Another nice Potholer contribution

One of the things I like about Potholer54 is his unfashionable technique of rejecting Global Warming claims that are bogus. Now before anyone gets their knickers in a twist thinking he is a Climate Change Denier, he certainly is not and if you take the time to watch his material you will rapidly discover most of his material is against the sceptics.

What he actually stands for is informed comment and education and I think the more evangelical proponents of GW (and some of the sceptics) should learn a lesson from him.

It is simple common sense to not support inaccurate data even (and especially) when it supports your view. As soon as you try to prop up an untruth, your opponents will have a handle to hang their hat on and you risk devaluing your other real data.

Climate Change sceptics already know how this has hurt their cause. Some early challengers of GW tried to claim the data was not accurate and subsequently lost the argument on historical records. The end result of this is that any other data they come up with is already tainted in the eye of the Public even though the data may be more credible. It’s not a new problem as the Greens can attest.

I’m thinking the whole argument needs a more accurate set of definitions these days. It would seem to me there are very few qualified folk who deny planetary warming so the pointy end is now if humans have been the cause, and more importantly, if we can make a difference by our actions. When I see media stories still playing with “is climate change real” I get impatient. Let’s get the discussion a bit further along. They don’t have to worry about losing headlines but they do have to get some skills into the reporting as this potholer clip shows.

Personally, I’m not qualified on climate matters but I am a qualified consumer and especially fond of living. If we eventually start to take action I would much prefer to see behavioural change than some “lets bomb the atmosphere” approach.

If we can get the media to forego the 10 second grab and put a bit of thought into the examination, we should be able to at least not make matters worse by going for a magic bullet.


57 thoughts on “Another nice Potholer contribution

  1. Climate change deniers remind me a lot of the creationist movement that was popular in the 80s and 90s. The creationists used bogus science to prove their interpretation of the Bible was correct and that evolution was wrong. More insidious however was their challenging academic scientists to publicly debate them and getting the mainstream media to give them “equal time.” It gave them credibility and a soapbox that they didn’t deserve.

    What made me really angry was when a local Baptist church tried to persuade our school district to teach creationism alongside evolution “for fairness.” The entire science faculty at the high school threatened to quit if the proposal went through, so happily that idea went to the trash pile. But the deniers are pulling the same tactics and are accusing the news media, public universities and schools of being biased towards climate change. They demand equal time and expect to be taken seriously. And unfortunately, a lot of people do.

    1. The equal time stuff is a bit ridiculous when the opposing voices are running such drivel and I have seen examples of it here too.

      I’m extremely pleased you were able to keep logic to the fore, HG.

  2. Maybe you should get potholer to comment on the economics of trying to lower CO2 emissions.

    Here is what I think.

    I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.

    Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.

    In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

    As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

    No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
    First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
    All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
    I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

    Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

    The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.

    AGW is baloney anyway!



    1. I have great difficulty with the huge conspiracy theory and the assumption that the money goes to people unknown.

      From a economic standpoint it makes no sense to collapse the world economy. There is no point in having lots of bits of paper (formerly money) when you can’t spend it anywhere.

      Economies balance out and whatever happens to the way power is produced it gets factored into the marketplace. We don’t get our milk delivered by horse and cart any more simply because it isn’t economic.

      Simple economics also means that when fuel prices become unsustainable then alternatives are developed or folk choose not to travel. That is how economies work.

      A 500% increase in the petrol price would see folk opt for different choices and governments do not make radical changes in any case. Better, smarter alternatives get developed and the economy’s do what they always do and adjust themselves in the marketplace.

      In the final wash up, governments don’t collapse economies, and countries don’t deliberately throw the world into wholesale starvation and that is another problem for the skeptics. If they want to run their line they have to make sense on the reasons for the greatest hoax ever.

      The sky is falling approach just isn’t going to cut it with the Voters. They need something plausible.

      1. The Economist, that British bastion of radical thought and change (sarcasm), published in November a couple of good articles on global warming, its consequences, and what sort of adaptations we ought to consider.

        I don’t know if the articles will be visible to non-subscribers—like all print magazines, the internet has hit their profit margins hard—but they’re worth reading if your library carries the print version.

        I should add that if a sober, conservative publication like The Economist accepts global warming as fact, then it’s unlikely this is a hoax. Their specialty is warning its readership—academic economists and people in the financial industries—of things to come.

      2. A couple of points to note about logic and economies:

        1. Marx’ particular criticism of capitalism was about a tendency to monopoly and the inherent unsustainability of trying to reduce costs by reducing the salaries of, ultimately, the consumers.

        2. And in practice we see the cycle in capitalism of boom & bust, and significantly the longer cycle (around 80 years?) that ends in depression, (and probably warfare).

        If one accepts the above, then a system that is illogical in its grand scale might well crash with some deliberation in the detail. N.B.: not everyone loses in a depression: there are big winners.

        P.S. one should be careful with phrases such as “the sky is falling” and “Chicken Little” when one is pushing the catastrophic climate change agenda!! 🙂

        1. Hi k9,

          On point 1 the melt down of this is that Capitalism is stupid and inclined to shoot itself in the foot. This may well be the case but to get everyone to fall for the approach requires a level of compliance that can’t be managed.

          On point 2 there are many theories about the boom bust cycle but I think economics is too complex to trust such theories. Each check and balance that is applied after a bust adds another level of protection to the system. To me that suggests a lengthening of any cycle. Then you have rogue events like automated share transactions that are basically a “one of” just to make things even less predictable.

          Now even if I did accept these two points, the Great Hoax theory suggests we collapse the economy totally. With that consideration society falls and power is valueless. In the world of Mad Max a bank account is of no value. Yes there are usually Winners but not if the society falls.

          I love the “Chicken Little” line because it can be (and is) applied by both sides and hopefully gets folk thinking. 😉

          By the way I still haven’t got the web site up so I’ll reply to the comment below once I have time. Hopefully today.

          1. Not so fast.

            Capitalism is investment, (whether public or private), for profit. Not only do I have no objection to this, I could not live in any kind of non-capitalist society. (I am allergic to dirt.)

            Particularly being a booster of capitalism, I am intensely interested in making the system work well. Blind allegiance will not cut it and having a hard-headed appraisal of its flaws is sensible.

            It is crony capitalism and corrupt capitalism that I intensely despise.

            Having a critique of the operation of capitalism in practice does not imply that I wish to see it thrown out or that I advocate the kind of anarchy typically inferred from the word, (rather than the technical definition).

            As for what it takes to set up crony capitalism in terms of a plot, consider that capitalism out-of-control is powered by a natural force in human nature: greed and you see a system emerging.

            1. Not sure about that definition. Communist states still invest for profit but through such a complex series of special interests that they don’t always turn a profit or maybe not a financial one. They may still achieve what they set out for but the financial side may not be the prime objective.

              I’m with you on the crony capitalism situation and it mirrors the Communist States of promoting a “nice to have” rather than an economically sensible process. The trick is to expose the stuff that is effectively subsidised by the Capitalists version of the State or even by the State if their pull is high enough.

              Apologies for simplifying your definition too far. I hadn’t realised you have a more sophisticated definition in place and one that I agree with by the way.

  3. Peter
    Thanks for your reply.

    You answer is conflicting to me though.

    “Money goes to people unknown” The IPCC wants to broker a world wide carbon trading scheme. That is known.
    If governments restict usage of fossil fuels, people and organisations who are in the business of supplying fossil fuels will enjoy huge margins. That makes a lot of economic sense to me.

    “From a economic standpoint it makes no sense to collapse the world economy. There is no point in having lots of bits of paper (formerly money) when you can’t spend it anywhere.”
    “In the final wash up, governments don’t collapse economies”

    Well I can think of a few examples of the latter. Howabout PRChina between 1949-76. Howabout Zimbabwee or Burma or Cambodia. Not to mention my country in 1984.

    Of course these things do not make any sense except for the people in influence trying to increase their grasp on power. Money is not wealth, it just represents wealth and you can most certainly have wealth and power when there is no viable currency.

    “Simple economics also means that when fuel prices become unsustainable then alternatives are developed or folk choose not to travel. That is how economies work.”

    So when food prices (which are reliant on fossil fuel prices to a large extent) become unsustainable, people will develop alternatives or choose not to eat?

    Given time like about 100 years some adjustment may be feasible but the IPCC wants emissions cut in less than 20!

    If you have some problem with the logic of what I say, then fine, but to say “governments don’t collapse economies, and countries don’t deliberately throw the world into wholesale starvation ” when we have UN documents promoting action that will do just that, requires a little more thought other to say it wont happen.

    Finally, just think who is the Chicken Little in this scenario. You are the guys who think the world is going to burn up, I’m just one who is pointing out the likely consequences, (using standard economic theory by the way) of the proposed solution. A proposed solution prepared by the United Nations no less.



    1. Okay lets take these points one at a time and then I’ll reiterate the point of presenting a logical theory to support denial.

      You appear to be suggesting the beneficiaries are the IPCC for these ill gotten financial gains. That doesn’t make sense. If you are suggesting it’s simply to continue their existence on their wages then there is a bloody big hole for the left over money to be hidden in. Assuming they are already holding down jobs then their wages are already factored into the Economy.

      If you are suggesting the fossil fuel folk are expecting to just rake in extra profits then that doesn’t make sense either. A collapsed economy offers nothing to them if society falls apart and folk stop buying cars.

      It’s very easy to pick out the odd inept country for an example of trashing an economy but what you are suggesting is that real governments with real skills are deliberately planning to trash the existing system. That’s fine for a conspiracy theory but for a real world situation it
      means a master plan across multiple political parties through multiple countries with no stuff ups. Not possible. Take a look at how the EEC works and see how hard it is to get anything done even publicly.

      China is an interesting example that I think makes my original point. If you look at their current day situation closely you can see pointers to how odd their system is. They don’t measure things like real unemployment levels and still refuse to even up their currency against the US dollar.

      And why doesn’t it matter?

      The market finds it’s own balance as long as you don’t knee jerk the system. To put it more simply, you can’t sell an egg for $500 bucks. Notionally sitting on a dozen eggs makes you wealthy but only if you have a customer.

      It’s not a case of choosing not to eat it’s about making different choices and again I repeat Governments do not make decisions to create a collapsing economy. Governments do not blindly fill in a coal mine then think “What do we do now”? They plan the move and ease into it. Yes, I have seen simplistic arguments to suggest they don’t but they look like a newspapers self interested perspective rather than a considered analysis.

      The IPCC are probably making an ambit claim to try and get things moving and it makes sense to me. To actually get folk off their bums to get things moving is a very long process. They know as well as anyone that rapid change is not achievable but they need the sense of urgency. They will be expecting something well short of that figure.

      The old UN punching bag argument. The UN is just another body that suffers from the same problems that stand against the giant conspiracy theory. Lots of people, lots of countries and lots of agendas. The trouble with most the theories I see aimed at the UN is they need to run the idea that the UN deliberately tries to destroy things.

      Indeed you can see examples of stuff ups on a regular basis but that comes from errors not deliberate intentions.

      For me the Chicken Littles are the folk who think we are heading for the deliberate collapsing of economies and its just too hard for the human brain to tackle. That is projected as far more serious than the trouble spots predicted by Global Warming.

      I look back in history and marvel at what can be achieved when we decide to do things but we do prefer to do nothing with half an excuse. That’s just being human I guess.

    1. Ta for the repost and if any of them wish to comment here (and are as polite as yourself) send em on over.

      It’s nice to fine tune a point of view.

  4. The biggest issue facing humanity is not climate change but who controls humanity. In that matter, we are at a cross-roads.

    Whether or not we are warming the earth, cap-and-trade or schemes like it seem inevitable right now, regardless of science. (I could be cynical and say most people deserve to be serfs anyway, but I refuse to accept that.) “Collapsing the economy” makes an awful lot of sense if it yields control of the global economy. Right now, the arrangement of sovereign nations is a messy form of libertarianism at the state level. Freedom is the enemy of control.

    The most likely way to successfully handle climate change is for humanity to adapt to it. The idea that humanity can lock in some status quo for climate, in the light of the historical record and even what we know about climate and the Sun, is easily the most ridiculous idea that has been floated in my lifetime. Good luck with that.

    Finally, re HG’s comment and potholer54, a critique of mine about potholer54 is that in at least one of his videos, he has smeared AGW dissent by equating it with pro-tobacco/anti-science. Not so fast!

    1. Who controls humanity is another matter altogether and well away from the topic of this post but to address it anyway, my Grandfather was of the opinion that WW2 was an power struggle between a handful of financiers.

      To support his argument he pointed out that none of the money men behind Adolf Hitler were punished for stumping up the massive amount of dollars required to fund his rise to power. If he was correct then power exists in the hands of these type of characters already.

      Some level of control seems to have always existed with the Catholic a big player in years gone by. The suggestion the “People” can control who controls the money seems optimistic at the very least even if the “people” weren’t so susceptible to the likes of the Tea Partiers. I don’t know how you view them but the suggestion that a group of folk out for more for themselves can have the intelligence to see past a pollie with a flag doesn’t seem to offer much hope. Just more of the same.

      Another point I would make is the suggestion that states control power. Dr Jim Cairns put it best when he said he sort political power only to discover when he gained government the financiers were the ones who really call the shots

      On the matter of Freedom. With countries like the UK already swamping their cities with CCTV, I don’t think there is any danger of the populace rising up and especially with the likes of FOX News on-side the population is more compliant than it has ever been.

      FOX News is especially interesting. They seek to undermine the Democratic process while claiming to stand for true Democracy. Actions speak louder than words.

      No doubt humanity will have to adapt to the change in climate but if living with a smaller footprint can make a modicum of difference then it’s worth addressing the next questions (as this original blog post suggests).

      Here is one area that needs to be more clearly defined. The folk who deny a change in climate need to be sat in a category all their own. Those who feel there is a rise but that we can’t make a difference need to go into another category. This later group have to carry the baggage of the hard core when they really need to move the argument along. I’d like to suggest the terms of deniers for the first group and skeptics for the later.

      On the final point I have no problem at all with the background history of the hard core deniers being bought into the spotlight. If they have form as described here,

      then it should be presented and challenged if incorrect.

      I’m very even handed in this matter. Priors should be considered in Law and in Science.

      1. You are not the only ex-Vocalist to express the nagging feeling that real power in society is hidden.

        What troubles me is the evidence that Science has been so politicized and that the general public is so ignorant of scientific principles that they cannot recognize when they are being flagrantly abused.

        So just how does one justify the naïve and idealistic belief that Science somehow has remained aloof and compartmentalized and pure in this day of universal corruption?

        1. Ah. I see where you are coming from.

          If science is being corrupted I expect to see a ground swell of a counter view. An example of this is when climate change was first proposed and the large majority dismissed it. Eventually the science has become more developed and scientists have swapped sides.

          This is how new theories are developed and eventually accepted.

          What we appear to be looking at is the last of the entrenched earlier view being reluctant to review their position or just remaining unconvinced by the data.

          If I see a growing number of scientists decide they have been duped then I will be looking at a new development that will spark my interest. As it stands I think I’m looking at the residue from the original theory.

          As you can see I’m not much in favor of giant conspiracy theories. I need to see a more logical reason for the theory.

          1. Still several problems to refine in your stance, I think, Pete.

            One doesn’t need to prove a conspiracy theory in order to disprove AGW. The proponents of AGW need first to do some convincing. So far, their models represent a sketch of might might happen if all their assumptions are correct, which are basically, that “nothing else happens”. This is the part they gloss over and when pressed, they say, “well, we can’t think of what other cause it could be”.

            Secondly, science isn’t performed by consensus, although it is arguably consensus amongst scientists that the general public must use in order to gauge what is and what isn’t science. (But as soon as you move to the reception of the controversy/conjecture/science by the general public and by policy makers, you have entered the arena of politics.) In any case, it is at this point, well-known within the science community before Climategate, but generally public now, that we see specific evidence of malfeasance in science. Scientists may not disqualify scientific criticism because a critic is not a peer. Scientists do not refuse to publish the details of their work. Scientists should not be lobbying the public. Any time any objection upon scientific grounds is raised, someone says, “ah but you are not a climate scientist; we haven’t elected you into our clique; you can bet now we never will!”.

            About Climategate, allow me to repeat this: a statement by Thomas Chase, professor and climate modeler at the University of Colorado, talking about the CRU emails:

            “However, because I teach and do climate research at the University of Colorado, I do assume all my e-mails are the property of the Colorado State Government and if necessary could be examined in depth by the appropriate officials. I am confident that there would be no e-mails, even if “taken out of context,” which would indicate (as the Climatic Research Unit e-mails do) that I was trying to rig the peer review process or trying to keep contrary information out of international summary documents. But these are relatively minor issues.
            The real challenge to all scientists is to actively challenge the validity of their conclusions by seeking and supporting independent reproduction of their results. This is the foundation of science: intellectual self-criticism. The single biggest scandal revealed in the emails from the Climatic Research Unit is the lengths they went to refuse outside requests to make data and methodology available over the course of years including discussions about resisting Freedom of Information Act requests. Something like this would never show up in my e-mails. I have always enthusiastically aided anyone trying to reproduce or refute my results.
            That the work produced by the Climatic Research Unit is not completely and independently reproducible because the data and methods were actively hidden from public scrutiny indicates that whatever was occurring over time at the Climatic Research Unit, it was never related to science.

            Finally, I have to say, it is not my intention to try to persuade anyone in this debate, because I think we are going to get cap-and-trade and also, soon enough, world governance, regardless of the science (or lack of it).

            1. Wow. This is a biggie.

              I’ll try and work through it.

              The reason I point to the conspiracy theory is that the skeptics that I have read offer it as a reason for why Climate Change is being promoted. For me it doesn’t make sense to try to scam on such a vast level. If I see another reason for why it’s happening (that is more believable) then I’ll have to start thinking again.

              “The proponents need to do some convincing” line cause me to ask who needs to be convinced? As a dumb ol’ civilian I look for the science egg heads to do the thinking for me. When I see a stack of scientists happy with the theory then I’m happy.

              What I am suggesting is if it was crap then scientists would be objecting to the theory. It’s their job and it’s how science works. Also part of their work is to inform us lesser mortals of their view in their area of expertise. One of the reasons the Intelligent Design folk got a leg up was scientists ignored them instead of attacking the weakness of their arguments. Hopefully they have learned.

              Indeed science is not performed by consensus but results and theories are presented to their peers and things get discussed and theories elaborated. Finally the majority go with the new theory. I think you can still find a few who think Darwin was wrong but generally it’s a given.

              Politics has to come into it if we are to use science as the background for making decisions. To do research without using it for corrective action would be elitist to the nth degree.

              The peer review is just about how much value you put on an opinion not about discarding it. I would like to think if a non-specialist has a point of view of relevance then the real experts will look at it and have a think. If they have a valid point then it should carry the day with the experts and then the more specialist scientists can show the thinking.

              Professor Chase is what I like to see. Folk from the field tackling the problem and having the skill set. I don’t like the evangelical approach of some of the Brits but it also doesn’t negate their theory. What I want to see is real experts having real conversations over agreed data.

              The Mickey Mouse media approach of good scientist vs bad scientist is so far away from reality it’s almost impossible to get a clear view. Therefore, because I’m just a lazy civilian, I go with the numbers and listen to other theories when they float past. If they don’t require a conspiracy then I read further.

              For me, the conspiracy theory is like saying “It’s God’s will”. To easy and highly unlikely.

              I’m well aware you are not here to persuade me and grateful for your pushing me to further clarify my thinking. It means a little extra thinking which is rare to see promoted these days.

              1. The true and only reason I do not believe the case for AGW is anywhere near made is as follows:

                My friend Phaedrus is a polymath and has been intensely interested in the subject of global warming since the early 90s and has been feeding me hundreds of articles in dissent since that time. It’s quite clear to he and I that dissent on this topic has raged until 2009 without abate. Climate science is still in its early infancy and is an amalgam of multiple disciplines, (physics, geology, statistics, meteorology, astronomy, paleontology, et al), with the practitioners generally being experts at none of these.

                What tears my friend up is the level of basic scientific dishonesty and chicanery involved, (as depicted by Climategate).

                This is actually nothing so new. We (lay people) think of science as cold-blooded, unemotional, precise and clear-cut, but the truth is that the fighting and carnage within the halls of science in order to make and break careers is ongoing and continuous.

                For example, the career of the man (Dewey McLean) who pioneered the idea that the extinction of dinosaurs was caused by a volcanic event, (viz. the massive expulsion of volcanic material from the Deccan Traps in India that was so extensive that the flow ran from the center of the subcontinent to both coasts), was brutally attacked by the original positors of the Yucatan asteroid theory and a lifelong, acrimonious feud developed.

                So here we see within the domain of scientific career-making alone that there is sufficient cause for scientists to cut corners: to “publish or perish”. Or recall this famous pronouncement:, “Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.”, (Wallace Stanley Sayre)

                In any case, skepticism is such an important part of the scientific process precisely because it is exactly that which roots out error and promotes accuracy.

                No conspiracy theory needed.

                Moving to “peer review” in Peter’s argument, I have no problem with peer review, although the execution of it amongst the climatologists was shown to be used as an instrument to suppress all criticism.

                It is the use of “peer status” to determine the estimation of consensus that I find inconsistent. That is to say, whose opinions amongst the scientific community do you weigh when you attempt to sense consensus?

                First of all, consensus is not just a simple majority. Roughly characterized, it is “an agreement to go along in order to get along”. I think it is true to say that there is a (near) consensus about AGW amongst climate scientists. This is the part I object to, that laymen are happy to rule out the (violent) dissent of “outsiders”.

                But within the whole scientific community, I believe there is significant, strong dissent to AGW and because AGW is untested conjecture and a set of (secret) models that do not perform accurately to anything observable now. I.e. “we wrote this model based upon a conjecture and a bunch of assumptions* and it predicts calamitous events 30, 40, 50 and even 100 years hence”. The physicists fault the physics employed, the statisticians disagree with the validity of the statistical analysis, and on and on. But they are not “climate scientists” and so they are overruled.

                Meanwhile, and I believe this is a give-away, the strength of confidence in AGW is compared in public with that of evolution or of relativity and therefore the skeptics are placed on a par with creationists, tobacco industry lobbyists, Holocaust deniers and ritual sacrifice child butchers.

                “The science is settled”? Not for me.

                * e.g., that there is such a thing as an “atmospheric greenhouse gas” operating upon certain radiative properties that seem to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

                1. I can’t tell from this post if you are claiming the temperature is not rising or the more nuanced line that humans are not the cause.

                  The chicanery of Climategate I put into the basket of evangelists overstepping the mark in their enthusiasm. Something those opposed to the theory can well appreciate when every wacko who stands against the theory gets bundled up with them in the same group.

                  And I guess this is the thrust of my blog. Unless you burn the crazies then you suffer for their utterances. But the problem is who owns the process and who manages the information campaign?

                  It’s a situation not unlike the original proposing of the theory. All sorts of ideas popped up and some were quite loopy. It gained no traction with the Public because the crazies always grab the news coverage.

                  To give you a personal example I went to an antinuclear demonstration in Albury NSW many years ago. Well I attempted to. When we rolled up to the venue a bunch of kids were jumping around in skeleton suits.

                  That was it for us. We thought we were going to get information not a freak show. An elderly couple also left. The youthful organisers were oblivious to us older folk and unaware that they need broader coverage to build their numbers.

                  What does this have to do with Climate Change? Until those against CC come up with spokespersons who deliver clear information without the anger and name calling, they wont find much traction with the Public. Now I’m not claiming some from the “Pro” side aren’t aggressive and noisy but they don’t need to be. They aren’t trying to change Public perceptions.

                  It bugs me too that grey does not exist as a colour in the media these days. It is going to make it almost impossible to rate the different measures when they get proposed because it will probably get to a “take the best and scorn the rest” result.

                  1. I am pretty simply saying that the scientific connection between CO2 emissions and rising temperatures is not made. It’s a conjecture and, in the end, the claim is that it should be so because AGW proponents cannot think of any other cause.

                    My friend prefers a different conjecture and that one is along the lines that the equilibrium (target) partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere rises with (sea surface) temperatures. Under that scenario, if temperatures rise,. the oceans will emit CO2 (with a time lag) to bring the atmospheric content up to a higher level. (There are other prolific natural sources of CO2, too.)

                    Now that means that if we all parked our cars, switched off our kettles and voluntarily died, thus taking care of our CO2, the atmospheric levels would continue to rise anyway, the oceans emitting whatever is necessary. When we emit CO2, that simply reduces how much the oceans give up in order to achieve the natural balance.

                    I haven’t seen the movie but as I understand it, Al Gore showed a correlation between SST (sea surface temperatures) and atmospheric CO2, but I understand that he had the time-lag back-to-front, thus neglecting the implication that it is SST that controls CO2, not vice versa.

                    Furthermore, one conjecture does not negate another until any are proven, but there are many other factors (as Sparky mentioned) that may control climate, solar activity being the big hitter. About all these we know very little because “climate science” is in its infancy, (and not much further advanced than witch doctor mumbo-jumbo).

                    So at this point, the AGW proponent has to resort to the “then let’s all panic just to be safe”. So now we are not talking science, but public policy, (and the huffy sense of superiority should be the first casualty).

                    You know, I wish that governments had just spent 50 B$ on research in alternative energy instead of on funding the AGW agenda, considering the results so far.

                    1. OK. I see where you are coming from. Acceptance of temperature rise but not of the stated reason.

                      This is an angle that doesn’t get coverage unfortunately.

                      50 B$ on research would be nice. I am saddened that community based action is based on a householder subsidy rather than a business focus. Putting dollars into a factory roof or a shopping Center roof would be much better value but not as good at pulling votes.

  5. 1petermcc

    “The reason I point to the conspiracy theory is that the skeptics that I have read offer it as a reason for why Climate Change is being promoted. For me it doesn’t make sense to try to scam on such a vast level. ”

    Whether there is a conspiracy or not may be an open question in your eyes and mine, but there is a group who are quite open about it.

    Read this commentary, and this one and then this website of the organisation.

    Then count how many powerful names you see there.

    Check out the list of influential documents they regularly produce.

    They think there is a conspiracy because they appear to be the ones conspiring, and they have the power to make things happen.

    It appears to make a lot of sense to them.

    This may at least give you ideas WHY certain people would want to conspire.



    1. Roger,

      Since, to a certain extent, we are all honing our arguments, I would like to suggest that it is a difficult sell to tell people that they are the victim of conspiracies and that everything they’ve been taught in schools and are informed of by the mainstream media, are merely a cover. There is a strong psychological sense in which people need to disbelieve this in order to maintain a sense of comfort.

      Your first step then, I would suggest, in prosecuting your argument is to convince your audience that the system they believe in implicitly is BROKEN, badly and completely.

      1. Koan,
        I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I simply point out facts and logic.

        If you read the links I provided, and you apparently have not, you will understand there is a powerful organisation, who seem reasonably open in their objectives, who fit the bill of conspirators.

        My question is simply to hear your and Peter’s comments on those links.



        1. Please call me k9. All my friends do.

          OK, I will trade. I will read your links if you read mine:

          Money As Debt</a
          Money Masters

          The first is a warm-up for the second: an explanation of the basis of monetary policy in Western civilization which is being spread evangelically to the world.

          The second is the history of a long conspiracy to control monetary policy in the USA.

          The facts are a) plain, but b) completely unpalatable. Hence, my advice to you.

          (Now I will go read your links.)


          1. K9,

            I did go and view the links you suggested.

            I did not watch the full 3 + hours for each one though, although I got the gistof their intitial propositions and arguements.

            Incidently economics is my thing. As to the source of money, the videoes are broadly correct in that banks can loan out money that has been deposited in their bank as the result of a loan on another or the ssame bank.

            However in this day and age, banks cannot create money.

            The first reason why not, is the ability to do this is a very powerful thing, and it it is conceivable to imagine that a government would not take control of such a key and influential process.
            The second it is a function in the USA, of Treasury to deal with the Federal Reserve Banks to issue money, either in cash or usually credit for the government. This is done through a system of buying and selling government bonds.

            Therefore in the USA and all other countries that I am aware of, the privilige of controlling the money supply is firmly in the hands of their respective governments not banks.

            Furthermore, the videos neglect to explain what money really is.

            Money or currency simply represents all the goods and services in the economy. Two much currency, (this includes credit), will cause the value of money to drop, (you can buy less of goods and services with a given amount), and we know this as inflation.
            Too little money in the system causes a decline in industry and a drop in prices which we know as deflation.
            A good readable analysis of this is in Milton Fiedman’s book “Free to Choose” which gives a very good account of the problems of the US and similar economies.

            In short, there is no conspiracy by banks to ruin us, that power is squarely in the hands of politicians, (note I did not say fairly), and the bogey to watch is the politician who offers “free” election bribes.
            These “freebies” will be paid for either by raising taxation or increasing the money supply as I described above, and cost us normal taxpayers disproportionately far more in the long run.

            In my country in about 1972, we had a government who did just that and bankrupted the government. Subsequently the network of cross subsidies and taxes etc was unravelled and until we got another left leaning government who started the whole process again, we had a rapid overall improvement.

            Suggest you get a copy of Friedman’s book and have a good read.




            PS What did you think of my links?

            1. Sorry,

              “The first reason why not, is the ability to do this is a very powerful thing, and it it is conceivable to imagine that a government would not take control of such a key and influential process.”

              should read

              “The first reason why not, is the ability to do this is a very powerful thing, and it is INCONCEIVABLE to imagine that a government would not take control of such a key and influential process.”



              1. I hope everyone can savor the reflexivity of this “predicament”, as I term it.

                Roger and I trade links. His links are beautiful and he expects the power of those links alone to convince people.

                So I show him my super-arching links and he says INCONCEIVABLE.

                That is it in a nutshell.

                We talk about the mainstream media and how just a few companies have them locked up. We talk about their probable bias and effective censorship.

                Some of us have read about the revolution in Propaganda lead by Edward Bernays during the 20th century.

                And yet we really do not believe that we are deluded. It is all just too INCONCEIVABLE.

                And that is precisely why I offered Roger the advice that one has to first demonstrate to people that the system they have faith in is just not working.

                The job will get easier and easier!

                1. Come on K9,

                  I looked at your links with an open mind, I see things there that are not quite true, after all economics is my thing, and now you reply in an ad hominem fashion.

                  First of all I gave you are very good reference about how things actually work. You should at least take the time to read the book, and its true that it IS inconceivable that a government would allow such a powerful and obvious influence operate outside their sphere of power.

                  I made no opinion as to whether the system is working or not, just pointed out that any bogey is going to be a politician, or I would concede perhaps the Secretary of the Treasury.

                  I am disappointed in your attitude. Especially asI have seen no reasonable comment on my links yet. Neither from you or 1petermcc.




                  1. Roger,

                    I have indeed scanned your links.

                    I think the quotes are great and I wish more people (who won’t believe conspiracies exist) were aware that numerous of the elite — in government, in commerce, in NGOs and in think tanks — are planning a radical departure from democracy in the world.

                    I was aware of Agenda 21. None of the rest surprises me, either.

                    How convincing your links are, I cannot say, because I was already convinced beforehand that this kind of thing is being planned.

                    So what are you trying to say? And what do you think we should do?

                    You don’t need my opinion; it will be Peter’s and just about any of his other readers that will indicate whether you are having any traction.

                    Good luck.


                    1. K9,
                      What should we do?

                      We still have the power of democracy. We should simply resist any attempts to erode this democratic right that we all have in spite of this apparent onslaught by the UN and other organisations.

                      While we are still able to vote, we should elect politicians that wish to downsize government power, or at least do not wish to increase it, and who are against sucumbing to the influence of powers that would seek to ursurp our democracy, and would not seek in any way to erode our personal rights and responsibilities.

                      Right now I would put the UN and the IPCC squarely in that category of seeking to ursurp our democracy.

                      One should question the motives of mass movements such as the green movement and others.

                      There is nothing wrong with sensible green practices but one should always try and look at what is driving the organisation from behind.

                      Always be suspicious of religious fervor especially when facts backing it are sparse.

                      Hope this helps.




            2. Wheeee!! What a predicament?!

              Roger, a cordial salute to you.

              1. I was impressed very much by your links and found them valuable. I’ve added them to my archive. And yet I can say that I was nonplussed.

              2. Roger: the first video is 47 minutes. Money can indeed be whatever represents gooda and services in circulation and can be whatever represents those. But money is not what is deposited as the result of a loan made by one bank or another. The debt of a loan made itself is considered by the bank as an asset and therefore the fractional basis for another loan. In our central banking system society, the symbol that represents goods and services — our money!! — is DEBT. What that means is, for our economy to expand, we need more money in circulation, and therefore we naturally need to go deeper into debt to the bankers. Please go back and glue yourself to every second of the 47 minutes of the video, Money As Debt. Please don’t assume that “economy is your thing”, but open your mind. Banks do create money, and at will. They shut down the money supply during The Great Depression and they have done it now.

              3. The second video, Money Masters is, indeed, 3 hours and 35 minutes in length. It explains the fiction that the Federal Reserve is truly an agency of the US government. Ron Paul has just fought tooth and nail to force the Federal Reserve to reveal only some of its doings since 2008 in an audit. The Federal Reserve is notionally independent of all other branches of the government because it was instituted that way. The Money Masters takes 3.6 hours to document the history of how Andrew Jackson and others in government fought against the institution of an independent, central bank which is effectively a cartel of private banks with one office, the Chairman, appointed by Washington, but otherwise totally unaccountable to the American people.

              You say that it is INCONCEIVABLE that the government of a major power would hand over control of its monetary policy to private interests and that it is INCONCEIVABLE — because you will not view a 3 hour and 35 minute video — is exactly how this is gotten away with, and exactly why the peoples of western civilization are now being pressed to the brink of a New World Feudalism.

              Finally, I want to say that the predicament you and I face is not that we are at odds. Not at all.

              In earlier times, I viewed the conservationists, the early Green Parties et al, as single-issue, deceitful, anti-capitalist, socialist narcissists. (At a party in the 80s, I asked a reasonably intelligent colleague for his comment on some political issue, and he said that he believed that politics was nowadays so complex that one could only study one issue of own concern in order to render a cogent opinion; his chosen topic was conservation and so he had no paritcular opinion upon any other subject, nor on the one I had broached.)

              In latter days, conservationists, including particularly the global warming alarmists, and many NGOs in general — that all have in common that they with their goals to be served via the subjugation of the world’s population — have, I believe, been co-opted by the ultimate elite who seek total control of the world. Why not? It serves their aims.

              I will give you an example. John D. Rockefeller was a very significant financier of the feminist movement. I remember reading a quote by him in which, paraphrased, he said, “getting women out to work is a no-brainer.” (Sorry, no citation.)

              Finally, the idea that anyone or any group of people should seek ultimate control of the world to serve their own purposes is, admittedly, INCONCEIVABLE, which is the objection most people have to contemplating the evidence. And yet, it has been the single thread throughout all history. And, as your links and many other public statements, evidence and records show, nothing has changed today. Why should it have had? Human nature is exactly the same and that is what drives history.

              P.S. John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman were patsies of governmental and corporate control, respectively, and this is quite typical of the field of economics: that it flourishes only when it satisfies its patronage. I am quite familiar with Friedman and know of “Freedom To Choose”. To you, I recommend the Austrian School of Economics, particularly Ludwig von Mises.

    2. There are certainly folk who want to do their best to get a change in human behavior but is their data wrong? And just because a group exists doesn’t mean they are all powerful.

      The tobacco lobby has some heavy hitters in their number but still are losing ground.

      As originally posted, the Conspiracy theory requires too many people across too many countries to act as one, even though it may have religious enthusiasm as suggested in those links.

  6. It looks like I posted an earlier reply to Roger while not “logged in” and thus that reply is still awaiting moderation. When (and if) it gets published, I hope this does not add any confusion to an already-difficult debate.


    1. Dunno why it is doing this guys. I have told WP to pass the comments straight through but it seems set in its ways.

      Sorry for the delay I was in Melb for the last 24 hours.


  7. K9,

    “John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman were patsies of governmental and corporate control, respectively”

    Well you obviously have not read much of Friedman’s work then.

    The main reason I gave those links on the Club of Rome was for the benefit of petermcc as he has trouble believing that conspiracies actually exist, and the Club of Rome publish quite openly, and in the name of some very influential people exactly what I term a conspiracy.

    Im not trying to convince anyone of anything, I am just pointing out what I see as facts so that others have a better chance of believing the truth should they be so inclined.



    1. Roger, thank you for your response.

      Permit me to reply first on a hopefully constructive note.

      1. Suggest you get a copy of Friedman’s book and have a good read.

      2. First of all I gave you are very good reference about how things actually work. You should at least take the time to read the book, and its true that it IS inconceivable that a government would allow such a powerful and obvious influence operate outside their sphere of power.

      I think you may possibly already be aware of this, but Freedom To Choose was first made as a video presentation. (PBS?) Secondly, it’s available for viewing on YouTube, in segments.

      I would recommend in future that you inform people of the book, but also suggest they view the videos and cite the URL of the first episode to make it convenient.

      I think people will find this more approachable.


  8. K9,

    I have one of Friedman’s books on my desk at the moment and he was required reading when I took my degree.

    Also in the ’80’s NZ was the first country to adopt some of his ideas. Unfortunately succesive labour governments have aboandoned ordiluted these somewhat.



    1. Next, in my statement:

      “John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman were patsies of governmental and corporate control, respectively”

      I regret only the misuse of the word “patsy” when I think that “[unwitting] lackey” was my intention.

      Please take a look at Economists: The Unholy Priests of the Banksters and note especially:

      Economists have been on the receiving end of the acerbic wit of no less a writer than George Bernard Shaw who said, “If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.” Author and Investment Advisor, Peter Lynch, twists this quote a little more savagely: “If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, it wouldn’t be a bad thing.”

      I also enjoy this paraphrase:

      If you put three economists into a room, you will get four opinions

      , based on something Churchill said about Keynes.

      But please read the article closely. It’s thesis is that economists are lackeys for the banking establishment.

      Keynes felt that government spending could take up the slack during rainy days, (but we all know how well government plans ahead for rainy days: it is actually busy robbing the hay-making days and nowhere to be found when you’ve relied on it).

      Friedman’s problem is more subtle: his is a profound belief in capitalism. He was not the author of “trickle-down theory” but he could have been. His problem is HE BELIEVES (LIKE YOU) THAT THERE ARE NO FLAWS — NONE AT ALL — IN CAPITALISM AND HE WILL DEFEND IT TO THE DEATH. And that’s too bad. Because, flaws notwithstanding, there are some fundamental paradoxes(!!) in capitalism.

      It’s worth noting that Friedman has been recommended to me before:

      It has been on my list to view, (behind some of the works of the Austrian school of economists, who may nowadays be gaining some decisive ascendancy). I think Friedman is a) getting long in the tooth, and b) you may have read more of his work than I, but I am still inclined to wager that Friedman — despite you claim — actually SAYS NOTHING about the creation of money in the western capitalism system. And precisely for the reasons cited in article above about Unholy Economists: they are generally lackeys of the system. (I intend to research and debate this with you to the bitter end; all the better because, “economics is your thing”.)

      Please read and consider my bizarrely original article,

      Capitalism in the USA Today

      which highlights the paradox that crucial capitalists do not, themselves, believe in free enterprise and I await your thoughts in refutation.

      For further background, you might also read and consider:


      In my next rejoinder, I’ll have some thoughts about conspiracy groups that PUBLISH their plans openly and we’ll take a look at some generally-recognized dictionaries to survey definitions to use in augmentation of your own.

      Cordially yours,

      1. Well, now! This is a delicious pickle.

        It turns out that I would lose this wager if I made it:

        but I am still inclined to wager that Friedman — despite you claim — actually SAYS NOTHING about the creation of money in the western capitalism system.M/blockquote>

        The article I meant to cite is contained in Economists: the Unholy Priests of the Banksters and if you please read it, you will see the following quotation:

        Well, I’ve got news for you, Professor. Recessions are caused by central bankers intentionally contracting the money in circulation by calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new ones. If you don’t believe me, read Milton Friedman, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics. Dr. Friedman is on record saying that the Federal Reserve deliberately caused the Great Depression of the 1930s:

        “The Fed was largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession, although perhaps a fairly severe one, into a major catastrophe. Instead of using its powers to offset the depression, it presided over a decline in the quantity of money by one-third from 1929 to 1933…” Milton Friedman , Two Lucky People, p233.

        When asked about a single cause of severe economic depressions, Dr. Friedman responded:

        “I know of no severe depression, in any country or any time, that was not accompanied by a sharp decline in the stock of money, and equally of no sharp decline in the stock of money that was not accompanied by a severe depression.”

        (I love being this wrong!!)

        So in other words, what you deemed INCONCEIVABLE – that government would allow private hands to control anything as important as the money supply — is something that Friedman cited as the fundamental cause of the Great Depression.

        Now, by an act of US government, the Federal Reserve is chartered. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is a political appointment. But note that the Federal Reserve is not accountable to the US government for its actions and you will probably be quite aware that Dr Ron Paul, US Congressman, has been waging a somewhat successful battle to force the Federal Reserve to be audited, much to its recent embarrassment.

        The history of the struggle for and against the creation of the Federal Reserve is documented in Money Masters, which I cited earlier and which you viewed just the beginning to gather the gist — and found INCONCEIVABLE.

        This will bring me to the point of my next rejoinder: how you can expect people to believe you that conspiracy theories exist, and to read your links, if you are not willing to fully consider what others say in question or in objection?


    2. Jeeze guys,

      there is far too much hard work in reading for me here.

      I must say the original link didn’t do much for me, Roger. That’s the one quoting Prince Charles among others but I did find 2 events recently that cooled my confidence somewhat.

      Firstly, I saw an item about our recent weather that had a comment that we can’t predict El Ninas and El Ninos. I hadn’t thought about that before and it would seem we are further away from decent modelling than I thought. These events are a major lynch pin for a climate that changes more rapidly by altering current flows.

      Secondly, and this is far more serious for me, I heard Prof Garner chatting on radio and he prefaced his comments with “stolen emails”. It was used in such a manner that seem to be hinting that was beyond consideration.

      Now I don’t put much value on the comments made by the evangelists in their emails, but I put a lot of value on a scientist playing a straight bat and answering the question. He should leave that crap for the pollies and try to deal with the answer non-politically (I’m dreaming I know).

      1. Great! I’m really glad you’ve chimed in Pete, because I’ve just been holding the fort until you get here, since you are effectively the “guinea pig” in this debate. 🙂 I’ll let Roge answer you directly on this.

        In the meantime:
        >in the ’80′s NZ was the first country to adopt some of his ideas.

        New Zealanders have been the first to do many things in world history.

        Did you know, for example, that New Zealand was the first democracy in the world to give women the vote? Outstanding.

        I know this because I had a Kiwi friend (Nelson) who never tired of listing such stuff, (which I am now starting to realize is a national idiosyncrasy). I worked with him in the USA and he never tired of outraging Americans by claiming that, actually, New Zealand pioneered heavier-than-air flight, beating out the Wright brothers by a matter of some months, but not having the same publicity machine etc etc, the credit goes erroneously to the Yanks. 🙂

        1. No worries, k9.

          I’m having a day off from this schools audit so I thought I should pop back in.

          Not sure I can cover all those books though. I’m more a space opera kinda guy these days.

          By the way inconceivable is a big word and I’m inclined NOT to go with the theory that Governments tightly control money matters.

          The transient nature of pollies makes it hard for them to control anything and Dr Jim Cairns (Aussie Treasurer back in Whitlam cabinet days) spent his final years telling anyone who would listen that Governments have no power to do much with the financial system.

          I have never read his book but it sounded like a pretty realistic theory. When you add episodes of Yes Minister into the mix you can’t help but think they are pawns in the game.

  9. K9,

    The main objection I have to your statement concerning Friedman is that he is a lackey of “corporate control”.

    In actual fact if you read his book “Free to Choose” he advocates putting the initiative into the citizen’s hands, and therefore impresses me considerably.

    Of course, although I believe that this would benefit the economy and EVERYONE in it, the fact that it devolves the power of the government concerned and would be deemed more capitalistic (read more democratic), means that it will only ever be a pipe dream unless the population actually understands the principles involved. (Just watch the PR China though, they learnt the hard way.)

    Another fact is that most governments, including the government of my country seek to consolidate their power. This being the case, there is no way that they would ever let a powerful tool like the control of the money supply out of their grasp for very long. Wouldn’t be able to even have a little war without that control.

    Peter, you doubted that conspiracies exist, I gave you a link that fits the bill to me.
    Do you think that the backers of the Club of Rome which include those very influential people, would allow their names to be published without their consent?



    1. Well, now, Roger, you see: this is where we are going to have an exchange.

      You said “climate change” and I said “monetary policy”, which is a seeming non sequitur and a hijack of your thesis. So, I need to show how the two are related and, particularly, while your helpful, “vote against the greens”, is not actually, uhm, helpful.

      I said governments surrendered control of monetary policy in 1913 and cited a couple of very strong references. You found them “inconceivable” out of hand, (which is, I admit, where I got my back up), and dropped out Friedman saying, “he explains everything” and “I looked at your links with an open mind, I see things there that are not quite true, after all economics is my thing, and now you reply in an ad hominem fashion”, but you don’t exactly at all detail the things that are “not quite true”. This is where you need to explain in greater detail what you find lacking in Money As Debt and Money Masters.

      Now I’ve said that, in the end-run, that you and I may find ourselves more strongly agreeing with each other than expected — I for one am a libertarian — however, I believe that some restraint against pure capitalism, (particulary, the “greed of the wealthy”), is required to hold a healthy balance in society. “Wealth is the enemy of Liberty”, by definition, (as stated in the Golden Rule).

      (And this is where I speculate that Friedman will fail and I will find him a lackey. Innocent until proven guilty, though, eh what?!)

      As a foretaste of where this is going, democracy has already been bought and sold down the river by larger forces, (e.g. Bilderberg, Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, IMF, World Bank, Bank of International Settlements, Federal Reserve and the International Community of High Finance and Shadow Banking), so your suggestions re The Club of Rome are, you know, moot, null and void.

      (Glad you’re hanging in to the fray.)


  10. K9,

    Your comments are becoming a little wild and I am having trouble understanding what you are on about.

    You should simply believe what you want.

    I have stated what I think so you are welcome to chew that in your own mind and in the meantime I withdraw from the conversation.



    1. Yes, no doubt, I have reacted rather badly to how amazingly haughty you come across. I am not used to it.

      Good day to you.

    2. Is it worth asking which comments you regard as a little wild, Roger?

      I thought k9 was actually getting it nailed down as to your point of disagreement.

Leave a Reply

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