Climate change deniers don’t understand expertise

By Ken Perrott 22/11/2012

Many of you will have picked up that the World Bank has released a very important report on climate change. Its titled Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided,” and can be downloaded as a pdf.

The report mentions as highlights:

  • The world is on track to a “4°C world” marked by extreme heat-waves and life-threatening sea level rise.
  • Adverse effects of global warming are “tilted against many of the world’s poorest regions” and likely to undermine development efforts and goals.
  • Increased support is needed for adaptation, mitigation, inclusive green growth and climate-smart development.

You can get an overview at the World Bank’s press release (Climate Change Report Warns of Dramatically Warmer World This Century), at Science daily (Four-Degrees Briefing for the World Bank: The Risks of a Future Without Climate Policy) or at New Zealand’s own Hot Topic (Turn down the heat: even bankers know a bad thing when they see it (sometimes)).

Or you could even download and read the report – its only 106 pages all in.

I won’t go into its content here – just comment on a typical climate change denial reaction to the report. But first – let’s get this straight. The world Bank does not describe this as its own report – they describe it as a World Bank-commissioned report.” An important point – but one that is obvious to anyone used to dealing with such reports. Organisations like the World Bank commission experts to produce up-to-date summaries of, and reports on, such matters when they need them.

It’s a no-brainer – want a reliable report – employ experts.

The “left liberal slime” conspiracy

So how do the local climate change denial cabal over at Climate Conversations Group dismiss this report (and dismiss it they must – that’s how they pass their time. Dismissing science and slandering scientists).

Andy (familiar to many readers here for his sock-puppet behaviour) starts mildly with:

“based on current climate models -is all I need to take away from this “report” from the World Bank”

He obviously has no idea of the important role models can play in bringing understanding to complex situations. These guys just rely on anything they can use to discredit the science.

Then he continues:

“The last time I heard, banks were in the business of lending money. I didn’t think they had any expertise in determining the sensitivity of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide. Unless, of course, they have a financial interest in, say, carbon trading.”

No – he doesn’t understand the report commissioning process does he. He seems to think that bankers in pin-striped suits did the research and wrote the report.

But no – it’s more basic than that. Doesn’t matter if they were wearing pin-striped suits or white lab coats. They are all part of a world-wide conspiracy and he hates them:

“Yes I understand that the World Bank is yet another part of the left liberal slime that uses Climate Change to further its agenda. Do you think I have any respect fir these organisations at all?”

Poor Andy! How does he manage to get by in this complex world?

Who are the experts

I don’t think Andy really wants to know – but here’s some information on the people who actually produced the report.

The world bank commissioned the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and climate Analytics to prepare the report. The team of authors included:*

Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber: has been Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) since he founded the institute in 1992. He is Professor for Theoretical Physics at the University of Potsdam and External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute, USA. Furthermore, he is Chair of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU).

Olivia Serdeczny: was born in 1982, has earned her MA Philosophy at the Freie Universität Berlin and currently works as a research analyst for Professors Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf at the German Advisory Council on Global Change to the Federal Government (WBGU). In summer 2011 Olivia spent two months with the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research on board the research vessel Polarstern. She documented the cruise in several blog articles (all German)

Dr Dim Coumou: is a geophysicist by training, worked for a while as marine geophysicist in the offshore industry, before starting PhD research at ETH in Zurich. In Zurich, he worked on the development of efficient multiphase fluid flow transport schemes to study hydrothermal systems. More on hisPhD work can be found here and here.

In 2008, he joined PIK and is currently working on development of the atmospheric component of the next-generation Earth System model CLIMBER-3 (as part of PIK´s flagship project NEXT). This novel atmosphere model, Aeolus 1.0, treats the dynamical equations in a statistical way, which makes the model computationally very efficient compared to the more common general circulation type models. We can therefore study the sensitivity of atmospheric circulation to global mean temperature and other key parameters. Next, this newly developed model (a so-called Earth System Model of Intermediate Complexity – EMIC) should pave the way to efficiently study tipping elements in the Earth climate system, of which some could potentially cross a tipping point in the coming century due to anthopogenic forcings.

His recent work focused on the link between extreme weather events and global warming, which got some popular-media attention in e.g.  WIRED and FOCUS (in german). And his scientific interests include climate dynamics, extreme events, global warming, complex earth system, hydrothermal and geothermal systems. Technical interests include parallel programming, C++, object-oriented design, etc, etc, etc…

Dr Katja Frieler: Her current research focus includesdevelopment of impact functions that allow for probabilistic projections of regional climate changes and changes in the occurrence of extreme events in terms of global mean temperature change (see PRIMAP).

Dr Maria Martin: Maria Martin’s research focuses on the Antarctic sheet-shelf system.With others she developed the Potsdam Parallel Ice Sheet Model (PISM-PIK), a derived class of PISM (UAF, Alaska). She took part in a scientific expedition to Antarctica Nov. 2010 – Feb. 2011. Maria Martin also is Research Analyst in the Director’s Office at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research from April to December 2012.

Dr Ilona M. Otto: specializes in institutional and political economy. She investigates coordination mechanisms for provision of public and common goods such as biodiversity and water. Currently she is working in the Project on Sustainable Water and Agricultural Land Use in the Guanting Watershed under Limited Water Resources ( Her research in the Project focuses on governance of water resources, socio-economic impacts of water scarcity, and evaluation of possible adaptation options that could lead to a more sustainable water use in the Guanting Watershed.

Mahé Perrette: Is a PhD student working on probabilistic sea-level projections, both a the global (with Stefan Rahmstorf) and regional (with Malte Meinshausen) scales. His current project consists in developing a model for the outlet glaciers / fjord system of the Greenland ice-sheet, for a better representation of ice/ocean interactions (with Reinhard Calov and Andrey Ganopolski). He is also generally interested in combining climate models with past and present-day observations to reduce uncertainty in future sea-level projections and works in the PRIMAP group, with Stefan Rahmstorf as main supervisor.

Dr Alexander Robinson: His main interest lies with studying the interactions between the Greenland Ice Sheet and the climate. He is now employed as a post-doctoral researcher in the Paleo Modeling and Analysis (PalMA) group at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid in the Department of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Science. Alexander is a guest scientist at PIK, collaborating with Andrey Ganopolski, Reinhard Calov, Stefan Rahmstorf, Dim Coumou and Anders Levermann, among others. In his Ph. D. work he, working with Andrey Ganopolski and Reinhard Calov, developed a simple regional energy-moisture balance model (REMBO) to produce realistic climate forcing and feedbacks over Greenland, given that warming in the future could drastically change the regional distribution of temperature and precipitation. The work was funded by the Marie Curie 6th Framework Programme and was a part of the Network for Ice sheet and Climate Interactions (NICE).

Jacob Schewe: researches in the areas of stability of monsoon circulations, global oceanic overturning (with Prof. Dr. Anders Levermann), and climate impacts (within the ISI-MIP project).

Dr Lila Warszawski: works on climate impacts and vulnerabilities.

*Want to find out more about these scientists – click on the links to get CVs, publication lists, etc.

Similar articles

0 Responses to “Climate change deniers don’t understand expertise”

  • Is it my imagination, or is the level of climate change denial starting to decline?

  • That’s the impression I have too Kemo. I think there us recent research (Australian I think) showing that everyone tends to overestimate the extent of denial.

    I think the recent High Court decision here made the deniers look silly and they have retreated into a very active but small group saying some quite extreme things – not great for getting support.

  • A couple of things to remember about deniers. A good number of them are familiar with the scientific facts they just don’t care. Others do not really understand. They think the claim is that CO2 is somehow toxic. They have no idea how CO2 molecules are transparent to ultraviolet but opaque to infra red and how energy is absorbed by various molecules. Others just go along with their coalition of choice. But don’t expect arch conservatives who don’t really understand to have an epiphany when it’s all explained. It’s their world view you are challenging and we ain’t anything but our worldview. It’s their moral identity that is at stake and denial of your moral self is tantamount to suicide. That’s why our psychologies evolved that way in the first place. It’s the mechanism that makes us the groupies we are.

    • Yes Stuart.

      I think it’s clear that Andy is coming from an extreme political/ideological perspective common to many climate change deniers.

  • I’m not suggesting that denial (in the face of evidence) is necessarily uni-dimensional in any political sense. Left wing activists can be equally selective on the grounds that the end justifies the means. Some refer to this as neo-Lyshenkoism. Gould and Lewontin and their “Science for the People” springs to mind.

    • I understand and agree Stuart. However, in my experience the more militant climate change deniers seem almost always to be extremely conservative, usually with a good dollop of conspiracy fantasy built in.

      We are not a rational species – more a rationalising one – so the common interference of ideology and prejudice is not surprising.

      It happens more with people who aren’t part of the social complex of science, subject to questioning and criticism and peer review.

      That said – I don’t realy know what left and right means anymore in politics – but agree its a problem from all ideological directions. And the ends justifying the means comes from all ideological directions.

  • I think the capacity to trust is an important ingredient here. As Bruce Schneier says, trust is infra-digital. A child frequently betrayed will develop a fortress mentality. All of the psychologists agree I think that the development of the Ego and who gets included in its moral universe works this way. Freud, Piaget, Kohlberg, Blasi. Rather than revise your core beliefs and the associated cognitive dissonance the most preposterous conspiracy theories will be entertained. Prof. Charles Higham the archeologist at Otago calls them “pyramidamaniacs”. Nutters who rearrange the evidence with dynamite to save the theory.

  • The social complex of science is an interesting one as it conforms to the revisionary theories on group selection currently reappraised. As W E Deming often said cooperation will trump competition any day.

  • Thanks for mis-representing me Ken.
    I enjoyed the pseudo-scientific bullsh*t

    By the way, the Potsdam Institute that was commissioned by the World Bank for this report has a history of over-egging the pudding

    Why didn’t the World bank use the IPCC reports? Perhaps they are a little too “conservative” for them?

    Incidentally, I appreciate your concern about my sanity and my education. I have a PhD in engineering, a maths degree and an MSc in Geophysics.

    My “extreme conservative” views have led me to vote for all main political parties in NZ, including (please forgive me) the Greens at one time in a moment of extreme stupidity

  • Andy, I didn’t misrepresent you – I quoted you. And you don’t seem to have backed away from those extreme comments. Describing an international institute as “left liberal slime” because they commissioned a scientific report is hardly rational.

    I guess you do concede your mistake though because now you have moved to attacking the institute who produced the report. But again, how rational is it to cast aspersions without justification. You don’t have any do you? Just like the constant childish attacks on Michael Mann.

    Clearly, you are in a permanent “shoot the messenger” mode – hardly conducive to real understanding whatever academic qualifications you claim.

    Andy, considering that the last IPCC review was published in 2007, and closed before then, it’s perfectly understandable for responsible organisations to commission reports on current knowledge in this area. Many scientists felt the IPCC review was conservative at the time and there is now more science enabling an update. As you will be aware, the IPCC is doing its own new review – a compete update.

    As to your conservative political views, and their role in your attacks on science – I rest my case on the evidence and leave it to readers to decide.

  • No I don’t back away from those comments

    But hey we still have a “free country” here in NZ and I hope I won’t have my foster children taken away from me for my “extreme views” (sic) as in the UKIP/Rotherham case.

    Ken, you do actually write some stuff that is interesting to me. For example, about astronomy and particle physics

    Maybe we can keep off the mutual sniping and enjoy what we have in common?

  • WTF Andy. You do go off at tangents.

    Well I guess that’s one way of avoiding the decency of backing up your extreme claims.

  • Ok, Ken. well lets not find any common ground then

    I will make it quite clear that I regard you and you fellow travellers on NZ “science” blogs as parasitic vermin.

    OK, now Ken, perhaps you would actually like to give me some empirical evidence that you think the world will be perhaps 4 degrees warmer any time soon.

    Try to use some actual empirical evidence, rather than the computer models that your braindead chums at the “institute” of Potsdam came up with.

    I of course, with a PhD, and interest in “object oriented programming, C++, parallel computing” etc, could come up up a model; that showed that we would be engulfed by space aliens in 20 years.

    I am sure I could attract lots of govt funding, and I a could spend my days droning on about how smug, how superior, how utterly magnificent I am. I could wank on about how anyone who disagreed with me is “anti-science” a “denier”

  • I don’t know anything about the “Andy” you refer to but he seems to know a bit about the UK Independance Party and Wikipedia doesnt give them a very flattering report.
    Above Andy is credited with the following remark:

    “The last time I heard, banks were in the business of lending money. I didn’t think they had any expertise in determining the sensitivity of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide. Unless, of course, they have a financial interest in, say, carbon trading.”

    This is a perplexing remark because bankers are alleged to be prominent climate change deniers. Certainly Maurice Newman of the Australian, a Murdoch publication, is a denier and a prominent banker.
    Are you suggesting Andy that Bankers are ok if they deny climate change but part of some evil conspiracy otherwise? This seems to be a classic cherry picking exercise or an example of a ” no true Scotsman” argument.

  • Again, Andy, WTF. You seem to have an anger problem.

    “Parasitic vermin”, “brain dead chums” -that’s how you see honest scientists? No wonder you made a fool of yourself in the High Court.

    Stuart has a point. A banking institution which consults scientists to find out about science is “left liberal slime”, but a banker with your own political conspiracy theory psychosis is a saint!

    Empirical evidence is if course nice – beats extremist rhetoric. But it seems that’s all you have to go on in this case.

  • Andy,

    “I will make it quite clear that I regard you and you fellow travellers on NZ “science” blogs as parasitic vermin.”

    Even if you were right (you’re not), tarring everyone with the same brush is pretty silly.

    Doubly silly to lead a suggestion to not snipe by sniping like that. Completely undoes it, eh?

  • Yes I do have a bit of an anger problem. It might be something to do with all those “experts” that are trying to shaft me and my family over the ChCh earthquake recovery.

    However, it does provide me with some cathartic pleasure to deal with the sanctimonious drivel from Ken, whose vocabulary seems to extend to “denier’ and about 20 other words

    Have a nice day

  • Some perhaps most require an x to despise. It seems to play an important part in our definition of self. It is also a convenient way of scapegoating and demonising our disappointments elsewhere and God knows we all have disappointments. I think clever but unscrupulous people exploit this phenomenon. That is who the astroturfing is directed at.

  • Sorry about the psycho babble but there is something going with this here denial stuff. I can understand the motivations of the unscrupulous but their real power, their effectiveness is the readiness of some people for non empirical reasons, to go along with it. I would say its the same psychology as the antisemitism thing. In fact disguised antisemitism is often not far away. The scheming bankers, the profiteers from carbon trading, the dark conspiracies operating on a cosmic scale, in their unguarded moments one glimpses the existential terror. For such unfortunate souls life is a zero sum game.

  • But back to the unscrupulous who do know what they are doing, the above mentioned Maurice L Newman of the Australian claims in his Nov 5th diatribe that Paul Erhlich in 1969 claimed that by 2000 Britain, due to the impending ice age, was doomed. When it didn’t eventuate Erhlich became a “warmist”.
    Newman doesn’t provide a reference and I thought Erhlich’s prognostications were about unsustainable population growth and food shortages. Well maybe Erhlich was correct. Global warming is already impacting on food production.
    Newman’s other outrageous claim is that economic inequality is the fault of the environmental movement. Propagandists have always known the more extravagant and widespread a lie the more likely it is to be believed.

  • Andy, seems that you take my use of the word “denier” as a personal insult. Well I invite you to look at how and where I use the word and to check if it apples to you.

    Generally I use a catch-all term like sceptic/contrarian/denier. But sometimes I will be more specific.

    I have made it clear that in the area of climate change I think “sceptic” is generally misused. Scepticism is the normal mode of scientific thinking. It’s normal for scientific ideas and conclusions to face sceptical treatment – and that is a good thing. It’s part of the social nature of science and helps reduce the effect of bias and commitment to pet theories. It’s an essential component of peer review.

    I count myself as a scientific sceptic of any scientific idea – including those in climate change. The important feature of scientific scepticism that the criticism is done in good faith. We play the ball, not the man. Accusations of scientific fraud, hoaxes, etc., and the sort of hatred directed at Michael Mann is not good faith science and I don’t count it as scepticism.

    A contrarian is someone who tends to be against any expressed idea – as a knee jerk reaction. It’s common amongst us old fellows and, by itself, is not necessarily bad. Provided it doesn’t stop at that. Contrarians who follow up their initial reactions by looking at ideas properly and considering evidence in good faith are quite acceptable to me. I see it as just an endearing personal characteristic. I am a bit of a contrarian myself.

    Deniers work to discredit an idea or theory they oppose. Often their reasons are ideological or political. Sometimes just emotional. After all the possible scenarios of future climate change through our continued use of fossil fuel are quite scary. It’s not surprising some people just can’t face up to that, or even feel guilty about their inability to change the situation. Denial is a common first step in reaction to such problems

    Deniers will expose themselves by the way they cherry pick information to fit their preferred ideas. Something we all tend to do of course – which is why good faith scepticism is so essential in scientific research. But deniers exposé themselves by their methods of cherry picking and their attacks in other information nit supporting their bias.

    The more ideologically motivated deniers expose themselves by their lack of good faith. They will claim that research not fitting their ideas is fraudulent. That will personally attack researchers – cast unwarranted aspersions. They are not being sceptical – they are being political, ideological, and usually have strong or extreme political views and tend to harbour conspiracy theories.

    Finally, the more extreme deniers, or perhaps those who are suffering from anger problems, don’t even worry about the evidence or its cherry picking. They just go into an attack mode. Call people who don’t hold their views childish names and make accusations of dishonesty, manipulation or hiding of data, etc.

    Now, Andy, I don’t think I can describe you as a sceptic or even a contrarian. Your criticisms are not made in good faith. They generally play the man rather than the ball. You commonly make accusations of dishonesty or falsifying of data. You cherry pick reports from denier blogs and ignore evidence from reliable sources. Worse, you in most cases have a knee jerk reaction of attempting to discredit reliable scientific sources.

    Finally, in this most recent exchange evidence just hasn’t been a issue for you. You have simply gone on the attack, accused scientists of bad work and made personal and demeaning comments on your discussion partners.

    You are definitely a classic example of a climate change denier.

  • I don’t “deny” that climate is changing, and that humans may be in part responsible for this.

    As Richard Lindzen said, this is a “trivially true but essentially meaningless” statement.

    However, there is a massive amount of vested interest tied up in climate change alarmism. The “Potsdam Institute” that produced this report is a classic case.

    The mere fact that the word “denier” is culturally acceptable in NZ Science blogs rings out alarm bells to me.

    I do take offense, but ultimately it is science’s loss, because young people who want to study science for its own sake will realise that a large part of it is a lost cause, corrupted by government and money.

    They will go elsewhere for their career opportunities.

  • Andy – classic denial as I described it. There is no good faith in your position. Accusations of “vested interest,” description of scientific conclusions as “alarmism.” Smearing the institute which produced the report – no supporting evidence anywhere.

    And his can you be so disingenuous to attack climate scientists when you claim to accept the very thing they are telling us – the climate is changing and human activity is most probably one if the major factors currently causing that.

    The bells you hear in your head, Andy, come from your ideological position. I think most people see the advent of SciBlogs as a positive thing that not only brings an understanding of science to the public but which will help attract young people to science.

    Honest supporters if science are directing their concern at the stupid research funding mechanisms we have had to put up with. That will really drive people away.

  • Ok, Ken, I will leave you rot in your little bubble of virtuousness.
    By way, do you realize that you hero Mann has had his work sharply critiqued by Briffa et al? I guess they are Deniers too, now

  • Again Andy – classic denial.

    You didn’t read my comment – or refused to take it in.

    Scientists are sceptics. They continually criticise and challenge each others ideas. But it is done in good faith – not slander.

    Active and sometimes quite strong criticism is common and expected among honest scientists.

    But it is dishonest to interpret that atmosphere if scientific scepticism and criticism as somehow equivalent to the slander and dishonest denial you indulge in.

    Have you not experienced this climate of good faith criticism and scepticism I am talking about.

  • Ken, you ate possibly the most ignorant and abusive person I have ever come across.

    You have absolutely no interest in science

    You are a bigot.

  • That is possibly true Ken, but I remind tou that you wrote a blog post slandering me, based on some throwaway comments I made on another blog whilst responding to an abusive troll over there.

    Never mind Ken, I intent to write a complaint to SciBlogs that you are using this taxpayer funded platform to pursue personal vendettas against people.

    If necessary, I will take legal action against you.

    Have a nice day.

  • That is great news Ken. Imam sure that we will each enjoy destroying each others lives.

    I am sure the Stalinist attack muppets who read this blog will get their rocks off watching this

  • Don’t be silly, Andy.

    No-one’s life is being destroyed.

    Why not get on with it and make your compliant if you honestly think I have treated you badly. It should make you feel better.

    A bit of advice, though. You are not helping your case with all this name calling.

  • That is really funn Ken. You accuse me of name calling yet you call me a denier,
    I equate this term with Nigger, jewboy etc.

  • To no one in particular or maybe to everyone. There’s an excellent little discussion on narcissistic personalities in the latest Scientific American.

    They tend to be manipulative and Machiavellian. I suspect they spend a lot of time being provocative on controversial topic blog sites. The thing they crave is engagement. It is only then they can start pushing people’s buttons. The best response is not to reason with them, they have nothing but contempt for reason. I tend to avoid them once i recognise them. Not hard to do on a blog site. They want their adversaries to stoop to the same level of debate. That is victory for them.

    Incidentally and totally unrelated I see the insurance industry on the UK is signalling market responses to extreme weather events. Sadly it takes a Pearl Harbour or two to wake some people up. It’s called a “reality check”.

  • Stuart, I would remind you that Ken started this topic. He referred to me as a “denier” ( a term I equate with Holocaust Denier etc) and then he went on to make several unsubstantiated claims against me.

    So it is not me doing the attention seeking, it is Ken.

  • Andy, do you want to get into a debate of definitions, or a he said she said interchange, here or go ahead with making a formal compliant, or take legal action.

    I prefer the last two options as there are avenues for presenting evidence and getting arbitration. Much prefer to that continuing this level of silly exchanges.

    But it’s up to you obviously. And a decision would be nice as I have had at least one media inquiry.

    Are you going to set up a trust?

  • Actually Ken, I really can’t be bothered, as I have just engaged a lawyer to deal with my insurance company in Christchurch.
    At $360 an hour, this might stretch by budget a bit to deal with trash like you.

    However, I do quite enjoy watching you prattle on about “deniers”

    It just reminds me what a completely and utterly intolerant and braindead country NZ is.

    My recommendation to any students thinking of coming here to study is – don’t bother.

  • Andy, I understand that you realise your tame Trust no longer has any credibility so you can’t use it for legal action.

    But come on – it costs you nothing to make a formal complaint. Talk to your mate Ian Wishart he had a similar go at SciBlogs a few years back.

    But if your little threat was nothing more than piss and wind, what about reading my previous comment defining denial, scepticism and contrarianism. See which one fits you best (I am telling you now scepticism won’t be accepted as that requires good faith) or substitute and justify your own alternative.

  • Andy, I understand that you realise your tame Trust no longer has any credibility so you can’t use it for legal action.

    Which trust are you referring to Ken?

    I have a family trust. I am not associated with any other trusts.
    Perhaps you are somehow assuming that I am associated with the NZCSET because I happen to leave a comment on a blog that is somehow associated with he NZCSET.

    Is there anything else you wish to make up about me Perrott? After all, you have the sycophantic audience of NZ “Science” blogs to back you up.

  • Andy,

    I would suggest (again) that tarring everyone at sciblogs because you feel frustrated is a bad idea. (Also, I believe I am correct in saying that Sciblogs—no capital ‘B’ by the way—is not run off taxpayer’s money.)

  • Andy, can’t you guys recognise humour – or is the issue of that Trust and the High Court decision not the joke for you that it is for me?

    However, more seriously what about answering my quiestion:
    “read my previous comment defining denial, scepticism and contrarianism. See which one fits you best (I am telling you now scepticism won’t be accepted as that requires good faith) or substitute and justify your own alternative.”

    I should think that is an issue you would wish to deal with – after all your mate Treadgold deletes comments partly because words like denial are used. Yoiu must have an alternative in mind.

  • I don’t think our “Andy” has any Phd. In fact I don’t think he has any qualifications at all. Just spends all day on his computer with nothing better to do but indulge his Walter Mitty fantasies.

  • Matheson, I have an Ma in Maths from Cambriidge, an MSc in Geophycis fro Leeds and a PHD in Electrical Engineering fro RGU in Scotland.

    You can ask any of the fascists at here or Hot Tooic who are quite happy to post my contact details on Sci blogs without my permission, they are also quite happy to refer to me as a rent boy, a rapist and a child molestor,using my full name and contact details

  • Grant, I am not aiming my comments at you or any of the other blogers who do actually write about science. Sorry if you got the wrong impression.

  • Andy, sure you are not interpreting “denier” to mean rent boy, rapist and child molestor. As well as nigger, jewboy, holocaust denier, etc.

    You do seem to trade in horrible abusive name, even if you seem to be imaging some of them..

    But forget about imagined names. Why specifically should I stop referring to you as a climate change denier, and what alternative would you prefer? (No, sceptic does not apply as it requires good faith),

  • But forget about imagined names. Why specifically should I stop referring to you as a climate change denier, and what alternative would you prefer? (No, sceptic does not apply as it requires good faith),

    The ironic is, of course, Ken, that you have never ever taken any interest in climate science or those so-called “deniers” that discuss it at “your mates” blog.

    By the way, I am currently reading Andrew Montford’s new book “Hiding the Decline” which is a history of the climategate affair.
    I am sure you are very familiar with this

    NZ gets quite a mention in chapter 1.

  • Andy, you are off a a tangent again. It’s like deling with someone suffering dementia.

    What is your preferred alternative to climate change denier?

  • Great, so not only do I not uderstand so called experts, I am a Denier, and I have a mental illness, and I don’t have any of the degrees that I have earned and I am a deluded Walter Mitty type character.
    Perhaps I am an Axe Murderer too Ken?

    Anything else you would like to say?

  • You do have a problem with anger, don’t you Andy.

    The only thing I have said in your long list of complaints is that you are a climate change denier.

    You don’t seem to be able to suggest a credible alternative so I guess I will stick with that.


  • “What about getting my teeth…”

    Why would I even bother? I have read the abstract of the paper and it states that the melting ice caps “may be contributing 0.59mm per year” to global sea level rise.

    Oh God please think of the children!

    It’s worse than we thought!

    Oh the humanity!

  • What am in denial about Ken? I just read the freakin abstract for the paper?

    Do you think this is the “biggest crisis facing humanity”?
    There has been 0.8 degrees C of warming since pre-industrial times. Most of this occurred in two separate periods in the 20th Century.

    Sea level rises have been miniscule, yet parts of Christchurch dropped one metre during the Feb Earthquake. This was a 20 second event that changed peoples lives, yet you and your sanctimonious climate scientists tell us that a similar event that might take a century or two is “the biggest crisis facing humanity”

    I’m not “in denial”.

    I just can’t be bothered any more

  • Andy, I think you are in denial about the science and significance of our findings. In the previous comment you attempt to belittle the seriousness of sea level changes by stressing the annual rate. The significance is that that rate continues for a long time and we will be seeing obvious results in the future – the end of the century and next century.

    Similarly belittling the actual temperature increase is a way of avoiding facing up to the future when an increase of only 2 degrees has important effects – and the increase is likely to be greater because we are not able to cooperate sufficiently at the political level to avert higher temperatures.

    You also demonstrate denial be your continual denigration of science and scientists. That denigration is general and childish – to the extent of calling SciBloggers “fascists.”

    But do you prefer contrarian to denier? You certainly don’t qualify for sceptic because clearly your critiques are not in good faith.

    You act very strangely for someone who “can’t be bothered any more.” You are in a continual frenzy of blog commenting, always putting down honest scientists and denigrating their results.

    You bother all right. But you obviously feel very stressed about it.

  • Ken,
    I am really enjoying Hiding the Decline right now. It is a great history of the corruption in climate science and features lots of New Zealanders

  • I can see how the book appeals to your conspiracy theory predilections Andy.

    But does it worry you that there is no evidence? After all if there were proven corruption in New Zealand science there would be prosecutions.

    What “evidence” does the author produce – that silly article “Are we getting warmer yet?”!?

    But that is one malicious form of denial – accuse scientists of fraud when the facts don’t suit you.

  • Who said anything about conspiracy, or that NZ scientists were corrupt?

    The book seems like a fairly well-balanced history of the climategate affair to me.

    I never mentioned anything about corruption in NZ science Ken, this must be a problem for you

    Of course, you’ll have to read the book rather than take my word for it.

    It does make a mention of your expert that you cite in your post, namely Stefan Rahmsdorf, who was featured in the CG emails

  • Andy: “It is a great history of the corruption in climate science and features lots of New Zealanders”, followed by “Who said anything about conspiracy, or that NZ scientists were corrupt?”.
    The implication is certainly there.

  • “and features lots of New Zealanders” is a separate part of the sentence.

    You may find the book interesting as it provides a potted history of the climategate affair, the issues around paleoclimatic reconstruction, and the cover-ups and the vested interests, mainly in the UK.

    Then of course, you may have a closed mind and prefer to be in denial and not read the book. It’s your choice

  • So, Andy, you now back away from your claim:
    ” It is a great history of the corruption in climate science and features lots of New Zealanders”

    There is a clear inference there which you and your mates have promoted regarding NIWA science and climate science in general. It is dishonest and disingenuous to even infer such a lie.

    And, my comment that there would have been prosecutions apply just as much to the UK and US where all attempts by deniers have failed. You have done nothing to justify your claim of corruption in climate science and I am sure Montford hasn’t either.

    You are claiming corruption without evidence – typical denial and conspiracy theory.

    Clearly Montford is giving a denialist interpretation of climate gate and paleoclimate studies. (That’s why you prefer him). Personally I found Michael Mann’s book very authoritative on the latter and informative on the first. He’s been in the thick of it and until you have read his account you cannot claim a balanced understanding of the issues.

    I have Montford’s books and may or may to read them – there are far more pressing books to read.

    Now, tell me – where did I mention Stefan Rhamsdorf in this post? Either your reading or my reading is faulty.

    Why even mention the guy!

    And let’s not forget a lot of very good scientists featured in this emails. They did of course occasionally refer to idiots like Mad Monckton, but usually not in a flattering way.

  • Oh forgive me, Rahmsdorf works at the Potsdam Institute so I assumed that he was involved in the report you mention.
    Anyway, I didn’t mention anything about the supposed corruption in NZ science, you did. I didn’t mention anything about a conspiracy, you did. I didn’t even mention NIWA, you did.

    Once again. Ken, you are living in your little bubble of reality, claiming that you and your beloved scientists are victims of “attacks” from me

    You need help Ken. You wrote a hit piece on me based on a “man in pub” type comment I made on another blog, and you seem to think I am part of the “global denial conspiracy” that you and your chums that live in the bubble have constructed for yourselves.

  • Andy, forget NZ and NIWA – you are using them as diversions:

    You wrote:

    I am really enjoying Hiding the Decline right now. It is a great history of the corruption in climate science and features lots of New Zealanders.”

    You are claiming corruption in climate science without ever providing supporting evidence. My point is that if that corruption existed we would have seen prosecutions. Instead we have seen inquiry after inquiry reject such denialist claims. Effectively that is what happened in the NZ High Court.

    And, Andy, please face up to your responsibility. You made those “man in the pub comments,” they were derogatory but you repeated that you stood by them. You didn’t back away or withdraw them.

    That’s fine by me – it helps readers understand your bias.

  • Ok, how about
    (1) Blocking legitimate FOI requests
    (2) Deleting emails that may be subject to FOI (possibly illegal)
    (3) “Cheque kiting” of academic papers.
    (4) Using “tricks to hide the decline” (i,e splicing paleo and instrumental data together without making it clear in the legend)
    (5) Claiming that the Yamal chronology is a valid hockey stick reconstruction when only one tree in the series showed the hockey stick
    (6) Conspiring to get Chris de Freitas sacked from his job at Auckland University
    (7) Claiming that the “independent” enquiries had no connection with UEA when one of them worked there

    etc etc etc.

    I could go on Ken. it’s all in the book, and all easily verified

    Oh and I might get round to reading Mann’s book, but the guy blocked me from his Facebook page because I made an innocuous comment about an unrelated topic. The only guys he allows on his Facebook page are sycophantic gushing fans who drone on about “deniers” all day. He refers to his critics as “beetle larvae” and refusing to discuss anything in the media unless his interviewers are gushing sycophantic drones too.

  • 1: Institutions have a right to decline FOI requests. No corruption there. (Don’t forget Treadgold refused to supply Information I requested, after initially agreeing to. He refused to even provide Manfred’s name as coauthor. Come on Andy, be consistent).
    2: legitimate criticism if occurred. Evidence is that despite requesting it no deletions occurred. Certainly no prosecutions have taken place.
    3. Don’t understand – never came across the term during my many years of publishing abd reviewing scientific papers
    4: beating a dead horse – that “trick” is well understood and did not involve deception.
    5: bullshit
    6: Bullshit – but many people have commented that this guy should not be teaching the subject.
    7: yes – sounds like the typical denier method of discrediting judges and authorities – rather than face up to the weaknesses in their case. We saw it all paraded after the local high court case.
    Etc. etc.

    In other words you cannot justify claims of corruption. But you will still continue to make the claim.

    Now here’s a strange contradiction – you object to me referring to your “man in the pub” comments – comments published publicly on a blog and which you repeated that you stood by. Yet you are happy to build castles out of “man in the pub” comments made in private emails, which were never meant to be public and were genuine private bitching. And yes, stolen emails.

    Now you would probably object to my repeating out of context comments made by Richard Treadgold in emails to me.

    Why be so dishonest.

    If you think there is something wrong with the science, then critique it just like the rest of us.

    The fact that you fall back on unsupported accusations ofcoirruption and fraud show that you have no confidence in those few scientific objections you make.

  • That is your response Ken, “bullshit”

    I have no intention of wasting my time explaining any of this to you. There are plenty of mainstream climate scientists who also agree with a lot of what is said in this book

    Really, you want me to apologise for a comment I made on another blog, that I might think that the “tranzi” organisations like the World Bank or the IMF chose their scientists to further their political views.

    Oh dear Ken, yet you feel perfectly justified in calling me a “denier” and making up a whole load of bollocks about me

    The fact is Ken, I have had a gutsful of dishonest, sneering, smug, tedious, droning useful idiots (like you) for the “new left” – the bien pensant liberal elite who tell everyone what to think and do, ignoring anything that the common man or woman might have a view on.

    You are the “new racists” or the “liberal facists” as Jonah Goldberg aptly entitled you.

    I sincerely despise you from every orifice.

  • “Man in the pub” talk again, Andy?

    Careful – after all not even private emails are safe. You may find people draw their own conclusions from such biased language and outright abuse. After all you are committing it to a public forum.

    By the way – how’s that complaint of yours going? I have not heard anything at my end.

  • Great Ken, so you are now threatening me.

    People can link to your “blog” and see how “extreme” my views are

    Piss off Ken.

  • By the way, Ken, I don’t need to complain – I can just clutter up your blog with abuse directed at you. After all, it is you that made various false accusations against me, so I feel justified responding in kind.

    You and your Stalinist Attack Muppet friends that hover around the unsyndicated version of your blog will no doubt be foaming at the mouth at the prospect of yet another link that they can spray around the internet

    People can make up their own views Ken.

    By the way, I enjoyed reading your piece on Muslim culture in Saudi.
    Has anyone threatened to behead you yet?

    Something to look forward to, perhaps?

  • Andy “I can just clutter up your blog with abuse directed at you.”

    Or you could just get a life. I am sure that would help with the anger problem.

    I don’t know how you guys can hold down a job a spend all your time on the internet. I could never have got away with that when I was working.

  • The same kind of personalities are denying the innocence of David Bain. Might even be the same people under different aliases. This is what some people do from dawn to dusk.

  • I am not “denying” anything.

    However, Perrott asks me whether I prefer to be called a “climate denier” or a “climate contrarian”, which is a bit like asking a gay man if he prefers being called a shirt-lifter or a faggot

    The more that you vermin hover around this blog and make insinuations against me, the more I will respond.

    I hope you understand.

  • I find it amusing that Stuart Matheson compares those that deny the climate with those that deny David Bain’s innocence, when no one has actually found David Bain innocent in a court of law, and even now jury members are speaking out to the press

  • Confirmed what? Do you disagree with my statement?

    I have no opinion either way on David Bain, but he was found “not guilty beyond reasonable doubt” .This is not the same as “innocent”. It is a simple legal distinction.

  • Not as simple as you are.
    I’ll go further. We are talking about the 6% discussed recently in New Scientist. The 6% that will cross the centre line to kill small animals with cars.

  • Sorry I don’t read New Scientist. What exactly are you referirng to?

    You will have to be more clear, which 6%?
    6% of what?

    Which small animals?

  • Andy, isn’t your point trivial – that is, not worthy of making?

    After all, neither you or I have been found innocent of those murders either. But no one old point that out unless they were into dog whistling.

  • I didn’t make any point about David Bain. I didn’t even bring up the topic.

    However, it is a curious insight into the mindset of the likes of Stuart Matheson, where he claims that David Bain’s innocence is like some kind of universal physical constant,

    Perhaps it is the bien pensant attitude of those with spray-on leftist views that these “facts” are all taken as given, like climate change, and anyone who questions any of it whatsoever is a right-wing, red-neck, Daily Mail reading moron

  • Andy, I think you can get an insight into the mindset of any commenter here – particularly when they wander all over the place, get emotional and make judgements.

  • Yes indeed Ken. Stuart Matheson, for example, has brought up David Bain, and small furry animals, which have nothing to do with “experts”, the World Bank, and those that deny the climate

    You, of course, have been abusive, but since that is your standard mode out of the box, you are unaware of it.

    I have mentioned issues with corruption in climate science, which you deny, because that’s what deniers do.

  • So, Ken, I am interested in your comment that my point about “innocent” vs “not guilty” is a trivial point.

    I have never done jury service but I understand that the judge explains this point quite carefully to the jury.

    Furthermore, the issue of innocence in the David Bain case means around $2 million to him personally, so he probably doesn’t thin it is trivial either, as he would have to prove innocence vs “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”

    Anyway, this is irrelevant to the post, which is irrelevant anyway

  • It’s not about David Bain, or small furry animals. It’s about moral imbeciles.

  • “Moral imbeciles”

    I am sorry Stuart, i don’t quite understand your comment.

    However, I will fill in the gaps and you can confirm or deny as appropriate:

    “Anyone who questions any aspect of the climate change debate whatsoever, whether it be an academic point around an obscure northern hemisphere tree ring chronology, or whether it be government policy towards industrial wind parks in the Scottish Highlands, is a “flat earther” a “denier”, a “moron” etc.

    The important thing in modern “civil society” is that we all think exactly the same. Any dissent is to be dealt by a crushing blow, to be sneered at by your absolute belief in your intellectual superiority.

    Sneering, pompous,smug, supercilious, spent used Jet Trash.

    Do you have anything to add?

  • I invite the denial fraternity to google “General Electric and climate change”. There you will find GE made a Corporate acceptance of climate science and a commitment to seek solutions. This was in 2005 I think. They also crossed swords with the Republican candidates in the most recent elections over this issue. The only industry that doesn’t as far as I can see is the fossil fuel industry and their captive politicians. The others aren’t worth discussing.

  • OK, that’s settled then. GE “accept the science”. All of it. Every single paper, without any scepticism whatsoever.

    Nothing to do with GE being one of the main players in the wind turbine market of course, that’s just a coincidence

  • Andy: Smart companies work out where the future lies and invest in it. Companies that can’t (easily) adapt in the face of change tend to ‘spin’ their existing position/products. Just thoughts.

  • The blog site “Watching the deniers” reports with links a survey of scientific literature conducted by James Lawrence Powel of some 13,000 papers on global warming found that only 24 (0.17%) rejected the connection between carbon emissions and global warming. These were all relevant publications in the peer reviewed literature over a 21 year period.

  • Smart companies leverage the latest political fad, and also where the subsidies lie. That is why there is a rush for wind in places like the UK. Not because it is “smart” (it is possibly the dumbest concept ever) but because they can suck at the teat of government money.
    I see that “smart” money put in 1500 electric charging points in Ireland for 170 electric cars, and the entire industry is tanking.

    Of course, the climate change/renewables gravy train will come to an end at some point, then we’ll move onto the next one.

  • I love that title “watching the deniers”. It reminds me of those creepy guys that hang around children’s playgrounds.

  • I am not investing in coal, Ken.

    But I do advocate energy systems that work, like Nuclear and Shale Gas.

    Wind is a waste of time and money

  • There were financial incentives to use fossil fuels on an unsustainable scale in the first place. It incentivised the so-called Tragedy of the Commons. That being a major motivator of human behaviour, let’s use it.

  • Andy, Seems there’s no value in saying anything to you — everything is a conspiracy to you and accompanied by swipes at whoever writes anything at all.

  • We still need the fossil fuels to power us when the wind isn’t blowing, to build the wind turbines, and to make all the concrete that makes up the bases.

    Some studies suggest that the fossil fuel usage with wind is greater than one based on gas.

    However, common sense and rational thinking is not a trait that is associated with those of the warmist creed

  • Andy, I’m guessing GE will be around a lot longer and achieve a lot more good than you ever will.
    So being a father and a grandfather makes me suspect does it?

  • I don’t see a “conspiracy”.
    However, I do see a lot of dishonest people that are making a lot of money by leveraging the climate change agenda (like WWF and Greenpeace, for example)

    You could, of course, have a rational discussion about the merits of Shale Gas, or Thorium energy, but I am hardly likely to find a receptive audience at NZ “Science” blogs where a bunch of semi-literates squark on about “deniers” all day

  • GE is one of the pioneers of Thorium reactors and are building prototypes as we speak. So is Subcontinent India. We wouldnt even have nuclear reactors thorium or otherwise, or the exploitation of shale gas without the cooperative enterprises and profit motive that modern capitalism and global trade exemplifies. The problem is not corporate activity it is the political ideology and right wing rabble rousing politicians who will not regulate it. The very same politicians in fact behind the denial industry.

  • Andy,

    You wrote: ‘but I am hardly likely to find a receptive audience at NZ “Science” blogs where a bunch of semi-literates squark on about “deniers” all day’ — back to smearing everyone with the same broad brush again. You are not going to (be able to) have a discussion (of any kind) if you do that. I suggest you look to yourself first.

    Sure Ken mentioned you in his article, but he also presented a lot of substantial material which you don’t appear to have even tried to engage with. Don’t get angry with me over this – this offered is food for self-thought, not an invitation to discussion as I’m not writing further here.

    As a soft-of comparison, I have an anti-vaccine group that has incorrectly made out to their readers that I was involved in a filing a complaint that saw them lose their charity status and generally cast aspersions on me. My complaint to them is not what they wrote, but that they wont let me reply on their forum to put my position to their readers. You don’t have that problem. Compared to what I am facing, you ought to be grateful you have the opportunity to speak, IMO.

    3. I’m gone from this ‘discussion’, OK? — Cheers.

  • “Sure Ken mentioned you in his article, but he also presented a lot of substantial material which you don’t appear to have even tried to engage with”

    I haven’t got time to deal with the issues, and that is not the point. The point is not whether the science is right or not. The point is that he claims that “climate change deniers don’t understand expertise”

    Well of course “I” understand expertise. I understand that it wasn’t a bank clerk that wrote the report. I also know that when PriceWaterhouse Coopers used the same info from PiC, that it wasn’t a Chartered Accountant that ran computer models.
    However, the team that published the report were actually a team which deals with Carbon Trading, some on behalf of Oil Companies

    Furthermore, the Potsdam Institute is a Temple of Warmism, financed partly by the EU to lobby itself. Rahmsdorf, who is a prof there, features in the climategate emails, and after these were published, one or two mainstream scientists suggested that he should no longer be involved in the IPCC process. Furthermore, he was give a “cease and desist” notice from a judge in Germany for bullying journalists who didn’t agree with him.

    So you’ll have to forgive my cynicism over “climate science”
    For all I know, the alarmists might be right, but at the same time there are a heck of a lot of unscrupulous characters involved.

  • Yep, Christopher Monckton for one, but there are plenty of others.

  • Many of these institutes have accepted the consensus and the issue is not if? but when? It is always theoretically possible some currently unknown variable is or will swing into action. But in the absence of that knowledge our vulnerability behoves us to act on the best knowledge available as quickly and effectively as possible.

  • The “consensus” tells us that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is anywhere between 0 and 10 degrees C.

    The IPCC claim that the most likely figure is in the 2-4 degree figure, yet the only paper (Forster and Gregory) that tries to measure sensitivity using empirical method alone finds a figure in the range of 1.5 degrees.

    The IPCC subsequently “adjusted” this result using some Bayesian technique to make it fit better with computer models

    So far the world has warmed by about 0.8 degrees C since pre-industrial times, and there has been no statistically significant warming for around 15 years.

  • Andy, you claim “The point is not whether the science is right or not.”. You then claim to be sceptical of climate science. So I guess your scepticism does not have anything to do with the science – indeed you refuse to get into any questioning if the science. You have if fact conceded acceptance if the current understanding that global temperature has been increasing and that this is largely, but not entirely, caused by our fossil file use.

    So where does your scepticism come from? The world bank is “left liberal slime.” A respected scientific institute is a “Temple of Warmism.” You and your mates don’t like Rahmsdorf. He and many other outstanding scientist have written emails to each other (strange how idiots can accept that as a sign of dishonesty! I used to correspond with colleagues by email all the time). You think “common sense and rational thinking is not a trait that is associated with those of the warmist creed.” You describe SciBloggers and commenters as “vermin,” “new racists,” and “liberal facists” and “semi-literates.”

    All this is enough to describe honest scientists as “unscrupulous characters.”

    No, your scepticism about science certainly doesn’t come from the science. It comes out of your head. And you seem to discredit yourself every time you comment. You have an anger problem which makes it impossible for you to properly consider the science.

  • Rubbish. The 0.8 Cel increase is during the 20th Century and 2/3 of it is since 1980.
    And we are only talking about average global temperatures here. Some places are less, Antarctica, for reasonably cogent reasons, and some more, eg the Arctic.
    The various feedback mechanisms are very complex and will probably never be fully understood in quantifiable terms.
    The surface temperatures of the Tasman are reported to have warmed by 2 deg Celcius in the last 50 years . You are always going to find areas and time periods that buck the trend. But it’s the cherry picking you indulge in that is cause for concern. I suspect there are other issues with you.
    Thank god for the collective spirit of modern science.

  • So which bit do you disagree with Stuart?
    Do you have some other papers on climate sensitivity that you’d like to cite?

    Perhaps you’d like to comment on the Bayesian technique. Do you think it is appropriate for the IPCC to alter papers after publication (Nic Lewis discovered this issue)

    I will ignore Ken,anyone who drones on about “deniers” is not fit to call himself a scientist

  • So I guess your scepticism does not have anything to do with the science – indeed you refuse to get into any questioning if the science.

    I just cited the name of a paper on climate sensitivity, and gave some figures.

    Are you retarded Ken? Are you actually able to read, parse and understand a sentence?

    Climate sensitivity to CO2 is THE issue. No amount of droning about the Arctic sea ice or “deniers” is going to make any difference to that

  • Ignore me as much as you like , Andy (although you can’t help yourself can you).

    My comment just brought together your abusive tone – so readers can establish your credibility, or lack thereof.

    But you repeat yourself with claims that somebody outside the journal of publication and authors altered text in a published paper. Unsubstantiated of course.

    Andy, have you published in any scientific journal? Do you know the procedures involved, the appropriate time and place for changes?

    If you have and if you do understand I don’t think you would be willing to believe such slanderous stories. Especially without substantiation.

    That is why I don’t believe you. Plenty of publication experience and awareness of your established lack of credibility.

  • I don’t give a flying f*ck what your “readers” think of my credibility or lack thereof.

    You picked on me because I made an off the cuff comment on another blog. You are doing this because you can’t get at Treadgold directly, so you thought you’d have a go at me directly

    I don’t need to defend anything. You are a sanctimonious, bullying little prick who blogs about nothing at all.

  • One paper that disputes climate sensitivity over a relatively short time span when events like Pinaturbo were producing some of the coldest winter temperatures in Central Otago for a century is unlikely to change the big picture that multiple lines of evidence are pointing to. One of the most sensitive indicators of global warming is glacial recession and oceanic acidity, both on the increase. I’m not a technical expert, I’m a philosophy graduate with a insatiable appetite for scientific facts. I’m happy to stay that way. Gives me time to peer over other shoulders and it stops me fixating on distractive quibbling.
    Due to the breadth of my interests though I can spot a narcissist pretty quickly.

  • Back to substantive issues. One thing Gore was optimistic about was humanities capacity to find solutions and survive and Corporations, talented researchers and individuals are starting to make headway. German researchers are confident solar power will be cheaper than coal by possibly 2030. Individual communities and businesses are moving towards carbon neutrality. Judges are starting to distinguish between science and pseudo science. A new team of young doctoral fellows in the US have won funding to establish a pilot thorium reactor. Two Otago District Councils are investigating chipping Wilding Pines as feed stock for biofuels. Thank God for commonsense and good riddance to ecological correctness.

  • Re Andy’s advocacy of nuclear and shale gass responding to questions of investment.

    I think humanity generally recognises that the free, untrammelled and unguided market just doesn’t solve problems. Rather it creates them. We can see that with fossil fuels. Part of the attraction for investment in fossil fuels is the, in effect, heavy social subsidy in these industries because a large part of the costs are placed on the back of society in general. That’s a great deal for investors who are after a profit. And that’s the problem. Capital, dead money, doesn’t have any other interest. Without social guidance capital flows to such areas. I doesn’t give a stuff about social costs – why should it? It’s only dead money. But it can see big profits when they are there – even when those profits derive from inhuman commercial activity.

    Unfortunately these militant free marketers Andy supports equate their interests with dead money, not live humans. So they see any expression of social interest or guidance of the market as an attack on their freedom (really the freedom of dead, inert capital). (Mind you, they will eagerly grasp at subsidies when their political puppets organise them).

    If Andy seriously wishes to advocate an alternative to coal then he has to break free of such an anarchic, inhumane, social attitude. Advocacy must imply encouraging social influence in, input to, or control of, the market, to guide it in the advocated direction. Or is he seriously suggesting he would express his advocacy via a centrally planned and controlled economic system?

    Yet Andy and his mates hate nothing more than the very social levers which he must use to carry his advocacy into practice.

    The first obvious lever is to ensure that the market sees something like the true cost of fossil fuels. A cost which takes into account the serious effects fossil fuels is having on climate change. Societies around the world recognise the necessity of applying such a lever to the market. And the deniers everywhere try to create financial fear about the cost of those levers. Whether they are taxes, carbon trading markets or the sort of payment people like Hansen suggest. And denial of the well supported science of climate change is one f the tactics they use.

    Possibly in the long run, though, as people actually experience these financial levers in practice, the denier fear mongering will be exposed for what it is. This seems to be happening in Australia with the carbon tax already.

    I agree with Andy about investment in thorium reactor research. I disagree with him about wind power. I actually suspect that research may provide a safer use for mined fossil fuels – but at a far lower rate of extraction (probably I am in a small minority there). There are numerous alternatives to consider. But an important part of encouraging research and application in these areas is to price fossil fuels correctly. To include the huge social costs which currently, in effect, subsidise their extraction and promote the profits of those investing in that area.

    Andy has to recognise that if he is serious about advocating alternatives he cannot continue giving his ideological support to inhumane dead money/capital which requires a free market protected from any social influence. He has to accept the reality of social nfluence in the market to balance the interests of dead capital/money.

    Or else honestly advocate the only alternative – a centrally planned and control economy.

  • Or else honestly advocate the only alternative – a centrally planned and control economy.

    Such as North Korea, China, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, etc

    I am so glad you have finally shown us your true colours Ken,
    You are not interested in “science”. You are only interested in the “science” that can be leveraged for the glorious sunlight uplands in which your techocratic leaders control the serfs, and kill them off via state sanctioned control.

    It is such a shame that you don’t understand the teachings of Karl Marx of sought to empower the worker, yet you have chosen the dark path of Malthus who seeks to destroy humanity to “save the planet”

    yet, Ken, like most modern Green fascists, you choose to suck on the wealth of the capitalist system that gave you the time to prattle on about “deniers” in the comfort of your home, tuned in via your trendy iPad or whatever, yet denying the grandchildren and those growing up in the developing world the wealth and health that you enjoyed via the system that gave it to you.

  • Big comprehension fail, Andy. If you oppose the sort of social influence on the market taken by democratic societies the only alternative you have for advocacy is direct control – a centrally planned and controlled economy.

    Can you suggest any other?

    I guess your knee was jerking so much that you found my point impossible to understand.

    And, by the way, Karl Marx did reveal the nature of the free market as manifesting the interests of inhumane dead money. I think most sensible politicians now understand that finding.

    Mark’s research on the nature of the capitalist market still has a lot of relevance today even though most people don’t accept his socialism. It was very exhaustive.

  • I personally think that the free market, subjected to reasonable control, is not a perfect but optimum way forward

    Perhaps this is exemplified by the US that has reduced its CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, partly or mainly driven by the shale gas revolution.

    Micheal Mann, who I am sure you are familiar with, has sung out in favour of shale gas as a means to reduce dependency on coal

    Meanwhile, Europe continues down the centrally controlled, economically and environmentally disastrous route of wind and solar, which is not and cannot work.

    Even now, Germany is having major problems with its energy infrastructure with respect to so-called “renewables”, and is rolling out new coal fired power stations to replace the nuclear stations that it is decommissioning as a result of anti-nuke advocacy post-Fukushima

  • Ah, “reasonable controls” – the devil is in the details because you guys are busy bad-mouthing social influence on markets, let alone “controls.”

    Or are you just being “contrarian?”

  • the kind of controls I would advocate are on medical drugs, nuclear energy etc

    I don’t think even the hard nosed liberarian would dispute these

    These are practical controls that let us get on with our lives, unlike for example a control on CO2 emissions which will never work (how did the Kyoto Protocol fare? Answer: nothing whatsoever achieved)

  • Andy, do you not understand the difference between “controls” and financial or economic levers?

    Or is it just that you are happy to “control” (command) to achieve what you advocate while mindlessly attacking financial levers aimed at ensuring that investors face, and pay, the true costs of fossil fuel extraction?

  • I think Andy and GW Scam are the same pimply little jerk in ACT on campus.

  • Ken, I understand perfectly that as you are no longer a member of productive society, you are a drain on the proletariat, and should be taken out and executed in front of a firing squad.
    your bodily remained, such has they are, may be ground into a paste that nay be used to supply dog meat for the farmers that provide energy for our glorious sunlight uplands.

  • Stuart Matheson,on the other hand, having degree in philosophy, need be spared and may find productive use in Buger King, before he is ground into dog meat at some future juncture, going forward.

  • I see you are familiar with current corporate speak, going sideways! Go and genuflect in front of glorious Chairman Hide, or Brash, or that other chap with plain glass in his Austen Powers spectacles.

  • I have no interest in nz politics whatsoever,

    They are as interesting as a cardboard box.

  • Perhaps Anders Brevik is more to your taste.
    I know another denier. Phd candidate, National Front fan, homophobic, mysoginist, racist and anti semitic and a pyramidamaniac. Believes they were built by Aliens. Dark skinned people not clever enough.

  • Funny that, I was waiting for the racist slur

    Of course i am of mixed european decent, went to a state school in south London where half the kids were black. We had no problem back

    I expect the turd eating, kiddie fiddlers like Ken Perot and Stuart Mathspn to project their own racism and sexual inadequacies on others. It comes with the territory.

  • Ahhhh! Working class Londoner, that explains the limited vocab. Spent time in porridge too? I shouldn’t wonder. The ultimate slur for that demographic is kiddie fiddler.
    The British class system sadly produces such damaged resentful people. It’s never surprised me that they are often krypto-fascists. Socialist easily morphs into National Socialist.

  • No I am not working class, i went to grammar school and then to Cambridge.

    However I can recognize cunts, and you, Matheson, and the vermin Perrot , are defintinty right uo there in the Cunt stakes

  • It amiuses me too, Matheson that cunts lime you claim that I am a nazi.

    As it happens, my mothers side of the family were brought up in Nazi Germany. Several members of my family were killed.

    This never enters the head of cunts lime you that anyone has eber been affected npny this.

    You prattle on in your dreary, sanctimonious braying smug tones about your moral superiority, whilst promoting policies that killed my family

  • Sorry about the spelling , it’s the iPad.

    Hopefully, you got the gist of it, cunt

  • Useful tool this blog stuff. The anonimity that is available produces some very revealing material. Border line personalities and even complete psychopaths are there for all to see. I suppose at first flush I should feel sorry for you but I’m afraid I can’t. You could be lying. Psychopaths lie with impunity. Either way your mind is cracked.
    Your calculated misrepresentation of evidence and publication puts you beyond the pale. You feel nothing but contempt for pretty much everyone I would have thought.
    In a way it’s a relief. Confronting wilful unreasonableness can be a disquieting experience. On a subject as important as environmental catastrophe deeply disturbing. You have put yourself into a category that allows me anyway to ignore you.

  • I think this discussion has run its useful course.

    I’ll arrange for it to be closed off today.

    There are plenty of posts on climate change issues which can be used. Please deal with the issues though, don’t sink to insults and watch your tongue.

  • Andy, I find your language extremely offensive. It serves no purpose to abuse others in this way and it certainly adds nothing to the argument that you are trying to make.

  • Cry me a river.

    I find the term “denier” extremely offensive.

    Get over it