Re conversations/ABC Drum:
My comments published in ‘comments’ on the ABC site/post:
21 Jun 2011 9:18:31am
The AGW blogging supporters need to dig a little deeper to see that the “science” is not the issue. The politics are. I refer to clear evidence that the AGW warmist scientists are agenda driven:
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
Then it’s easier to see that science and scientists are being used as tools.
21 Jun 2011 8:41:26am
Mark, This is why the ‘denialists’ see things differently.
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
The AGW scientists and reporters are agenda driven. The “science” they present is not true!
There is so much evidence to support ‘denialist’ claims. Consider, ‘denialist’ bloggers have no agenda other than a desire for truth and their freedom from tyranny.
18 Jun 2011 7:51:10pm
I am really perturbed about where Australia is heading in respect of carbon controls and the motivation behind them. The spin going on is far exceeding legitimate scientific procedures. ‘Facts’ being offered to support carbon controls have considerable opposition by respected, capable and learned people. Not just bloggers who stand up for truth and justice but scientists who have every right to voice their conclusions and opinions.
The public is being taken for a ride and for very suspect reasons.
18 Jun 2011 7:59:41pm
From a different point of view:
Gillard and Swann both made clear, positive statements about there being NO carbon tax.
Whatever different people like to make of this is personal, but of those who voted for them, some would have believed they were being told the truth. Well it wasn’t. We might come to accept lies from politicians as standard practice, but surely we need to ask ourselves – if we have elect liars to government what sort of government policy-making can we expect from them?
This video clip proves the point.
Mark, Happy to reply to your comments:
I accept that the word ‘if’ lessens the impact but deluded and naive are fighting words. Denialist bloggers certainly have the desire for truth, may have other agendas, but they do not have the agenda of the warmist ‘industry’ leaders that I am suggesting is over-riding the true science.
The so-called mispeaking scientist may well have retracted his damning statement, but he made it and it was the truth. He is one of many. Even if they all retract, the statements exist and to deny their original meaning and intention is, as you would say, naive. Please refer to website:
As far as scientific data and evidence is concerned, here is not the place. But there is oodles of it. You might be interested in checking and perhaps addressing your comments to, this website post:
The many links from that will give you so much more information than you will find from IPCC and it’s related sources.
Reality for one is usually different from that of another. However true reality can only be seen if one steps back from it.
Regards, Ken. [ 22/6/11 10:00 am]
Also reply to Malcolm “did Tony Abbot tell you that?”, giving ‘informationliberation ‘ address. Not published as at 10:12am 22/6.
‘stormboy’, I appreciate your clarification of the complete quotation. Strange, however, I still read the same meaning into the extract. A “balance between being effective and being honest” is still an admission of the science being adulterated by agenda. The scientist may be well meaning, but by being prepared to bias his report for the sake of greater impact he is being dishonest to himself, science and the reader. How far can this bias and incorrect reporting go? Human? yes, but,(out on my limb now), the AGW “science” is riddled with conclusions that are biassed towards convincing the public, rather than being obvious sound science.
We all are able to construe, or misconstrue, understanding of information because of personal bias, a subconscious function. But,to deliberately bias the writing of a report is not human frailty or error, it is deliberate human dishonesty. Not science! Sorry, I stand by my conclusion that this is evidence of dishonest science that is agenda driven. There are other such quotations from eminent pro-AGW promoters, I believe they mean exactly what they say.
Ken McMurtrie : to Mark
22 Jun 2011 3:16:16pm
My second attempt to reply. Strange, my reply to stormboy went through.
Re evidence to support denialist claims, there is heaps, my attempt to reference it obviously failed.
I am not focussing on one mis-speaking scientist, there are quite a few. Also there are those who have seen the error of their ways and agree that that the AGW “science” is false.
It seems that much evidence is open to interpretation by the eye/brain of the beholder. This seems to apply both ways.
Clearly, these commentaries are a waste of time.
The establishing of which of us is deluded and/or naive will seemingly have to wait for a bit longer.
Ken McMurtrie : to stormboy
22 Jun 2011 3:54:28pm
“If warming is due to increased solar activity (more incoming energy) then warming will be fastest where the sun is brightest – daytime, tropics. If however it is due to increased atmospheric heat retention (less outgoing energy) then the greatest change will be noticed at night and in the poles where historically the lack of sunlight made them colder, but now the trapped heat warms them.”
Just need to ask where the heat originated, if not from the sun? You are talking about distribution, not the source. The hotter or longer the heat source, the greater the warming, regardless of its flow characteristics.
30/6 Drum, “Climate change cleared up”
@ Wave function and Malcolm:
What really counts are facts and truth.
Peer review does not guarantee either.
Lack of peer review does not discount either.
Scientific consensus by a group of associated, agenda driven groups does not constitute proven science.
Scientific theories and opinions by unqualified, non-practising persons may still be correct.
Opposing scientific theories by qualified scientists should certainly be considered.
Why won’t the scientists openly debate this issue as a forum? Arguing and denying via the press and internet is not scientific debate, it is a debacle. Certainly not scientific, by any stretch of the imagination.
Why do they argue “we are right, you are wrong” on the basis of qualifications and their science, when there have been LEGITIMATE questions asked and no GENUINE assessment applied to their claims?
Do you deny that there has been undue influence on the press and scientific journal industry to favour AGW “science” and discredit opposition?
If so, you are a ‘denier’.
@ David Arthur : 28 Jun 2011 4:04:20pm
“This discrepancy increases with atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
In the meantime, what are the water vapour content (the major GHG) figures, and the other GHG’s?
Why blame CO2?
So typical of the AGW promoters, all about GHG’s of which there are several, yet the CO2 gets the blame!
Ken McMurtrie :
26 Jun 2011 11:47:54pm
CO2 has an atmospheric concentration of 380ppm. Zero point zero three eight PER CENT.
Plants will not be healthy under about 250ppm.
More oxygen would be nice.
Many Victorians move to Queensland because the average temperature is SEVERAL DEGREES higher there. The equatorial population may not be so excited, BUT, the increase in temp MAY NOT happen.
CO2 MAY NOT be a significant part of the earth’s pollution. Carbon taxes WIL NOT change whatever temperature trend there is.
The global temperature MAY HAVE ceased its warming trend.
(Not trying to be smart or funny, but I would like you to put this comment on your corkboard and see how long before my comments make sense.)
Ken McMurtrie :
07 Jul 2011 10:22:31am
Well there is a lot of logic in having easy access to bottled water.
I do not condone the disgusting habit of littering; blame the litterers, not the bottles.
Containers are approved for recycling.
Tap water in Aus. may be cleaner and healthier in general, but not in many cases.
Usually it contains a flouride substance, a poison.
Often chlorine, when reservoir levels are low.
If I go into a shop looking for a thirst quencher, I do not choose a fruit drink full of chemicals, sugar (or worse, aspartame), made from re-constituted materials.
Aerated soft drinks have similiar anti-health properties.
Water is a logical, healthy choice!
I say, thank goodness for bottled water.
Relevant blog with comments:
Chiefio blog – post re consensus: 22/7/11
This consensus issue is quite complex.
Certainly, consensus, if it means agreement, means nothing in regard to the validity of a hypothesis. 100% consensus still only means ‘the best we can come up with’. Definitely not science. As stated by many, demonstrably so.
Re the AGW issue, we have two consensus’. (Whatever the word).
The consensus ‘for AGW’ is backed by a group of self-interested people, supported by the media and believed by governments, and by a large percentage of the public, neither of whom know any better.
The second, is a conglomeration of scientists and followers of varying persuasions who are doing their best to assess all the scientific factors and believe they have better scientific evidence. Some of them also have agendas.
In a case like this, a ‘general’ consensus, still not science, might perhaps be an acceptable basis on which to make political decisions.
This not being the case here, and with the science being disputed, we have neither acceptable science nor meaningful consensus to work with.
The science of the planet’s climate functioning is clearly not at a stage where it can be logically called ‘science’, only hypotheses.
So this discussion on consensus is purely, itself hypothesising, unless it is applied to a subject like AGW, where it can take on some actual substance.
I am much more interested in the substance than the hypothesis.