Poison Deviny
DAVID Karoly’s paper - which claimed the past 50 years in Australasia was the warmest on record - had been peer-reviewed and published online by the Journal of Climate last month to widespread acclaim. Now it’s been quietly removed and “put on hold” after Canadian skeptic Steve McIntyre - of hockey stick debunking fame - pointed out it contained a whopping big error. Or what Karoly and his young co-author Joelle Gergis, call a ‘’data processing issue’’. As Jo Nova puts it, “300,000 dollars and three years to produce a paper that lasted three weeks”. But while it might have been “scientifically invalid, it was a box-office success”.
Karoly having realised that something is wrong with his science is trying to fix it, while Steve McIntyre and Miranda continue to ignore that the hockey stick has been undebunked. Stalagmites, boreholes, glacier length, ice cores, lake sediment and coral studies have all backed up the hockey stick, while McIntyre still clings onto one bristlecone pine proxy record like a polar bear clinging onto the last piece of ice of his global warming affected territory.

"CLIMATE alarmists love to brand skeptics Nazis and Holocaust deniers who should be prosecuted. Yet when skeptics use an attention-grabbing billboard accurately to point out that the Unabomber was a climate alarmist, with views akin to Al Gore’s, all hell breaks loose.”

Next week on Miranda’s blog, skeptics just want to debate the facts so why won’t alarmists engage?
I wonder why Miranda hasn’t actually named any “alarmists” who call “skeptics” “Nazis”. The best I could find on Google were “alarmists” calling skeptics “Nazi deniers” a term I hadn’t heard before but means someone who did not believe the Nazis were a threat. Saying someone has their head in the sand is nowhere near as offensive as calling someone on par with murderous anti-Semites (and climate change deniers often do compare "alarmists" with Nazis) or a terrorist.

"CLIMATE alarmists love to brand skeptics Nazis and Holocaust deniers who should be prosecuted. Yet when skeptics use an attention-grabbing billboard accurately to point out that the Unabomber was a climate alarmist, with views akin to Al Gore’s, all hell breaks loose.

Next week on Miranda’s blog, skeptics just want to debate the facts so why won’t alarmists engage?

I wonder why Miranda hasn’t actually named any “alarmists” who call “skeptics” “Nazis”. The best I could find on Google were “alarmists” calling skeptics “Nazi deniers” a term I hadn’t heard before but means someone who did not believe the Nazis were a threat. Saying someone has their head in the sand is nowhere near as offensive as calling someone on par with murderous anti-Semites (and climate change deniers often do compare "alarmists" with Nazis) or a terrorist.

IT’S been rather hilarious watching the dwindling band of climate alarmists distance themselves from Gaia hypothesist James Lovelock, now he’s admitted he over-egged the pudding on global warming. Once the poster child for alarmists, the 92-year-old scientist now embarrasses them, like a nutty old aunt who’s escaped the attic. Having once worshipped at his altar, they now say he was never really one of them, and what does he know about climate science anyway. The only tactic they haven’t pulled - yet - is to pick on his age and imply he’s lost his marbles, when he sounds more rational than ever. Will any of the rats jumping from this sinking ship ever admit what damage they did to the environmental cause by their hysterical overreach, their lies, distortions and bullying abuse of those who don’t fall into line?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a large group of experts that synthesizes climate research into massive reports on the state of the science. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2009 that Lovelock, who is known for formulating the Gaia hypothesis in the 1960s, considered those reports “too optimistic, constrained by ‘consensus’ (a word that makes his teeth itch) and wedded to computer models.” Climate experts, in turn, distanced themselves from Lovelock’s doomsday rhetoric. The IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, told Agence France-Presse in September 2009 that Lovelock’s predictions were “highly improbable”; RealClimate.org, a blog written by climate scientists, noted in 2006 that Lovelock’s claims weren’t supported by scientific research.

AFP labeled Lovelock a “scientific black sheep.” The London Independent said in 2006 that Lovelock was “going out on a limb” and that his claims were “far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of comparable international standing.” And The Washington Post reported in 2006 that “the warming that Lovelock fears will occur is far more dire than that projected by many other scientists,” and that his “dire talk no doubt occasions much rolling of eyes in polite circles, particularly among scientists in the United States.”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204240022

"But Minchin, 59, the climate skeptic former Liberal senator, didn’t hold back from home truths: “Look, it’s a real problem in this debate that those of us who are not prepared yet to be convinced that man is causing dangerous global warming just get attacked personally all the time.”"

"In July, Hadley took a call on his 2GB program from “David” proclaiming to be a neighbour of Flannery’s. Flannery owned a waterfront home, the caller said, detailing its precise location and highlighting his apparent hypocrisy on sea level rises. The story took off: Andrew Bolt took to his blog with further details of the house (including a Google map) and its value, The Daily Telegraph went to print with a story, and after promising an “intelligent article” on the issue of sea level rises, Flannery claims, The Australian’s Ean Higgins wrote a piece rehashing the Hadley revelations.”

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/22/flannery-hadley-concocted-story-on-my-waterside-home/

Classic Miranda, 2011: “The most effective solution, he says, is to dramatically increase research and development on green-energy technology. For every dollar spent on research and development, you would save $11 in future climate damage, which is about 500 times better than a carbon tax.”

"The carbon price agreement will create a Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), an independent body that will have $10 billion worth of funds to allocate as loans or equity investments. These are not grants, but will help renewable energy projects to get off the ground where they are unable to find finance. Half the $10 billion will be for strictly renewable energy, while the other half will be available to renewables or “clean” gas/renewable hybrids, but not for “clean coal” carbon capture technology. The other significant move is to create the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), which will administer $3.2 billion of existing renewable energy projects."

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/48175

Classic Miranda, 2011: “At a small dinner in Sydney on Tuesday night, Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, outlined the flaws in the government’s approach. The least effective, most expensive solution to climate change is any sort of tax on carbon dioxide, he says. “For every dollar you spend, you save a couple of cents in climate damage”. And that money wasted today means you are less well placed to deal with any potential ill-effects of climate change in the future.”
I doubt the post-climate apocalypse world will still be using our forms of currency
Classic Miranda, 2010: A YouTube video from the conference by the ginger group Americans For Prosperity shows delegates with COP16 (Conference of Parties) lanyards whooping it up at a beachside fiesta. There were stiltwalkers in sombreros, a mariachi band and veritable oceans of Jose Cuervo Especial tequila, served Mexican-style with salt on the rim of the glass, aka margarita. Long, tall pina coladas circled on trays as delegates relaxed by the pool under little thatched cabanas. How many carbon emissions were in those bain maries stuffed with steaming shrimp kebab and Carnes Asadas (barbecued meat)? Far be it from me to decry junketeers. All power to them, but since power is the issue here it might be less hypocritical if the globe-trotting delegates were to meet somewhere a little more consistent with the thrifty lifestyle they advocate - like maybe a cave in Tora Bora.
Something tells me that if they did avoid eating meat because of the carbon released from cooking it Miranda would still make fun of them.