, before it even started. Brazil, China, South Africa, India, Russia and the United States—collectively responsible for the majority of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions—have all forewarned they will not be party to any binding agreements until at least 2015 (by which time, no doubt, they will have pushed that date back to 2020 or so, i.e., comfortably one or two election cycles into the future). You don’t have to be sceptical of AGW science in order to be sceptical of the pompous, self-serving diplomacy surrounding it.

And before you start getting all cynical, and asking whether the participants would have done the environment and the public purse a favour by conducting this jamboree by video-conference—shame on you for even thinking it!—remember that junkets like these are truly an imposition on these poor folks, and we should not only be grateful for their service, but understand if the evening conference sessions are somewhat more, erm, convivial, than your average business trip.

No doubt all the hard work achieved at such a horrendous cost, both to taxpayers and the environment, will all be worth it. In particular, I am in no doubt whatsoever that at the very least, they will preserve what former Australian parliamentarian Neil Brown nominated as the Golden Rule of international conferences: namely, to fix the date and location of the next get-together.

Well done!

This entry was posted in AGW. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to The Non-Conference

  1. Dr. Dave says:

    The photo of this conference and of course the video of the dancing bacchanalia reminded me of an odd observation I had made a while back. At least in the US (I don’t know about Europe, the UK or OZ), virtually all prominent “climate scientists” are white or Asian and predominately male. Where’s the diversity? There are lots of prominent black or Hispanic physicians, chemists, biologists and engineers and even one very prominent black astrophysicist (whose name escapes me but he’s on TV quite frequently). I can’t think of a single prominent black “climate scientist”. Where is the left-wing outrage over this “obvious” discrimination?

    Years ago there was a large, annual conference I had to attend every year rather I wanted to or not (I had to recruit residents and promote our program). It was probably a bit bigger than Durban. What struck me is that a conference of 17-20,000 attendees only took up a corner of the Las Vegas Convention Center. But except for the industry representatives, virtually everyone in attendance had roughly the same credentials, had pretty much the same letters after their names and actively practiced in the same (or similar) professional field. There were very few (although some) bureaucrats and politicians in attendance and virtually no media. I suspect one would be hard pressed to find more than a few hundred actual “climate scientists” in attendance in Durban. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of attendees are bureaucrats and politicians

    I would love to see the lavish “evening hours” spreads hosted by the likes of GE, Siemens, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, NRDC, WWF, etc. at this Durban event. I bet they rival the money the US pharmaceutical industry spent entertaining us over a decade ago before the “Puritans” invaded and decided it was unseemly for us to accept such gratuities. I bet these Durban folks have no such qualms.

  2. Kitler says:

    Dr Dave it was DeGrasse Tyson the man responsible for demoting Pluto as a planet. In other news i believe if what the missus tells me the new military spending bill now makes sodomy and bestiality legal in the US armed forces yes you heard correctly sheep shagging is now okay. The also passed though the Senate a provision to detain using the military any US citizen at any time and ship them down to Cuba. The USA is now officially a third world dictatorship.

  3. Kitler says:

    I believe the bestiality is to accommodate the muslim soldiers.

    I believe the Durban Global Warming Conference is accommodating in a great many respects – Oz

  4. Luton Ian says:

    A brief diversion to the almost extinct €uro:

    Jacques Delors, says it’s all the fault of those nasty Germans for being too strict


    Phillip Bagus has been through the archived minutes of the discussions preceding German re-unification. In them, the French (I believe it was Delors), said that if the Germans did not agree to give up their “nuclear weapon” (the Deutsch Mark which showed how comparatively inflationary the Franc was), then a situation similar to that of 1913 would prevail.

    France, at that time was still an occupying power in West Germany, and had actual nukes pointed at the cities of the East.

    hell is too nice a place.

  5. Dr. Dave says:


    You can understand why I can never remember his name. He’s a rather pompous individual and a believer in AGW and the precautionary principle. You can find more on the US military sodomy and bestiality ruling here:

  6. Kitler says:

    Dr Dave it just makes you wish for the forth coming second American revolution to hurry up and arrive because I’m now convinced a through house cleaning of these absolutely corrupt A holes is needed, we can send them all to California to live. Where they can become the house slaves for La Raza.

  7. Dr. Dave says:


    I just wanted to let you know that where I live it is snowing right now. In fact it’s snowing pretty hard. It’s about 30 deg F outside with an expected overnight low of 17 deg F. I just checked Accuweather and it appears the weather in Memphis is 65 deg F and sunny. In terms of latitude you’re only about 100 miles or so south of me. I suspect it has something to do with altitude (I live at 7,000 feet above sea level).

    Maybe you’ve heard today’s message from Herman Cain. He’s going to “Plan B”. I interpret this as throwing in the towel. It’s damn hard to beat an orchestrated Democrat smear campaign. I feel bad for the guy and actually liked him…but I never really believed he had a chance. The best part, though, is that his candidacy scared the living dogshit out of the Democrats.

    I expect Herman Cain to go the way of Tim Pawlenty very soon and the deck will be reshuffled. My question to you, because you live in Memphis, is how likely do you think there will be riots in towns like Memphis when Obama fails to win reelection?

    Not heard much down here lately regarding the Republican race – how goes it? – Oz

  8. Kitler says:

    Dr Dave hard to say about riots as they kill each other all the time in certain eftnic areas in da hud if the election is close they will riot and turn their sh*tehole into a bigger sh*tehole. Of course if some idiot says the election was stolen and this from the Dems who constantly stuff ballot boxes, have the dead vote and people voting multiple times then they will riot. Out here in the burbs we won’t care to be honest, no one cares about the race card anymore we had 14 years of “King” Willie Herenton one of the most corrupt mayors in the history of Memphis and that takes some doing. Proving that a black man can outdo any white man on certain things. If they try to bring any riots into the burbs I think they will be met with overwhelming firepower once our police forces have run away and ironically that will be from middle class black and white householders.

  9. Kitler says:

    Dr Dave okay just crunched the rough temperature numbers and the difference is 25F colder at your altitude. However we pull in warm air from the Gulf which bypasses you, unusual for this time of year but it’s all down to the jet stream last week we had a cold front come through and it never got above 36F for a few days.

    It’s snowing right now on the summit of Mt Wellington behind Hobart; currently 7°C (44.6°F) at my place and Mrs Oz has prevailed on me to start a fire. And it’s summer! – Oz 😕

  10. Kitler says:

    Ozboy but i can assure you with my hand on my heart, scouts honour you are experiencing one of the warmest years ever even though reality would beg to differ. However only the temperature guage by the hairdryer counts.

  11. Kitler says:

    WUWT suggest we may be entering another maunder minimum which is cool in every sense of the word.

  12. farmerbraun says:

    Kitler: You mean- “that is cool”- as in- “I am prepared for this but all you bunnies are not”?
    There are some fairly dire predictions in that thread , and a fair amount of evidence that some of the rich and powerful believe something quite nasty is going to happen to lots of the “not- so- rich- and -powerful”.

  13. Kitler says:

    faemerbraun well I have my own Cassandra I know what they are planning is going to cause war and a great deal of suffering but from the chaos they will lose power and then we will hunt them down one by one and make them answer for their crimes against humanity. From the ashes will arise a saner fairer world. However as it’s a Cassandra I have no doubt no one will believe me. I just recommend that people prepare for the worst it’s coming.

  14. izen says:

    I have stated before that I do not think the political systems – or will – exists at the global level to meaningfully engage with a global ‘Commons’ problem like CO2 emissions causing climate change. For a much smaller problem with viable alternatives it STILL took a long time to control CFC emissions to avoid ozone destruction. And despite global agreement, loopholes and contraventions of the regulations are still causing a significant amount of damaging emissions.
    The Durban conference does nothing to refute my opinion of the inadequacey of global governance.

    Just how ‘catastrophic’ or damaging climate change may be is as much a matter of societal resiliance and agricultural flexability as it is a matter of the magnitude of climate change.

    The ‘BEST’ evidence confirms the magnitude of warming over the last century. Recent work on the observed and measured energy flows into and out of the globe confirms the main cause. And research on Arctic ice levels over the last ~1500 years indicates just how exceptional the present climate change is in human (agricultural) history. As politicians bicker ineffectually, science moves on –

    “Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance
    Markus Huber &
    Reto Knutti
    Despite abundant observational evidence for changes in the energy balance over the past decades1, 2, 3, the formal detection of climate warming and its attribution to human influence has so far relied mostly on the difference between spatio-temporal warming patterns of natural and anthropogenic origin4, 5, 6. Here we present an alternative attribution method that relies on the principle of conservation of energy, without assumptions about spatial warming patterns. ”

    “Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years
    Christophe Kinnard,
    Christian M. Zdanowicz,
    David A. Fisher,
    Elisabeth Isaksson,
    Anne de Vernal
    & Lonnie G. Thompson”
    Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous5 has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years.”

    And for those who prefer to rely on current local weather conditions to judge the validity of AGW –

    Hundreds of thousands of skiers could see their holidays ruined as a record-breaking warm spell leaves slopes across Europe snow-free.

  15. Dr. Dave says:

    Where’s the global warming we have been promised? Damn! Right now it’s 9 deg F (about -13 deg C) outside and expected to get colder overnight. Just last week I took the dogs for a walk in sunny 55 deg F weather. When it gets cold up here it does so quickly and tends to persist for a while. This is actual “turn on the heat” weather.

    That’s just weather, not climate. Be thankful the world is warming and not cooling.

    Ermm… isn’t it? – Oz

  16. izen says:

    @- Be thankful the world is warming and not cooling.
    Ermm… isn’t it? – Oz

    Yes, without ANY doubt – that part of the science is definately ‘settled’.
    The loss of land and sea ice, the change in growing season dates and frost days, the expansion of the oceans all verify the century of warming global temperatures.

    I am not sure where Dr Dave is in the US and there seem to be misconceptions about just what degree (sic) of global warming will be noticable. Right here – Oz It is NOT going to get consistantly warmer with cold weather perpetually disappearing. What the global warming does do as a rise of about the same amount as the local variability (so far!) is change the base-line and probability of the local weather. Looking at the growth-season and hardiness maps for the US shows that the effect is of everywhere moving around 100m south over the last few decades, the maps have had to be updated twice since the 70s.

    Click to access USDA_Map_pp_30-35.pdf

    However the effects of AGW are seen least in the contiguous US states. One reason is that the N American continent ‘enjoyed’ a couple of decades of warmer climate as part of a regional variation between the 30s and 50s. This warmer period was probably due to a combination of the ENSO, PDO and AMO acting ‘in phase’ to warm the continent – and trigger the dustbowl and Texas droughts of that era.

    Present US temperatures are very little above that last mid-century peak, but with the ENSO/AMO and solar activity now in a ‘cool’ phase. So any future warm phase is going to add onto the present levels and make the new Texas drought much more servere than it was in the 1950s. As intimated by this years exceptional drought in the American SW.

    Warming, yes. The raw physics is straightforward. But the devil’s in the detail: warming over what time scale, what subtrends exist within the overall average trend, how much warming, what is the anthropogenic component of that warming, and on, and on. No-one here (on this blog, anyway) has the knowledge or training to assess these things without recourse to “experts”. And I am of the opinion that there isn’t an expert in the world who understands the earth’s climate sufficiently to make prognostications with anything like the “90% certainty” claimed for them.

    So, I guess it boils down to which “expert” you listen to. Just this morning, for example, I was listening to an IPCC lead author, who admits as much:

    If the physical phenomenon is too complex to understand (sufficiently to make predictions), and you don’t trust the evidence of your own eyes, then these hopelessly divided “experts” are pretty much all you’re left with – Oz

  17. Luton Ian says:

    It started snowing here either late Saturday night, or early Sunday Morning, and we’ve been getting a little more each day. My generator died on Sunday night, and I’ve still not managed to get it going again. Luckily the wood burner keeps the cottage above zero, and I’ve got a few oil lamps and a good collection of tea lights.

    I’ve discovered that when it’s really cold in the house, the tea lights just burn a little shaft down the middle of the wax, so I sit them on the stove (because of the boiler in it, it only seldom gets too hot to touch) or on top of a hurricane lamp

    I’m around 55 degrees north and the altitude at the house is just short of one thousand feet. Anything above 1,500 feet is not usually worth farming, you can graze sheep on the heather and bilberries (the local version of blue berries).

    In the past, lead miners enclosed and farmed small holdings above 1,500 feet, near to their mines.

    Interestingly, a fair amount of that activity took place in the 18th century – just when you wouldn’t expect it to, though at that time, transport in and out of the area was by pack pony (Smeaton, Telford & Macadam were each later employed by the mining companies to construct roads which would take carts, and later still, there were railways, drawn by horses and by fixed winding engines – the steam locomotive had still to be invented by Murdoch and constructed by Trevithick).

  18. Luton Ian says:

    A few posts back I wrote that I thought it was Delors who had harangued the Germans about their “nuke”, Seems I was wrong, and that it happened on Mitterand’s watch.

    The BBC is now daring to consider a collapse of the yoyo.

    I hope new national currencies are issued soon, the Germans do not deserve a third hyper inflation within 100 years

    I hope not Ian – it seems to annoy them no end – Oz 😯

  19. Kitler says:

    Just to point out to folks that in the UK especially further to the north the tree line is fairly low and at Cowgreen reservoir at the head of the Tees valley they have Alpine meadow. The tree line is about 1600ft.

  20. Dr. Dave says:


    I’m just a little north of 35 degrees north. I think the big difference is that I’m at 7,000 ft above sea level. It gets “mountain cold” at night here…especially in the winter. I wish I had had a camera with me this morning when I was out and about. The entire Jemez mountain range was covered in snow. It was incredibly beautiful in the morning sun. It was 1 deg F when I went to bed last night and 3 deg F when I got up this morning. Today it warmed up to a blistering 21 deg F but it was sunny. We missed most of the snow – just a couple inches here. Some places got about a foot and a half. My GF was sent home from the office yesterday afternoon because it was snowing in town so hard they started closing roads. This is just 10 or 12 miles away and it wasn’t snowing here at all (it did overnight a bit).

    In the summer we always get a couple of weeks with highs in the uppers 90s and even over 100 deg F. Every winter we get a spate of bone chilling, sub-zero cold. Most of the time we have a very nice, temperate climate. I have a kiva fireplace. Now, I ain’t sure, but my guess is that “kiva” is an ancient Native American word meaning “worthless”. My little fireplace works well for intermediate cool to cold weather, but when it gets bitterly cold outside it sucks more warm air out of the house than it provides in terms of radiant heat. When it gets this cold there’s no choice other than turn on the electric ceiling radiant heat. It’s expensive and inefficient but it sure is toasty and cozy..

    My good buddy Steve is a mechanical engineer and a scientist at the national lab in Albuquerque. His house in ABQ is much older than mine but it has a nice, full sized fireplace. He went to a muffler shop and had them bend up a bunch of muffler stock. He welded these into a fireplace grate. The top and the bottom of the tubes extend beyond the fireplace. The bottom of the tubes are connected to a sheet metal box connected to a fan. The top of the tubes just exhaust hot air into the room. His fireplace cranks out an incredible amount of heat. Steve built his dream retirement home up in the mountains about a half hour from where I live. The fireplace in his new home is actually connected to the home’s central heating. All very high tech and it makes very efficient use of his abundant supply of firewood. It kinda sucks that he won’t be able to retire next year at the age of 55 (like he’s planned for since he was in his 20s). He owes too much on his dream house and his ABQ house is no longer worth enough to pay off the balance.

  21. Kitler says:

    DrDave 55 to retire is foolish anyhow best to keep going and working until your 70’s if you can manage it even if it is part time by then. Keeps the mind active and lowers the chance of early dementia or Alzheimer’s the brain is an organ that is use it or lose it.

  22. Luton Ian says:

    If the guy is switched on enough to have planned for retiring at 55 since he was in his twenties, I’m guessing that he’ll have the equivalent of half a dozen full time jobs lined up to keep him active well into his eighties or nineties.

    Dr Dave,
    you get it way colder than it ever gets here. The irish sea is only about 40 miles away (at its closest) and there’s tidal water from the other side to about 15 miles away, although the actual sea is about 25 or 40 miles away.

    The coldest I’ve known it here was a week at minus ten celcius (about plus ten F) in 1979. I spent a few years living just north of the English Lake District (Wordsworth and his fellow “romantic” pre Marxoids come to mind!), in a frosty hollow. It never got much snow, but would hapilly go to about -10F for days on end, when we got a good anticyclone.

    It would also blow gales for weeks on end. Same for some of the places I lived in Ireland, though I did live one place where the house was above the temperature inversion, and it was exposed to westerly winds, so it hardly ever got frost, and we had frost sensitive flowers three years old. The local village, a mile away and a couple about 400 feet lower (the river was tidal to the village) got regular frosts.

    I’ve one wood burner going at present, which has a water jacket most of the way around, so only about 2KW gets out to he room, the other 6 goes to the hot water cylinder and one of the radiators.

    When the generator is working, I can almost get some radiators warm. I’ve got some wooden wedges in to one of the air vents on it to slow its burning a little, as the thing seemed to waste most of its energy heating the air it was pulling through. I’ve a second woodburner, which I need to get going, which should put about 10 KW to the room. There’s a good supply of wood, and I’m investigating some demolition shears for the excavator as a way to save labour sawing it. If they can cut steel H section beams, they can cut trees.

    Originally the house would have a cooking fire place about 4 or 5 feet across with a crane to hang pots above the fire. When I was a child, it had a cast Iron open range still being used by the old couple who lived there. That’s long since been ripped out in the name of “modernization”, and the fire places in the bedrooms ripped out and bricked up in the name of the same cause. Fools, I tell you!

    The tennancy is up for review in a few months, so I’m not going to spend money for the sake of paying more rent as a result. Getting the Landlord to Pay for a mains electric connection is one of the bargaining ploys I’ll be using

    I got the generator to fire today, but by that time the battery was flat. I’ve replaced the fuel line as far as the lift pump, and sealed the couplings with teflon tape. I’m just waiting for a coke can to be emptied (she’s drinking now) so I can make an aluminium washer to go on the bleed screw on the injector pump. One by one, I’m eliminating the possible routes for air to get into the fuel system.

    I’ve still not worked out what to use to allow the air to be bled out of the pipe between the lift pump and the main fuel filter which is mounted at a lower level (a bright move, especially as the lift pump does not have any way to bleed air out – almost as bright as the air bleed on the lower brake cylinder on a series 3 landrover – it was on the bottom of the cylinder!).

    Must go!

  23. Dr. Dave says:


    I meant to give you a brief update of the GOP nomination game show in the US. I’m sure you’ve heard that Herman Cain has “suspended” his campaign. This is code for “I’m done.” Apparently some of the mud they slung at him stuck. He was never my first choice but his candidacy was fun while it lasted. The possibility of a black GOP nominee gave the Obama camp diarrhea and nose bleeds. For all intents and purposes Cain is out.

    Today the front runners are Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and (surprisingly) Ron Paul. Newt and Mitt are RINOs (Republican In Name Only). Both are inside the beltway establishment Republicans. I don’t like nor trust either one of them but of the two I find Romney to be the “least worst.” Romney served one term as Governor of a very liberal Democrat northeastern state. Prior to that he was a very successful businessman in the private sector. Romney’s team essentially authored “RomneyCare” for the state of Massachusetts. This proved to be the blueprint for ObamaCare. Romney has a history of sucking up to environmentalists, supporting AGW legislation and being on the wrong side of gun control. Even with all this stacked against him, I find him preferable to Newt Gingrich.

    Gingrich served in the House for twenty years (1979 to 1999) and the last five as Speaker. He achieved some pretty admirable things. But he is a flip-flopper of the first order and a consummate politician. Gingrich is real cozy with the environmental left and openly supported cap & trade. He has spent his recent years as a lobbyist. Recently he expressed his support for the ethanol industry which is pure idiocy. But such a position garners votes in Iowa. I trust this POS not even as far as I could throw him. His recent popularity is derived from his perceived acumen at the art of “game show” debate. The MSM has pretty much decided how the GOP should choose their candidate – via the 60 second sound bite game show debate format created, sponsored and moderated by the liberal MSM. Newt shines in this arena…but he’s still an establishment Republican SOB (with a LOT of personal baggage). I don’t trust him and will only vote for him if happens to win the Republican nomination.

    Ron Paul is doing surprisingly well even though he is running a distant third to Gingrich and Romney. A lot of people like his message. His position on foreign policy sours a lot of folks. I agree with him on a lot of foreign policy (e.g. I don’t want the USA to be the world’s policeman). Unfortunately Dr. Paul is NUTS about little things like Israel and a nuclear Iran. He offers a lot of common sense wisdom to the debate but he too often comes off as a grumpy old man in an ill-fitting suit.

    Jon Huntsman is a former Governor of Utah and Obama’s former Ambassador to China (he’s fluent in Mandarin). In my opinion he’s a useless artifact and should drop out. Trouble is that he’s the son of a billionaire and is not lacking for campaign funds.

    What we’re left with are the real conservatives with the best ideas. These are Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. The MSM hates these three. Of these three, Rick Perry is my favorite. He’s spent 10 years as an enormously successful Governor of Texas. The population of Texas surpasses that of all of Australia and its GDP is almost the same…and it is only ONE of 50 states. Perry has excellent ideas. Unfortunately he is not well suited to the MSM’s preferred game show debate format. Santorum is a pretty solid conservative who served two terms in the Senate. Trouble is he got his ass KICKED in the last election he lost. Michele Bachmann is pretty good and very consistent, but her record is limited to two terms she’s served in the House.

    The media is picking the GOP candidate and the electorate is too blind to see it If we had unified support of a candidate like Perry, the GOP would be unbeatable. If the GOP runs Gingrich or Romney, Obama could actually win reelection. This would quite literally be the end of the world as we know it.

    Thanks for that Dave. Whenever I hear the subject of the GOP race raised in the MSM down here at the moment (not very often) Romney is the only name getting mentioned. Kitler, you still think Perry has been anointed by Bilderberg? – Oz

  24. Ozboy says:

    Incidentally everyone, I’ll just flag now that I’ll be closing LibertyGibbert down for about a week over Christmas; you’ll still be able to access all existing articles, but I’ll be holding all comments over for moderation. I’ll give you exact dates before the end of next week.

  25. Kitler says:

    Ozboy it seems their chosen boy is floundering badly sorry Dr Dave any man who attends Bilderberg for approval is a sell out so Perry is not whom you want. Apparently policy wise I’m closest to Bachmann but I like Paul but his followers are scary and yes his foreign policy is nothing short of insane.
    Dr Dave the USA wanted the job as world police man and you wanted the British empire dismantled well you got your wish you bought it no refunds. Now as the worlds police man suck it up stop whining and do the job because if you don’t the Chinese will be on your doorstep and taking the entire west coast off your hands in lieu of stiffing them on treasuries. Oh and ruling the world is expensive as you no doubt have discovered with commitments to places far and wide that make no sense.

  26. Ozboy says:

    Just saw this story about at least one bloke close to Brucker Bummer getting his just deserts.

    Maybe more to follow?

  27. Kitler says:

    Ozboy as a lot of evidence implicating the POTUS was not allowed is it a fair trial I don’t think so, however he got what he deserved for trying to make deals with the devil.

  28. Dr. Dave says:


    I’ve just written to the State Department recommending deportation of all legal aliens who fail to utilize correct grammar and punctuation. You can expect to be able to join the upcoming riots in the UK any day now and be free of the oppression that is the USA.

    I looked into the the Perry-Bilderberg issue. Sure enough…Perry was once an invited speaker to one of the Bilderberg meetings to describe the success that Texas had achieved. He’s NOT a member of the group. But I bet he wishes he never attended or gave a talk and I can sympathize. When I was fresh out of school and in my first paying professional position, my boss roped me into giving a presentation to a large group of nurses. The topic was “the future of diabetic treatment” and this was 30 years ago. There wasn’t a whole hell of a lot that was new in those days. I showed up for my time slot which was immediately after lunch (the worst…second only to the time slot immediately BEFORE lunch). I was in my mid-20s and looked out at an audience of about 150 hostile biddies who couldn’t find love in a Turkish Army barracks at midnight. I gave my presentation which was 100% factual. What I didn’t know is that the information I presented completely contradicted the “nurse expert” who presented her disinformation immediately before lunch. I was ripped apart in the seminar reviews for telling lies and being uninformed. Strangely, EVERYTHING I told this collection of sea-hags came to pass within 1 to 3 years. I wonder if any of them remember. But right after I read through the reviews I decided I would NEVER again give a presentation to a huge group of nurses. For the most part I haven’t. One can inform the ignorant, but teaching an idiot is damn hard. Nobody knows what Perry said to the Bilderberg group, but my guess is that he wishes he had never attended.

    Unfortunately Perry fared very poorly in the MSM game show debate format. Perry was pilloried by Republicans for signing into law a bill granting illegal aliens the right to in-state tuition (not “free”, just in-state rates). Nobody seems to mention that this bill passed the overwhelmingly GOP dominated Texas legislature by a vote of 108 to 4. Was Perry, as the elected Governor and representative of the people supposed to veto this so he wouldn’t piss off conservatives in other states? Almost nobody listened to Perry the day after his dreadful gaffe on immigration in the debate. But I did. He’s got the most sensible plan to deal with illegal immigration of any of the candidates. Duh…he’s been the Governor of Texas which shares a 1,200 mile border with Mexico for 10 years. He’s pretty familiar with the problem.

    There’s miles to go before we sleep but it’s plainly evident that the MSM wishes to choose the GOP candidate…someone Obama might be able to beat. Far too much emphasis has been placed on Gingrich’s highly vaunted debate acumen. Since when has this skill decided an election?.

  29. Luton Ian says:

    I think the only skill which elected representatives can be shown to posess by empirical methods, is the ability to con sufficeint suckers into voting for them – maybe only once.

    At least a street prostitute only has access to your trouser pockets for minutes, not for five whole years, and she provides a genuine service for the money…

  30. Luton Ian says:

    The snow has gone below about 1500 feet. We got a few inches of rain and sleet and strong gale force winds instead.

    Just look at those isobars and the frontal systems

  31. Luton Ian says:

    I just stumbled on this about Romney.

    I know it’s a few months old, but is stands up well, as do the cartoons.

  32. Dr. Dave says:


    It’s finally sunny and above freezing today. A couple more days of this and won’t have any snow on the ground.

    Today Gingrich is way up in the polls. He’s got a 20 point lead on Romney and the establishment Republicans are nearly apoplectic. The GOP elite were determined to anoint THEIR RINO (Romney), not some rouge RINO (Gingrich).

  33. izen says:

    Trying to link Gingrich’s possible attitude and the Durban conference ….

    ” Gingrich, April 10, 2007: The evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere

    Kerry: And do it urgently — and now…

    Gingrich: And do it urgently, yes. . . . I think there has to be a, if you will, a “green conservatism” — there has to be a willingness to stand up and say all right, here’s the right way to solve these as seen by our value system.”

    ” Gingrich, Feb. 15, 2007: I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.

    Q: Would we be in better shape today if he [Bush] had kept that campaign pledge?

    Gingrich: If he had instituted a regime that combined three things I just said — mandatory caps, a trading system inside the caps, as we have with clean air, and a tax incentive to be able to invest in the new technology and to be able to produce the new technology — I think we would be much better off than we are in the current situation.”

    No doubt he will change his mind if these opinions are any impediment to his GOP nomination…

    The perennial cry of the politician – ‘Here are my opinions, if you don’t like them I have others.’
    At least its marginally preferable to the idealist or theocrat – ‘Here are my opinions, I wont change them for any reason.’

    What I’ve read indicates Romney is committed to “big policy” to Save The Planet, while Gingrich wants a bob each way – Oz

  34. Kitler says:

    Dr Dave they invited him to the last meeting at St Moritz it probably was a getting to know him session and whether he was worth backing financially or otherwise, after all a lot of MSM types attend and if they like you they will swing behind you. I doubt he was asked to any secret lets take over the world meetings. In 2007, McCain, Obummer and the Hag all attended together to give talks. It would be interesting to know if Romney has ever attended or Gingrich?
    As for being oppressed I’m quite happy with the USA playing cop on the world stage because lets face it the alternatives would be pretty bleak, the Indians, Chinese, Brazil, Russians the EU? Scary thought.

  35. Dr. Dave says:

    izen beautifully illustrates why I neither like nor trust Gingrich. Both Romney and Gingrich have walked back their support of moronic mitigation schemes. At the same time both are trying hard not to alienate the powerful environmentalist lobby (and the real money resides with the environmental lawyers). The eco-geeks may not wield the same degree of political influence in the US as they do in the UK, but they are more numerous and are very well funded. The life blood of a politician.

    Romney, not very long ago, stated his belief in AGW or, more specifically, “climate change” for which he believes mankind is partially responsible (I heard the audio clip just this afternoon). He’s backed away from that position more recently and prefers to avoid the subject. But Romney was instrumental in implementing some idiotic “carbon reductions” in the state of Massachusetts. Like Newt, Mitt was on the bandwagon when the fraud was perceived as “hip” with great populist appeal.

    Newt is far worse than Romney on the AGW issue. Newt was a big campaigner for big government intervention for the non-problem of AGW…until he decided to run for the GOP nomination and discovered his position on the subject would be the death knell for his chances. So he has flip-flopped…sort of. The dolt still supports the ethanol industry predicated on the myth that it decreases our dependency on foreign oil. This is complete bullshit but the message sells well in Iowa.

    Both Romney and Gingrich are loathsome career politicians. The GOP has better candidates than these two. They have better core values and better ideas, but they’re not “rock stars”. Too many Republicans are placing far too much emphasis on the hypothetical great debate between Obama and the Republican nominee. I wonder if it ever occurred to these geniuses that such a debate would be rigged to Obama’s advantage just like these insipid GOP debates.

    Right on cue, this story, sourced one hour ago from Fox News. 418 words, and Ron Paul barely rates a mention, even on Fox. Instead, some mindless blather about which one is the “true conservative”… bleagghh 😡 Oz

  36. Kitler says:

    For Ozboy….

    Aye, we’ve been aware of that issue down here for some time. The situation is worst in NSW, where a feed-in tariff something like five times the retail cost of electricity was being offered. The list of politicians who jumped on the bandwagon and are now raking it in is a long one, starting with the scheme’s originator, (now ex-) premier Kristina Keneally. Of course, the rake-off by the rich was so great on the public purse, late-comers wanting a slice of the action are now being offered only a fraction of the original tariff, with greatly increased amortization times on the original outlay. I’m proud to declare I didn’t have a bar of it – Oz

  37. Ozboy says:

    Well, continuing the GOP theme, what do you make of this:

    Will religion play as big a part in this election as it has in the past?

  38. Dr. Dave says:


    Of our 8 (now 7) GOP candidates only Rick Perry and Ron Paul served in the military. I believe Ron Paul was a flight surgeon in the USAF. Rick Perry was a jet pilot in the USAF. This ad is a bit more nuanced and distinctly “American” than it may appear to you (being a damn foreigner and all). Romney and Huntsman are Mormons and thus far their personal faith has been largely off limits in terms of political debate, but Perry is unabashedly Christian (evangelical) and he has caught a lot of flak for that.

    Under Obama, Christians (who constitute over 70% of the American populace) have been under constant political assault. Kids can no longer have Christmas parties in public schools. Even Christmas trees are now to be referred to as “Holiday trees”. At the same time we’re expected to embrace and respect all things “Islam”. This doesn’t go down too well with most of the public except Obama’s hard core base. So maybe there was some wisdom to this ad.

    Gays serving openly in the military is also quite a contentious issue. I’m sure gays have served in the US military since the country’s founding. They just kept it secret. Clinton passed “don’t ask, don’t tell” which actually solved most of the problem and seemed to serve the needs of the military and the general public. But it didn’t satisfy the politically powerful gay rights lobby. They demanded that homosexuals be allowed to serve in the military as openly gay. Obama, et al made this happen although it was a proverbial turn in the punchbowl for both the public and the military. I’m not sure even Obama realizes how unpopular this legislation is with the American public because nobody wants to talk about for fear of being labeled a homophobe.

    Curiously, after the end of the DADT doctrine, the military recruitment centers were NOT overwhelmed with bull dykes and flaming fags eager to sign up. I think it’s mostly a non-issue. In my line of work there is always a bunch of gay personnel and I have gay friends and neighbors so I never gave it much thought. I might feel differently if I was in the military.

    I suspect religion will become a larger issue once Obama launches his $1B negative ad campaign. It’s going to be the nastiest campaign in my lifetime. Obama has NOTHING to run on so he will spend a fortune going VERY negative.

    Funny, just last night Mrs Oz and I watched the final episode of the HBO series Big Love, which we’ve followed since its inception. I found it an eye-opener, not just into the LDS church or its offshoots, but into America’s relation to religion generally – Oz

  39. Luton Ian says:

    Beware of evangelical protestants*, the variety who believe that sin must be stamped out and the 1k years of “God’s rule” on earth established and completed before Jesus can retrurn tend to be busybody statists.

    We have them to thank for such wonders as state schooling, alcohol prohibition, and the current war on drugs.

    The view which Pratchett espoused for disc world inhabitants may have some merits on earth too:

    “It is safest to shoot all missionaries on sight”

    Ok, the RC church has had its own political oddities, like the extreme Franciscans, and in recent years, “Liberation Theology”, but apart from in the pre 1860 Papal States in Italy, the RC church has generally acted as an independent check on governments.

    I really do not know where the LDS stands on busybodying and using state coercion to make us all into nice people. Kitler, would you like to fill us in on that?

  40. Kitler says:

    Luton Ian the Mormons have a clear line between church and state and follow the render unto Caesar principle. So if say Romney got elected he would be able to do things against church doctrine to abide by the law. I must stress that everything the Mormons choose to do is voluntary you don’t actually have to do them but the price is you can not attend Temple, church yes temple no which is used for various rites and sealing ceremonies.
    So you will find Mormons who drink and smoke most will not. However what they believe in does involve like a lot of religion a suspension of disbelief and makes as much sense as any religion really which is to say none at all. I was married to a Mormon for 12 years so I learned a lot but myself I lack the stupidity gene for religion I end up going to church and begin to get church Tourettes and want to scream out “this is complete bollocks”.
    However whatever makes people mislead and happy is fine with me i just wish all us without the gene had some way off this rock and our own planet to get on with things in peace.

  41. Kitler says:

    Before DrDave says anything yes I lack the punctuation gene.

  42. Ozboy says:

    Back to the thread topic, Lord Monckton’s report on the Durban conference here – some pretty scary stuff.

  43. meltemian says:

    UN – BE – LIEVE – ABLE!!!!!!
    Thanks for the link Oz’. I haven’t heard anything about it in the MSM until this morning when the BBC had it as their second item on the news. This explains why, nobody could possibly take this load of mumbo-jumbo seriously……..could they?
    (Don’t you just LOVE Monckton!)

  44. Dr. Dave says:


    I actually thought Monckton’s report was hilarious. If I remember correctly, Clinton signed Kyoto and it failed ratification in the Senate 97 to 0. We already know who is NOT playing – China, India, Canada, Japan and the USA to name a few. It might be a bit scarier in OZ. I just listened to an 11 minute interview with some Australian genius named Greg Combet (who was in Durban at the time). Where do you find these whack jobs?

    Sigh. He’s our Minister for Climate Change. You may recall I referred to him back here. Thank God for the wiser heads in the American Senate – Oz

  45. izen says:

    Monckton is a good showman, writes well and skewers the aspirational nonsense and political empire-building of mainstream politics with elegant rhetoric.

    But as usual he is not an entirely reliable source for factual information…
    In referring to the lack of science discussed at the conference he says this –

    “Not really surprising, given no real warming for getting on for two decades, no recent sea-level rise, no new record Arctic ice-melt, fewer hurricanes than at almost any time in 30 years, no Pacific atolls disappearing beneath the waves.”

    The only thing right is that no pacific atolls disappeared. (AFAIK)
    With every year in the 2001-2010 decade warmer except one in the 1991-2000 decade it is hard to see how this is compatible with a claim of no ‘real’ warming. The 2001-2010 decade is actually significantly warmer than might be predicted from the trend in temperatures from 1970-2000.
    And this year (2011) was the warmest year with La Nina conditions in the historical record. This graph makes the point rather well –

    Monckton gives himself ‘wriggle-room’ on the sea-level claim, what is ‘recent’ ? – over the last decade the trend is obvious –

    The recent hiatus, or even fall in the warmest year on record – 2010 – is not a matter for complacency if you realise that one reason for a sea level fall is if rain/snow-fall has increased due to high sea temperature driving more evaporation. There is a lag in drainage from the land which causes years with increased rainfall to have static or falling sea-levels, note the similar dip after the previous warmest year in 1998. Although the level has risen since then…

    The Arctic ice-melt also hit a new record with a smaller minimum volume of ice than ever seen before as well as an extent that fell below the downward trend since the 70s.

    Cyclone and hurricane figures are a bit more nuanced. The numbers are about average, perhaps up for a La Nina year, with fewer landfall hurricanes. Although some of those that DID make landfall were of record intensity. The picture of hurricanes and other extreme events is discussed here –

    The degree of traction all this UN climate conference political posturing will have on REAL actions will be proportional to how much the climate changes. While the major emitters of CO2 have obvious reasons to baulk at constraints, a warming world will undermine their resistance to collective action.
    Whether that collective action is framed by the political inanities of the UN will matter little if Nature votes with more global warming.

    I see you’ve taken issue once again with the science of AGW (as is your wont, and right), but not his specifics of binding commitments contained in the UNFCCC draft text. That’s just as well, as they’re all a matter of record.

    How about all the references to “Mother Earth”? A bit hard to argue any longer that warmism isn’t a new pagan religion, I’d say. And the fact that developing nations will be unaccountable to the convention, but any developed nations whose governments (like mine :evil:) are deluded enough to sign it, will be force to “re-distribute” billions every year, in perpetuity, as compensation for our “historical responsibility” for climate change. All of which amounts to (you can hardly be unaware of this) poor working people in developed nations being shaken down by rich kleptocrats in the Third World.

    Totalitarian. Socialist. Disgusting. Time to get mad – Oz

  46. izen says:

    “Totalitarian. Socialist. Disgusting. Time to get mad – Oz”

    If you want to get mad at every bit of aspirational purple prose that emanates from the UN bureaucracy you will be in a permanent state of extreme apoplexy. The anti-western re distributive ambitions expressed by the UN are not confined to its climate group.
    But historically none of this nonsense actually gets acted upon by the major power UNLESS it is in their interest.
    I doubt there is an example of any developed nation contributing any significant fraction of its GDP to the many UN attempts to extract money from the western rich nations. The only time western nations have spent money on UN sanctioned action is when they have a resource war having gained UN backing.

    Unless one is delightfully naive you would expect all those goals embodied in the “Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention — Update of the amalgamation of draft texts in preparation of a comprehensive and balanced outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth session: note by the Chair.” to get modified into actions only if a nation agrees to ratify a treaty granting a ‘Climate court of Justice’ jurisdiction. That is unlikely to say the least – unless the climate shows evidence of sufficiently dangerous change that opposing such collective agreement becomes politically untenable.

    I am not ‘taking issue with the science of AGW’ I am pointing out that the only chance of any significant financial impact from the sort of goals expressed by this UN convention are if the OBSERVED climate shows there is a problem. Monckton takes great pleasure in deriding the wishful thinking and aims of the UN draft. But the only way such aspirations are going to be translated into significant financial action by any state is if forced by Nature, Monckton’s throw-away sentence claiming that the climate is stable and benign is wrong. I suspect he puts it in for two reasons, one its ‘dog whistle’ effect on the denierati and two, it makes the the UN draft look daft if there is no climate change.

    Unfortunately observed reality is providing support for action in contradiction to Monckton’s assertions.

    I’m delighted to see how easily you are able to brush aside the draft text of a UN global agreement as a mere “bit of aspirational purple prose”. I suppose you can afford to be blasé, as your government isn’t as hell-bent as mine to sign up to such lunacy. I’m equally pleased to read you describing it as the nonsense it is, and I truly hope you are correct in your prediction that no western nations will sign up to it unless they perceive a direct interest – Oz

  47. Ozboy says:

    A more long-sighted (and pretty funny) take on the significance of Durban conference here.

    The “last chance to Save The Planet”… again?

  48. Ozboy says:

    Something utterly OT, which I probably should have posted in the Music Room, but I thought I’d share with you here. Via my bro in Queensland, a dissertation on Venn diagrams (click if you don’t get it):

  49. Ozboy says:

    And after running 35 hours overtime, delegates to the Durban non-conference have made a binding, world-wide commitment: to have at least two more biennial Global Warming conferences (somewhere not embarrassingly cold), after which to make a definite, binding commitment to agree to agree to agree to agree…

    Dunno about the jokers or smokers, but I suspect a lot of those clowns in Durban were up till midnight coming up with that lot. At least Izen’s prediction has turned out – so far.

  50. izen says:

    Love the Venn diagram, the geometrical hierarchy of types… makes me want to fill in the internal triangles further in – who would fit between Jerry Garcia and Van Halen ? Steve Vai ?!
    I guess Steve Miller does fit all categories, but perhaps as a ‘lowest common denominator as he hardly excels in any…-grin-

    The UN is a political talking shop, its main product is flowery rhetoric.
    Even its ‘best’ effort at emission controls for climate mitigation – the Kyoto treaty – was only ratified and followed by a small minority of nations. And none of those seem to have lost much money doing it, compliance has mainly been achieved through choosing efficiency updates to existing fossil fuel use.

    There has been a series of cartoons, cant find a link or the cartoonist, but they are called EUphemisms and consist of a image of a generic politico at a desk. Above the figure is the sort of bland policy statement such a bureaucrat might say, below is the ‘translation’.
    About a year ago there was one where the ‘official statement’ was –
    “We will take action when there is clear evidence of climate change.”
    The ‘translation’ was –
    ‘We will do nothing till hell freezes over.”

    Opposite to the global temperature trend but it does capture the real attitude of most governments !

  51. Dr. Dave says:

    The Venn diagram was great. I even agree with izen’s assessment of Steve Miller, but that song was a veritable anthem in my teenage years. To this day I don’t think anybody knows what the hell “the pompetous of love” is (it’s spelled that way in the lyrics).

    I would love to see the Venn diagram produced by a large (statistically significant) poll asking these three questions:

    1. Do you believe in CAGW?
    2. Do you believe in Ghosts?
    3. Do you believe in UFOs (more specifically, that extraterrestrial beings have in the past or are currently visiting Earth)?

    As a sop to our cadre of “oh so learned” atheists we can even add in question #4 – Do you believe in God?

    I’d bet the intersection in the middle would be huge. Much to the consternation of atheists, most people believe in God (or some deity) so this big circle on the diagram would not be very revealing (except maybe for the number of atheists who believe in space aliens). Belief if the CAGW hogwash varies by country, devotion to “the cause” and the ability to think for one’s self. In the US the number of “believers” is shrinking day by day despite the MSM’s devotion to the religion. I don’t mean just the MSM news media either. Damn near ever cable channel like the Discovery channel, the History channel, the Learning channel, etc. is in the tank for the AGW alarmists. Hell, we even have “the Green Channel” in my satellite line up. It’s so bad it induces nausea. But even with this onslaught, the belief is fading.

    Belief in ghosts is another story. Belief in ghosts is surprisingly high (like 37%) and hasn’t changed much over the last 50 years. The interest is very real as the History channel features shows like “Celebrity Ghost Stories” and “Ghost Hunters” so they obviously get ratings.

    UFO/ET belief really amazes me. There are a bunch of UFO shows in the cable TV lineup – “Ancient Aliens”, “UFO Hunter”, etc. People actually watch this crap. Interestingly, the degree of “belief” is about the same as that for ghosts.

    What’s interesting about these four “beliefs” is that none of them can be proven nor disproven. They are all articles of faith. But wouldn’t it be interesting to know how many who believe in one also believe in one or more of the others?

  52. izen says:

    @- Dr Dave
    Belief is unnecessary when understanding the physics and chemistry of a process is present.

    Three items in your list, Deities, ghosts and UFOs are the result of the human tendency to attribute intentional sentient agency to aspects of the world. They have no physical aspect.
    AGW is the result of ~ hundred years of scientific study of objectively observed phenomena.

  53. Kitler says:

    Izen by study do you mean meteorology? Because the longest record is from the mid 18th century I believe. Which is actually accurate until about the 1980’s then some rather corrupt scientists “massaged” the data. Your AGW is based on lies, corruption and sociopathic men twisting science for their own selfish agendas. Never underestimate a good sociopath they are not strictly human as being human implies empathy and they have all the morality of cats and just as selfish.

  54. Kitler says:

    Dr Dave just because there is a consensus on the existence of a God among the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, as we know from experience with AGW that doesn’t necessarily make it so.
    You can never prove a negative such as the existence of God, just because the human mind can not grasp the concept of an eternal multiverse and some very strange physics indeed it does not require a creator to exist because time itself is irrelevant. Ask yourself a simple question why would a God make a Universe 20 billion plus light years across just to create mankind on one tiny rock to give us his only begotten son then for some reason have him murdered to save us. It makes absolutely no sense. Also apparently the creator has gone to great pains to make the Universe appear 14 billion years old when it is was actually created in 5005 BC around about teatime.

  55. izen says:

    @- Kitler says: December 13, 2011 at 2:51 am
    “Izen by study do you mean meteorology? Because the longest record is from the mid 18th century I believe. Which is actually accurate until about the 1980′s then some rather corrupt scientists “massaged” the data.”

    No I do not mean meteorology. I refer to the Tyndal work on the absorbtion of thermal radiation by atmospheric gasses in the 1860s, through Arrhenious’s hypothesis of industrial CO2 raising temperatures put forward around 1900, then Callender with a numerical analysis in the 1930, and subsequently Plas and others detailing the process of radiative transfer in the atmosphere in the late 50s.
    Since then all other evidence has confirmed the original hypothesis that rising CO2 would cause rising temperatures.

    The claim that ‘some rather corrupt scientists “massaged” the data’ in the 1980s is ridiculous. How do you “massage” the mass loss of most of the land-based glaciers? The photos showing the shrinkage of glaciers have not all been photoshopped…
    How many scientists would it take to melt the frost early and change the growing season and hardiness index of different regions in the US? Those are changes evident to the agricultural industry.

    Given the MULTIPLE lines of evidence for global warming, and the clear fingerprint in the changes in the spectra of outgoing and downwelling radiation claims the OBSERVED changes in the climate are part of a fraud are idiotic. It would be impossible to ‘massage the data’ without the collusion of not only the scientists, but everyone who has observed the climate whether for agriculture or military reasons over the last century. The exceptional loss of summer ice in the artic is not ‘massaged’ data, it is evident in the comparisons of ship and submarine reports from many nations.

    -“Your AGW is based on lies, corruption and sociopathic men twisting science for their own selfish agendas. ”

    No, its based on the consilience of the evidence from many field of study over the last ~5 decades.
    It is the attempts to deny the findings of science by sociopathic industrial interests that makes this subject so toxic.

    “…claims the OBSERVED changes in the climate are part of a fraud are idiotic”

    Well yes, they would be. If such claims existed – at any rate, I’ve never heard of them. Once again, you’re using (consciously or not) the tired old strawman argument that what we’re claiming is that the climate doesn’t change.

    However, the scale of the anthropogenic signal in those changes, and the confidence in such findings, have been so wilfully, wildly and dishonestly exaggerated – and this out of the perpetrators’ own mouths – that it’s impossible to see how they don’t amount to fraud, in any dictionary definition of the word – Oz

  56. Luton Ian says:

    I need to check the dates when Tyndal lived in Carlow. He may have had Lord Acton as his MP.

  57. Dr. Dave says:


    I plainly stated that one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a deity. I quite honestly don’t care what people choose to believe. I never tried to claim a deity exists because most people believe that to be true.

    What I find annoying is that atheists tend to be as intolerant of the beliefs of others as Muslims. From my perspective, others are free to believe in any faith they choose or no faith at all. I don’t care as long as it doesn’t negatively affect my liberty.. Atheists seem to demand that others be as bereft of faith as they are. One of my best friends in the world is an atheist. We’ve been buddies since we were 15. We simply never discuss religion. What I find interesting is that he lives his life in a more Christian-like manner than most of the Bible thumpers I know. Like I told him many years ago… I don’t believe in atheists…and you’ll have to prove to me agnostics exist.

    AGW believer: your sins are leading us all to damnation, and you must repent of your ways! You must change your beliefs to conform with mine!

    AGW sceptic: I don’t believe that, and what’s more, unlike you, I have no desire to change your beliefs. I might add though, that if you were really serious about converting me, you might start by leading by example – practising what you preach. No more jetting around the world to conferences, living in waterfront mansions that consume twenty times as much electricity as the national average. Little things like that.

    Did I say “AGW”? I meant “God”. I think…

  58. izen says:

    @- “However, the scale of the anthropogenic signal in those changes, and the confidence in such findings, have been so wilfully, wildly and dishonestly exaggerated – and this out of the perpetrators’ own mouths – that it’s impossible to see how they don’t amount to fraud, in any dictionary definition of the word – Oz”

    What percentage of the published research on the scale of the anthropogenic signal in climate change, and the confidence in such findings do you regard as meeting the dictionary definition of fraud? 1%, 10% 50% 90%……
    Can you give any examples?
    Do you think this is fraudulent ? –

    Click to access 100737.pdf

    I accept it is an A Priori assumption… a ‘belief’ if you like -GRIN-…
    But I sincerely doubt that what people BELIEVE has any effect at all on the physics, chemistry and biology of the material reality we inhabit.
    To do otherwise is to indulge in magical thinking!

    😆 😆 Izen, Izen! For someone who proclaims a disdain for politics, you’re uncannily deft in its practice. Now you’re using Jim Hacker’s technique of answering the question you weren’t asked. And responding with righteous indignation to a claim that wasn’t made (about the peer-reviewed literature). If you really want catalogues of percentages and lists, I daresay my colleague RealityReturns would need very little encouragement to come round here and oblige you.

    Or haven’t you read the Climategate 1.0 and 2.0 e-mails? The openness with which the “hockey team” gloat and brag to each other about how they have concealed a truth they know full well, and have managed to keep dissenting opinion out of the published literature, is breathtaking to behold. And this is the view being arrived at by an increasing number of state prosecuters in the United States. Fraud is hardly too strong a term to use.

    But, for completeness: do I think, as you ask, that Evans and Puckrin’s paper on surface radiative forcings is fraudulent? Well, let me see here: they do not appear to have hidden or “lost” their raw measurements, or methodology; nor have they (so far as I am aware) evaded FOI requests for same, or resorted to legal trickery to prevent the reproducibility of their experiments. If you get my drift. So no, I do not believe the paper is fraudulent.

    I do note however, with wry amusement, their conclusion:

    The greenhouse radiation has increased by approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial times. This compares favorably with a modeled prediction of 2.55 W/m2. Measurements such as these can provide a means by which to verify the predictions made by global warming models

    Since pre-industrial times? Really? And how were those fluxes measured, how long ago and by whom, and to what accuracy? Ermmm…

    Simulations using FASCOD3 were performed to estimate the greenhouse flux from the various gases using their respective tropospheric concentrations from two centuries ago (IPCC, 1995; Dickinson and Cicerone, 1986).

    I see. Measurements which show an increase over computer-modelled simulations of past phenomena, are in accordance with the predictions made by… computer models! Marvellous.

    I further note the paper gratefully acknowledges the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science for the grant which funded it. Who pays the piper… I somehow doubt that future support for this Canadian government-funded institution will be forthcoming, wouldn’t you say?

    Not evil. Not even fraudulent. Just a little confused, between computer-modelled, all-else-being-equal fantasy, and chaotic, non-linear reality. I hope that answers your enquiry – Oz

  59. Dr. Dave says:


    You’re as predictable as the proverbial bread falling jelly side down. Physics and chemistry support the theory of your religion. Empirical evidence does not. Please note that my question was “do you believe in CAGW?” More specifically, CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL warming due to mankind’s emissions of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels. Almost all of the skeptical community of scientists agree that, in theory, doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration to around about 560 ppm MIGHT result in an increase in average global temperature of about 0.5 to 1.2 deg C. Then again…it might not. If we don’t have a good measure of natural climate variability, there is no way to measure “mankind’s contribution” to recent warming. At this point AGW cannot be proven nor disproven. It’s a specious hypothesis based on tortured ground temperature measurements. It’s a belief system…just like God, ghosts and aliens.

  60. Kitler says:

    Dr Dave but the aliens are real they have secret underground cities and we are fighting a war against them….

    Phil Schneider later died under mysterious circumstances.

  61. izen says:

    @ Dr Dave
    “You’re as predictable as the proverbial bread falling jelly side down. Physics and chemistry support the theory of your religion. Empirical evidence does not.”

    The skewed probability that toast lands butter side down is not just proverbial but based in physics (areodynamics, turning moments and drop height). All this understanding confirmed (not proven) by empirical evidence.

    @-“Please note that my question was “do you believe in CAGW?” More specifically, CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL warming due to mankind’s emissions of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels.”

    I noticed you used the cop-out qualifier ‘Catastrophic’ before AGW. As I have said before and earlier in this thread whether AGW is catastrophic is as much a matter of the resilience of agricultural systems and the adaptability of societies. As well as providing ‘wriggle-room’ by avoiding a clear definition of catastrophic. Was the 1930s dust-bowl a catastrophic event, or just a local difficulty…

    There is a measurable amount of AGW already as seen in the link in the last post I made, the recent Foster and Ramsdorf paper uses an elegant method of separating out the various factors altering the recent climate –

    claiming that this dosn’t count as ‘catastrophic’ seems to be relying on an unsupported assumption that any warming will be much smaller than the vast majority of research indicates. I am reminded of the frog in the pan on the stove, croaking that while it might be getting a little warmer – “Its not catastrophic yet….”

  62. izen says:

    “I see. Measurements which show an increase over computer-modelled simulations of past phenomena, are in accordance with the predictions made by… computer models! Marvellous.”

    Um, no.
    To be fair you are not alone in thinking that computer models were used to generate any of the results in the paper, it seems to be an error that many ‘skeptics’ jump to.
    The measured fluxes are in close agreement with the models which bolsters the credibility of the models. But no models were used or abused to derive the past or present fluxes.

    The pre-industrial flux is calculated from the measured contribution of various GHGs at the present and the measured or estimated levels of those chemicals in the past. For instance it is known that before human manufacture there were no CFCs, so the flux contribution from those compounds MUST be additional to the pre-industrial flux.
    Similarly the pre-industrial CO2 level is well constrained um, no – Oz and the increase known so again the gain in flux can be directly calculated.

    FASCOD3 does not refer to a computer model of the climate, its a versiom of the radiative transfer equations, used to calculate the individual spectra of the contributions from the different GHGs.

    That’s a hair-split, if I ever saw one. Current-day flux measurements are not being compared with pre-industrial measurements, but with a simulation (their word) of the past, implemented on… what? From the acknowledgements again:

    We would like to express our thanks to J.H. Chetwynd (AFGL/PL) for supplying the FASCOD3 algorithm

    Furthermore, the projections of past flux are based, not on any actual measurements of pre-industrial GHG concentrations (these being available sporadically through the period, but with results varying wildly):

    Cherry-picking in action: there are over 90,000 measurements available of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations; circled are the readings Callendar used for his low estimate of 270ppm

    Rather, they are from – as you admit – “estimates”; derived, we know not how. Anyone in the IT industry will be familiar with the term GIGO.

    Really. Now tell us how many angels can dance on the head of a FASCOD3 pin – Oz

  63. Luton Ian says:

    Apparently if you butter the toast with a firm hand, it supposedly then lands buttered side up.

    It may be however, that the devil tempts you into buttering the wrong side.

    happy new year

Comments are closed.