So where are these climate scientists, gurus, our government is so sure of?

A planet in peril, or a society?

On ABC’s QandA political affairs program last Monday, aside from GetUp!’s Simon Sheikh’s collapse, we were privilege to the dulcet tones of Climate Change minister, Greg Combet.

A major part of his reassuring argument is that the government simply cannot ignore the warnings of all the world’s top scientists.

Noted empirical evidence – namely that we haven’t seen any warming in at least ten years – was dismissed as a rubbish argument.

No, Combet smoothly argued the scientists had to be trusted.

So? Who?

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Even they’ve admitted they are just another UN body, and certainly not the “gold standard”.

They admitted they don’t necessarily promote views of the world’s “top scientists”, but rather, make sure every geographic region is represented as equally as possible.

Sorry, but that’s not the world’s top scientists.

No Frakking Consensus:

Leading scientists. Top climate scientists. The best scientific minds. That was the fiction. Now, at long last, the IPCC is admitting that its authors don’t, in fact, all belong to the highest echelons of the scientific community. Instead we’re advised that the IPCC has “always sought” to “achieve geographic representation.”

The end of Chapter 5 in my book reads:

Journalists say we should trust the IPCC’s conclusions because its reports have been written by the world’s finest scientific minds. But in order for that to be the case the IPCC would need to apply very different criteria when selecting its authors.

It would need an explicit policy that says something along the lines of: Even though we are a UN body, we are not influenced by UN diversity concerns. We select the world’s best experts and only the world’s best experts – regardless of where they come from or what gender they happen to be.

In fact, readers may recall that the crux of the IPCC argument, the one governments such as our own are rolling with (OK, well basically just ours), was written by a teenage boy.

The blurb:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) performs one of the most important jobs in the world. It surveys climate science research and writes a report about what it all means. This report is informally known as the Climate Bible.

Cited by governments around the world, the Climate Bible is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a United Nations report.

What most of us don’t know is that, rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, the Climate Bible is produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.

This expose, by an investigative journalist, is the product of two years of research. Its conclusion: almost nothing we’ve been told about the IPCC is true.



What top climate scientists? Could Combet quote one? A credible one?

The “father” of global warming Gaia theory, perhaps?

No. Remember, James Lovelock came out recently and admitted much of the doom and gloom he’d forecast simply isn’t and hasn’t turned out to be the case.

Unfortunately, not so many other climate scientists are as free to revise their views as Lovelock is. You see, he doesn’t require government funding to keep him afloat.

That is a significant catch 22 that simply cannot be dismissed.



Australia’s very own Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery, who the government pays $180,000 per year for three days work per week?

Well, this is a bloke who predicted permanent drought for Australia’s three major eastern coastal cities.

Now the dams are as good as full, and the desal plants have been mothballed – at a cost of considerable billions.

So? Who?

That other government-paid climate expert, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who predicted our thriving reefs would be wiped out by now?

Who, Combet? Who, Gillard?

Who are they, are they on your payroll, and have any of their predictions come true?

Of course, their argument is bunkum, like as if a trace gas, of which humans produce only a fraction of, somehow drives global climate.

Hence, you’ll see more arguments like GetUp!’s Simon Sheikh’s; that being, “to rise above the politics”, like he said on QandA last Monday.

You see, to them, it was never about the science, even though that’s of course what they claimed and possibly what they also believed to a point.

And when the science started riding home, the hard empirical data that refuted the models, they argued it was time to “move on from that”.

OK. So we’re back to the political argument many claimed it always was?

Oh no, now it’s “let’s rise above the politics”.

Utterly vacuous words and sentiments. Deceitful, too – and perhaps to themselves the most.

People like Sheikh I do believe mean well. But he’s trying to change the way the world works because essentially, he doesn’t understand how the world works (and he must have been asleep in history class).

I would argue, however, that he does see genuine problems such as real pollution but has unfortunately, like many of our politicians and scientists, been caught up in CO2=pollution nonsense hypothesis.

He’s stuck.

He, like the other 50,000 delegates at the Rio+20 convention, have made and staked their careers on this.

Families to feed.

For example, what would he and his wife, Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) chairperson, Anna Rose, do if this all came unravelled?

What would Combet do?

What would Flannery do?

What would Gillard do?

Looking at the big picture, that is hardly important. It’s what they’ve done, what they’re doing, and what they will do before time is up that actually matters in the broader sense.

Larry Pickering:

Now we know what Emerson’s “Whyalla” rendition was all about. It was a “get that up ya” celebration which wasn’t directed at us at all. He had already lost us.

Gillard’s old bed mate, Emerson, was serenading Abbott alone in a taunting display of ridicule.

*You know, if they’d actually just made it a big money-go-round – not a take from the rich, give to the poor – but an actual money-go-round, and admitted it as simply as that, something that might have stimulated the economy, I’d probably be half for it…*

Also, if this carbon tax did ANYTHING to lower global temperatures, then they might have a sliver of an argument. That said, the whole world could adopt it and not even Tim Flannery claims it would make an iota of difference.

Their argument of, “So what? We do nothing?” is fallacious. By wasting so much time, money, and endeavour on the carbon caper, there is in fact a lot we are not doing that we should be doing again.

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • July 5th, 2012

    Well, I for one, thought this was a great thread Binger’s. An excellent effort and all very good points.

    Where are these scientists? Indeed.
    Just like aliens, they never seem to show up. Obviously because it’s all just bollocks.

    Watching Q&A, hard as it is, this question crossed my mind a few times, too. What bloody scientists? All the old claims have been put to bed as fiddled science, proven incorrect or just plain bullshit. Scientists seem reluctant to back any of the wild claims made by the likes of Gillard and her minions.

    Apparently, we are back to the old “science is settled” mantra. Even though there are now more questions than ever before. The predictions have all been duds. The normal cycle of drought is over, the “warm” weather has disappeared and as Bolta continually points out, there has been a stop to the “warming” in stark conflict with the dodgy computer models.

    “Rise above the politics”. FFS!
    These people are truly nuts. It is pure politics. Its about money, tax and wealth redistribution; and keeping politicians in government who lied to the electorate to do so. Blind Freddie could see it. It has nothing to do with temperature of the planet.

    In my opinion, I think I’ve said so here before (definitely did at Bolta’s in the earlier stages of this battle). Climate Change/Global Warming/Carbon Tax/ETS is an excuse being used to get every nation paying the magic figure to the UN. That figure has been talked about for decades under a number of differing causes. The figure is the Greens wet dream and has been since their formation. That figure was mentioned briefly by Combet on Monday night in a fleeting, off the cuff, remark.

    0.7% of GDP.

    Research that figure and I’m certain you will come across it again and again. I remember having an arguement at work with a mad Greenie in 1987 on Night Shift. At the time he was convinced if every nation were to pay 0.7% of GDP, it would end “world hunger”. Same figure, different excuse. When the “end poverty” game hit a brick wall, behold climate modeling circa: 1990 commenced. Funny about that?

    Bob Hawke once said, “by 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty ” at the height of the era of Aid. How’d that work out for you, Bob? Mmmm.

    Science has now been used for political and activist evil. Real scientists know they have been used and their credibility torn to shreds. I doubt any scientist who values his/her credibility would put their name to anything that made climate predictions today. Bad results start out as good intentions.

    Socialists do not care who they bring down to get what they want. History has proven this as fact. The world could throw 50% of GDP into welfare and the whole world would simply become, well, Greece! Broke, unproductive and in turmoil. But the true socialist would feel all warm and fuzzy, standing in the ruins of once proud nations; confident he did it for the good of the world and its people.

    /end rant

    • Hardly a rant.

      It’s the weirdest thing sometimes, blogging. So often the flippant remark garners the attention over the well thought out argument.

      The same, in a sense, could apply to last Monday’s QandA*.

      What really had people talking? Sheikh’s seizure, that’s what.

      Next, arguably, was Combet’s dulcet tones.

      And then, almost ironically, it’s his 0.7% argument that almost went unnoticed.

      Funny old world, isn’t it?

      The link is hard to decipher, but I don’t see it as no coincidence, despite the difference of personas, that Bob Hawke and Julia Gillard are both Fabian Socialists.

      My guess is that this doesn’t garner much scrutiny because most people don’t know jack about Fabian Socialism apart from what wikipedia tells them (surely I’m not the only one).

      But it is becoming clearer that Fabian socialists are just socialists, and the “Fabian” part really does mean “slow, incremental implementation of”.

      Julia Gillard is able to push the agenda harder because of the years of hard labour (so to speak) behind her (apparently all condensed into her whop arse).

      You look back with eyes wide shut, and it’s perhaps at first hard to see the connection between Hawke and Gillard. After all, Hawke did, history tells us, good things for the Aussie economy such as floating the Aussie dollar.

      And he wore that infamous Australia jacket when we won the Americas cup.

      Those two things are what arguably remain in the Australian psyche about him. Also, his ability to chug a beer (who doesn’t love that?), Blanche, his hair, his “ahhh” thingy… basically all trivial stuff.

      And yet, as you’ve pointed out, we’re back with that 0.7% stuff.

      Another Fabian socialist, and the “magic number” is back again, too.

      Lesson learned (by them), however. It’s not as if that 0.7% is at the forefront of the Fabian argument any more.

      *I managed about half of that QandA episode before I had to shut it down. It was unbearable. Between Tony’s constant “gotchas!” on Mirabella, Combet’s dulcet tones, and the leftist platitudes… nup.

      Indeed. It will be when we’re standing in a Grecian rubble that they will claim victory.

      What’s also becoming more disturbing in Western politics, is that the lessons of history are being forgotten and/or re-written.

      Despite the fall of the USSR just 20 short years ago, and the continuing anomaly of North Korea, it’s no longer enough to say “socialism” as a counter argument.

      Considering people like Sheikh weren’t politically conscious when communism fell, this shouldn’t really be a surprise.

      And thus, on Facebook and out and about, I keep coming across the general theme of “no, it’s actually good, we’ll get it right this time”.

      The silver lining is that I mostly hear it from activist foreigners who’ve never had a real job and/or are over-educated to the hilt

      Another silver lining is that it might be prudent to remember that the New Socialists are very noisy. For a group that is not representative of the population, they sure make a lot of noise on Facebook, twitter, blogs, protests, rallies, and when I’m trying to have a bloody beer.

        • J.M. Heinrichs
        • July 5th, 2012



  1. No trackbacks yet.

Surely you're thinking something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: