This is a hoot! I commented over at Climate Audit that these climate elites need to get ** Anita Dunn ** to be their new spokesperson!! I wonder if Mao ever wrote anything on climate change…
It’s funny cause I gave Andy an earful for his earliest reports. He’s getting smashed in the middle. Of course we’re on the correct side so it’s up to him how he reacts.
Well lets see them keep denying as the science keeps getting audited
Australian Royal Commission into Climate Change
Quote;
I have proposed a Royal Commission to investigate the science behind
climate change and whether or not man made carbon dioxide emissions
are responsible, and the Productivity Commission to look into the
economics of an emissions trading scheme or carbon pollution reduction
scheme.
#4
Steve Fielding is out of his depth in the (Australian) Senate. He managed less than 4% of the vote (compared to the 14.3% required to win a seat in the Senate in a conventional half-Senate election) and only got his seat because the Australian Labor Party were too-smart-by-half and stuffed up their preference deals, with the result that Fielding was handed enough votes to get him over the line. His performance (or lack thereof) to date guarantees IMHO he will not be re-elected for a second term. Anything Steve Fielding does or says is not to be taken too seriously.
“The ‘small group of scientists’ up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis belong to the Climategate gang? Small world, isn’t it?”
Interesting isn’t it Amber. In my view, Steve Fielding has excelled in his performance as a Senator. He had the moxy to find out about AGW for himself, and saw the holes. He asked questions of Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, the Chief Scientist, and their main adviser. The questions were simple, rational and require answers if an Australian ETS is justified.
As you most likely know, Penny Wong and her advisers were unable to respond to Steve Fielding’s simple questions, and frankly, looked very weak. They ultimately ignored him, and pressed on anyway, secure in their own unsubstantiated beliefs.
Actually, the independent senators have done a very good job in my view (including the Greens, particularly Christine Milne though I don’t agree with her position on AGW) and should be encouraged. Better government will be the result.
Steve Fielding has already proved he is a senator worth his salt, by at least making a study of the issues. Could anyone say the same about Ms Wong? Let’s give credit where it is due.
It is just one more confirmation that the ‘Team’ are not scientists but political activists, who have hidden their agenda behind their fraudulent science.
#8 Mondo, I know the opposite of you because I have a copy of the answers that were given. Don’t you?
Mondo and Vin, yes good on ‘im for trying (although attending a sceptics conference is not the best way to get a representative sample of the various scientific arguments 🙂 ) but it’s a terrible pity he failed to comprehend whatever material he discovered. Take this first question to Wong as an example:
Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period?
If so, why did the temperature not increase; how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous
levels of warming?
Any idiot would know that ten years of temperature (and starting from an extreme data point, to boot) does not prove a reversal of a climatic trend. But the question as asked indicates that Fielding does not have a grasp of the material.
Amber, why is Fielding’s question an unreasonable one? Scientists ask it. Kevin Trenberth himself implied the same question in a leaked email. Is he an “idiot”? Is it somehow unreasonable to expect decadal scale increases in climate forcing to produce some evidence of warming consistent with model projections?
Yet you chastise Jeff (incorrectly) for making an ad hominem argument in another thread… Given your difficulty with basic vocabulary, I would also suggest you look up the word hypocrite. Yes, btw, your statement is an argumentum ad hominem because the implication is “you don’t know this because you aren’t even as bright as ‘any idiot.'”
that ten years of temperature (and starting from an extreme data point, to boot) does not prove a reversal of a climatic trend.
So tell us, oh wise vocabulary limited Amber, who is the keeper of the definition of the length of a trend? I would posit that there is no such thing as a definable trend in what is clearly a chaotic system. Any argument, be it 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, or even 1000 years, is equally specious in a chaotic system.
#12 LL, if you’re asking about the question why was temperature not increasing while CO2 was increasing, yes I agree, that’s quite reasonable. One I’ve asked myself. I’m referring to the unrepresentative timeframe chosen. A reasonable question would employ a representative timeframe. The question as framed shows either intent or incompetence and I did the right thing by choosing to interpret it as the latter. I’m sure we all agree that any global temperature trend has multiple contributing factors. Some people agree that CO2 is one those factors. One explanation for the pause in temperature increase that has been put forward is the cooling phase of the El Nino cycle.
#13 Mark, I did not attempt to win an argument by diminishing the person so it was not ad hominem. Quite the opposite, I used Fielding’s first question as evidence against him that he lacked a grasp of the material. You too should doublecheck your dictionary.
“I’m referring to the unrepresentative timeframe chosen.”
No you weren’t. You were refering to 10 year time segments which “any idiot” should know cannot show a reversal of climate trend. The “chosen timeframe” was offered as a throw in comment “to boot”.
Now you say that you ask yourself “why was temperature not increasing while CO2 was increasing?”. How do you reconcile your question with your response to Fielding’s question: “Any idiot would know that ten years of temperature does not prove a reversal of a climatic trend”?
#13 Mark, I did not attempt to win an argument by diminishing the person so it was not ad hominem.
You implied they were wrong because they were not smart enough (any idiot) to know better. Indeed, that is an argumentum ad hominem, even if you didn’t realize it.
You too should doublecheck your dictionary.
I have, and I also pointed out why. I’ve also noted that you weren’t able to reconcile your hypocrisy. Figures. Hypocrites are liars, too. You are a shameful sort.
#15 LL, sorry you are mistaken, I was indeed referring to the unrepresentative timeframe of ten years, and the unrepresentatively high temperature of 1998 (#11): “Any idiot would know that ten years of temperature (and starting from an extreme data point, to boot) does not prove a reversal of a climatic trend. But the question as asked indicates that Fielding does not have a grasp of the material.”
Mark, you and I have both said our piece, clearly we disagree with each other, so there’s no point in you repeating yourself or in me responding to your repetition.
How can any given ten year time segment be “unrepresentative”?
So now you’re saying that you ask yourself the question about lack of warming vs CO2 increase but not on 10 year time scales? What time scales are acceptable then?
I have a hard time buying your “10 year time segment” explanation, since the lack of warming which has been causing the (valid) scientific questions is since the 1998 El Nino. You seem to throw stuff out there carelessly and then contradict yourself.
Mark, you and I have both said our piece, clearly we disagree with each other, so there’s no point in you repeating yourself or in me responding to your repetition.
It’s peace actually, not piece. There is a point in repeatedly pointing out your hypocrisy and lack of understanding of simple concepts as you are representative of those that damage the name of science. You can disagree all you want, it does not change your clear failings, which I have witnessed on many occasions. You are scourge, and I will treat you thusly.
#18 LL, easy, the 1998-2009 ten year segment is unrepresentative because the trend for that period alone is unrepresentative of the trend of the previous five decades, and of the combined six decades.
No, I find it interesting but not surprising that mean temperatures change in the way they do, and would like to quantify the various factors that influence temperature. Wouldn’t everyone?
To me, #11 is pretty self-explanatory and I stand by it. To answer your questions I’ve tried to put it in a different way so if those answers have confused instead of clarified, ignore them and go back to #11.
#19 Mike, you’re like a dog with a bone, mate 🙂 I gave you the opportunity to drop the subject but if you insist on humiliating yourself in public for posterity (after all, the Internet is forever), who am I to deny you?
Mark, you and I have both said our piece, clearly we disagree with each other, so there’s no point in you repeating yourself or in me responding to your repetition.
It’s peace actually, not piece.
Your comment indicates your lack of grasp of English. Now, please drop the subject.
the Air Vent 
This is a hoot! I commented over at Climate Audit that these climate elites need to get ** Anita Dunn ** to be their new spokesperson!! I wonder if Mao ever wrote anything on climate change…
It’s funny cause I gave Andy an earful for his earliest reports. He’s getting smashed in the middle. Of course we’re on the correct side so it’s up to him how he reacts.
You would hope this would make him want to prove he’s “his own man”.
I won’t hold my breath:(
Well lets see them keep denying as the science keeps getting audited
Australian Royal Commission into Climate Change
Quote;
I have proposed a Royal Commission to investigate the science behind
climate change and whether or not man made carbon dioxide emissions
are responsible, and the Productivity Commission to look into the
economics of an emissions trading scheme or carbon pollution reduction
scheme.
Steve Fielding
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/ets_petition/
Climate Hype turned up to eleven. It’s going to be a long 2 weeks;(
#4
Steve Fielding is out of his depth in the (Australian) Senate. He managed less than 4% of the vote (compared to the 14.3% required to win a seat in the Senate in a conventional half-Senate election) and only got his seat because the Australian Labor Party were too-smart-by-half and stuffed up their preference deals, with the result that Fielding was handed enough votes to get him over the line. His performance (or lack thereof) to date guarantees IMHO he will not be re-elected for a second term. Anything Steve Fielding does or says is not to be taken too seriously.
The influence of the Climategate gang
“The ‘small group of scientists’ up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis belong to the Climategate gang? Small world, isn’t it?”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-obamas-science-adviser-confirms-the-scandal-%E2%80%94-unintentionally/
More commentary on this at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/12/25-not-2500.html
Interesting isn’t it Amber. In my view, Steve Fielding has excelled in his performance as a Senator. He had the moxy to find out about AGW for himself, and saw the holes. He asked questions of Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, the Chief Scientist, and their main adviser. The questions were simple, rational and require answers if an Australian ETS is justified.
As you most likely know, Penny Wong and her advisers were unable to respond to Steve Fielding’s simple questions, and frankly, looked very weak. They ultimately ignored him, and pressed on anyway, secure in their own unsubstantiated beliefs.
Actually, the independent senators have done a very good job in my view (including the Greens, particularly Christine Milne though I don’t agree with her position on AGW) and should be encouraged. Better government will be the result.
Steve Fielding has already proved he is a senator worth his salt, by at least making a study of the issues. Could anyone say the same about Ms Wong? Let’s give credit where it is due.
Unbelievable!
It is just one more confirmation that the ‘Team’ are not scientists but political activists, who have hidden their agenda behind their fraudulent science.
#8 Mondo, I know the opposite of you because I have a copy of the answers that were given. Don’t you?
Mondo and Vin, yes good on ‘im for trying (although attending a sceptics conference is not the best way to get a representative sample of the various scientific arguments 🙂 ) but it’s a terrible pity he failed to comprehend whatever material he discovered. Take this first question to Wong as an example:
Any idiot would know that ten years of temperature (and starting from an extreme data point, to boot) does not prove a reversal of a climatic trend. But the question as asked indicates that Fielding does not have a grasp of the material.
Amber, why is Fielding’s question an unreasonable one? Scientists ask it. Kevin Trenberth himself implied the same question in a leaked email. Is he an “idiot”? Is it somehow unreasonable to expect decadal scale increases in climate forcing to produce some evidence of warming consistent with model projections?
Amber said
Yet you chastise Jeff (incorrectly) for making an ad hominem argument in another thread… Given your difficulty with basic vocabulary, I would also suggest you look up the word hypocrite. Yes, btw, your statement is an argumentum ad hominem because the implication is “you don’t know this because you aren’t even as bright as ‘any idiot.'”
So tell us, oh wise vocabulary limited Amber, who is the keeper of the definition of the length of a trend? I would posit that there is no such thing as a definable trend in what is clearly a chaotic system. Any argument, be it 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, or even 1000 years, is equally specious in a chaotic system.
Mark
#12 LL, if you’re asking about the question why was temperature not increasing while CO2 was increasing, yes I agree, that’s quite reasonable. One I’ve asked myself. I’m referring to the unrepresentative timeframe chosen. A reasonable question would employ a representative timeframe. The question as framed shows either intent or incompetence and I did the right thing by choosing to interpret it as the latter. I’m sure we all agree that any global temperature trend has multiple contributing factors. Some people agree that CO2 is one those factors. One explanation for the pause in temperature increase that has been put forward is the cooling phase of the El Nino cycle.
#13 Mark, I did not attempt to win an argument by diminishing the person so it was not ad hominem. Quite the opposite, I used Fielding’s first question as evidence against him that he lacked a grasp of the material. You too should doublecheck your dictionary.
#14 Amber
“I’m referring to the unrepresentative timeframe chosen.”
No you weren’t. You were refering to 10 year time segments which “any idiot” should know cannot show a reversal of climate trend. The “chosen timeframe” was offered as a throw in comment “to boot”.
Now you say that you ask yourself “why was temperature not increasing while CO2 was increasing?”. How do you reconcile your question with your response to Fielding’s question: “Any idiot would know that ten years of temperature does not prove a reversal of a climatic trend”?
Amber said
December 8, 2009 at 10:54 am
You implied they were wrong because they were not smart enough (any idiot) to know better. Indeed, that is an argumentum ad hominem, even if you didn’t realize it.
I have, and I also pointed out why. I’ve also noted that you weren’t able to reconcile your hypocrisy. Figures. Hypocrites are liars, too. You are a shameful sort.
Mark
#15 LL, sorry you are mistaken, I was indeed referring to the unrepresentative timeframe of ten years, and the unrepresentatively high temperature of 1998 (#11): “Any idiot would know that ten years of temperature (and starting from an extreme data point, to boot) does not prove a reversal of a climatic trend. But the question as asked indicates that Fielding does not have a grasp of the material.”
Mark, you and I have both said our piece, clearly we disagree with each other, so there’s no point in you repeating yourself or in me responding to your repetition.
#17 Amber
How can any given ten year time segment be “unrepresentative”?
So now you’re saying that you ask yourself the question about lack of warming vs CO2 increase but not on 10 year time scales? What time scales are acceptable then?
I have a hard time buying your “10 year time segment” explanation, since the lack of warming which has been causing the (valid) scientific questions is since the 1998 El Nino. You seem to throw stuff out there carelessly and then contradict yourself.
Amber said
December 9, 2009 at 6:37 am
It’s peace actually, not piece. There is a point in repeatedly pointing out your hypocrisy and lack of understanding of simple concepts as you are representative of those that damage the name of science. You can disagree all you want, it does not change your clear failings, which I have witnessed on many occasions. You are scourge, and I will treat you thusly.
Mark
#18 LL, easy, the 1998-2009 ten year segment is unrepresentative because the trend for that period alone is unrepresentative of the trend of the previous five decades, and of the combined six decades.
No, I find it interesting but not surprising that mean temperatures change in the way they do, and would like to quantify the various factors that influence temperature. Wouldn’t everyone?
To me, #11 is pretty self-explanatory and I stand by it. To answer your questions I’ve tried to put it in a different way so if those answers have confused instead of clarified, ignore them and go back to #11.
#19 Mike, you’re like a dog with a bone, mate 🙂 I gave you the opportunity to drop the subject but if you insist on humiliating yourself in public for posterity (after all, the Internet is forever), who am I to deny you?
Your comment indicates your lack of grasp of English. Now, please drop the subject.
#19 Sorry, Mark not Mike.