Here is the first one on the list of these dangerous spruikers (first one, mostly because I already have mentioned her on this site)...

---------------------

Is Nova a nut-case, did she flip a screw loose sometimes after having got her PhD, or did she suck so much at microbiology that she decided to con people and make money from rich denialists by claiming she knew what she was talking about in regard to global warming?...

Jo Nova's atrocious book "The Skeptics Handbook" (for kids?) is so full of gross inaccuracies and falsehoods that I believe either she is dumb or deliberately manipulative to suit her hidden carbon masters, if any... 

Here are some examples:
This refers on how to discuss global warming as in a "surgical strike": Her fiction is posted here in italics...
1: Stick to the four points that matter
There is only one question and four points worth discussing. Every time you allow the conversation to stray, you get stuck in a dead end and miss the chance to definitively expose the lack of evidence that carbon is “bad.”

Gus: this says a lot about Nova's bully tactics... Should someone mentions something that adds something that is contrary to one's "belief", one has to bring back the conversation back in its narrow framework... Quite religiously fanatical, don't you think?... No scientist say that carbon is bad.  Life depends on carbon. But carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a "greenhouse" gas and, as the level of CO2 climbs, so does the temperature... That relationship is defining global warming at present — after all other influence on atmospheric temperature have been accounted for.

read more: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/19279#comment-24016

 

I have already mentioned the lord at: (nearly) all in the family...

Here is a refresher about some of his crap...

 

Good Lord!. I thought that Lord Monckton of Brenchley had a tendency to be moronic when talking about global warming but, after having watched the debate with Tim Lambert, I have come to believe Lord Monckton is a fraud and he knows it. He parades as a knowledgeable count (easy to make a Freudian slip on this one) expert — a "mathematician", who in all fairness appeared to be confused about statistics 101... He just blabbed nonsense con brio.

One of his grandiose argument relates to an event that happened 750 million years ago when the earth started to freeze — a big ice age that nearly covered the entire earth with ice according to the geological record. The process was fairly complex but in a nutshell, the good Lord has not even bothered to understand why this event happened and how it sorted itself out. Tim Lambert had no idea about that particular event thus did not know what to say, leaving the awful Lord smug as a pork pie with tomato sauce oozing from the top. 

I must say here that my knowledge of this time was also sketchy. I am far more familiar with what happened from 570 million years ago onwards till today. So I went back to my reference books and the net. 
I knew that life-forms in the oceans had MODIFIED the atmosphere quite a lot earlier than this — around 4 billion to 3.5 billion years ago. There was of course a continuum of this process but probably less pronounced after this. The event 750 million years ago would have been part of this process too, possibly with a very small trigger — say a period of low activity of the sun, who knows. But from present serious theoretical analysis, one has to say that the ice was most likely encouraged to form by an over-abundance of oxygen created by photosynthesis of CO2 — oxygen being a cooling gas in the greenhouse atmospheric equation... So the atmospheric "balance" was tipped towards cooling. But as anyone knows when freezing a fizzy cool drink, the CO2 is somewhat rejected by the ice forming in the bottle. And sea water contains a lot of CO2. Thus as ice was formed on the surface of the earth, vast amount of CO2, dissolved in the water, would have been be pushed into the atmosphere, leading to the Lord Monckton's clamouring there was a cool period and oodles of CO2 in the atmosphere... (300,000 ppm was his tooted figure). Thus, according to him, CO2 in the atmosphere does not equate global warming... Idiot. 

What probably ended this ice age, 750 million years ago, was that excess of CO2 in the atmosphere, creating a global warming... Allowing for the melting oceans to reabsorb the CO2... Thus this warming was decelerated by less CO2 in the atmosphere... SEE, less CO2 less warming.. etc. and more oxygen being pumped up by new photosynthesis. Thus the warming being complexed by a lot of conflicting elements, but warming nonetheless... 
If one does not understand these processes (simplified here) one is either a moron or a fraud. 

But in this debate the moderator, Alan Jones, of course was leaning towards the awful Lord of Whatever... When the Lord and Tim agreed on a figure, Jones encouraged the Lord to argue vigourously against it.  Mr Jones...!!! Bias???

More of Lord Monckton arguments could be debunked here but I reserve those for another day. 

And considering the level of questioning from the audience, one can despair that either the crowd was full of morons or the moderators only picked the moronic questions... Argh...

 

read more: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/8985

 

Like Gus on this site, Janet has an opinion on everything... This week it's whatever, last month it was about gay marriage:

Over the weekend two of Tony Abbott's daughters, Frances and Bridget, spoke publicly of their support for gay marriage.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/no-short-cuts-to-gay-marriage/story-e6frg7bo-1226611187447

 

Her first statement of course is to remind us that Tony Abbott, her god in all things, still exists... But his daughters have a contrary opinion to the Liberal (conservative) party that Tony (poor baby) lead which to her credit admits that is a position on the wrong side of history to come ...

Whatever...

But when Janet lets it fly on most scientific issues, including global warming, she always go with the wrong end of the Bunsen burner... Here is a reminder of the rubbish she promotes, by quoting her "source" of important rubbish information. This was already mentioned on this site:

 

JANET ALBRETCHESEN

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/s

 

Sadly, the media is not inquisitive enough to report those who question the circus acts of climate change. A week after the Maldives underwater show, Nils-Axel Morner - a leading world authority on sea levels - wrote an open letter to the president telling him that his stunt was “not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments”.

Morner is a former professor who headed the department of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University and past president (1999-2003) of the International Union for Quaternary Research commission on sea level changes and coastal evolution. INQUA was founded in 1928 by scientists who aimed to improve the understanding of environmental change during the glacial ages through interdisciplinary research. In other words, the Swedish professor has gravitas when it comes to sea levels.

Alas his letter did not make headlines. That is a shame. Morner says there is “no rational basis” for the hysterical claims that the people of Maldives - or the rest of the world - are threatened by rising sea levels. And he sets out some facts.

Fact number 1: During the past 2000 years, sea levels have fluctuated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6m to 1.2m above present sea level.

Fact number 2: From 1790 to 1970 sea levels were about 20cm higher than today.

Fact number 3: In the 1970s, the sea level fell by about 20cm to its present level.

Fact number 4: Sea levels have remained constant for the past 30 years “implying that there are no traces of any alarming ongoing sea level rise”.

Fact number 5 (and I am paraphrasing here): The notion presented by the President of the Maldives that his country will be flooded is bunkum.

All of these "facts" are of course debatable, as they are not verified by Janet, but the last four (4) "facts" are COMPLETE RUBBISH, making all other "facts"(fact one (1)) dubious, even if we go back to the history and scientific books... Nils-Axel Morner is a fantasist... He will be the next instalment on this list of rubbish spruikers.

 

The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is due out on September 27th, and is expected to reaffirm with growing confidence that humans are driving global warming and climate change. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this auspicious report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories. Just in the past week we've seen:

• The David Rose Mail on Sunday piece that treated scientific evidence in much the way bakers treat pretzel dough.
• Dr. John Christy interviewed by the Daily Mail;
• Christy's colleague Dr. Roy Spencer in The Christian Post;
• Andrew Montford in Rupert Murdoch's The Australian;
• Matt Ridley in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal; and
• Bjorn Lomborg in The Washington Post.

Interestingly, these pieces spanned nearly the full spectrum of the 5 stages of global warming denial.

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists

Often when people are first faced with an inconvenient problem, the immediate reaction involves denying its existence. For a long time climate contrarians denied that the planet was warming. Usually this involves disputing the accuracy of the surface temperature record, given that the data clearly indicate rapid warming.

...

Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause

Once people move beyond denying that the problem exists, they often move to the next stage, denying that we're responsible. John Christy and Roy Spencer took this approach by disputing the accuracy of global climate models in The Daily Mail and The Christian Post, respectively. Spencer was quite explicit about this:

...we deny "that most [current climate change] is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community."

...

Stage 2 Consensus Denial

In Murdoch's The Australian, Andrew Montford took a different approach to deny that we're the cause of the problem, attacking the expert consensus on human-caused global warming. Specifically he attacked the Cook et al. (2013) study finding 97 percent consensus on this question in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

....

Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem

Once they've progressed through the first two stages and admitted global warming is happening and human-caused, contrarians generally move on to Stage 3, denying it's a problem. Lomborg and Ridley did their best Tony the Tiger impressions in The Washington Post and Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, respectively, arguing that global warming is 'Grrrrreat!' (or at least nothing to worry about).

....

Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It

In his editorial, Roy Spencer bounced between the second and fourth stages of global warming denial, also claiming that solving the problem is too expensive and will hurt the poor. In reality the opposite is true.

.....

Stage 5: It's too Late

Stage 5 global warming denial involves arguing that it's too late to solve the problem, so we shouldn't bother trying (though few climate contrarians have reached this level). Unfortunately this stage can be self-fulfilling. If we wait too long to address the problem, we may end up committing ourselves to catastrophic climate change.

 

read the full article: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial

 

See picture at top... have a good look. These people are part of a conspiracy to bring you ignorance and bullshit on the subject of global warming... They are a disgrace to the human species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As Labor frontbencher Tony Burke has acknowledged, the ALP underestimated Tony Abbott. When Anthony Albanese said about Abbott that ''in your guts, you know he's nuts'', the former deputy prime minister meant it. Yet, according to the most recent figures, the Coalition's two-party preferred vote in 2013 is currently 53.4 per cent and close to John Howard's 53.6 per cent in 1996. Not bad for a so-called nutter.
Labor appears to be in a state of delusion in attempting to rationalise the devastating loss on September 7 as primarily due to internal divisions and leadership changes. This has led leadership contenders Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten, along with acting opposition leader Chris Bowen, to confirm support for a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme (ETS).
After the Coalition's defeat in November 2007, the Liberal Party and the Nationals decided to junk John Howard's WorkChoices. The view taken was that industrial relations had been central to the campaign and that Labor's victory had given it a mandate to do away with WorkChoices.
Compare and contrast Labor in 2013. From the time he became opposition leader in December 2009, Abbott has campaigned against Labor's plan for action on climate change. Initially Kevin Rudd's carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS), followed by Julia Gillard's carbon tax and followed by Rudd's ETS proposal. Yet Labor appears to have convinced itself that its climate change policies were not central to the 2013 election outcome and that the Coalition has no mandate in this area.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/labors-problem-not-a-personality-issue--its-about-poor-policy-20130916-2tv3u.html#ixzz2f5dT7Rdv
--------------------------------
Gus: all this is a bit rich coming from Gerard Henderson... On this issue alone, Tony Nutso got the incredible massive support from a stupid lying media led by that of Uncle Rupe... As the science of global warming is overwhelmingly correct, most of the Aussie press has tried all the tricks and lies to make sure no-one in this country got that message... Without this support, Tony Abbott would never had got the priministership.

With 100 per cent of support from the press, Tony Nutso has had more public changes of views on climate change than changes of undies, though TONY ABBOTT DOES NOT "BELIEVE" IN THE SCIENCE.... Any thinking person who KNOWS the science and the evidence of warming would know that TONY IS COMPLETELY NUTS — and very dangerous for the future. Some people may argue that the media had no effect on the population. I disagree strongly as the media used all the tools of the con-artistry and dishonesty it could master while appearing knowledgeable... It's quite a surprise that Tony Abbott did not get 70 per cent of the votes. Mind you with his ministry of women, he's likely to loose fifty per cent of the population forthwith, on top of what he did not get... It's downhill from here now, baby...

The Labor party policy on climate change was a very modest start for this dithering country — a "carbon pricing" which of course the media and Gerard's Rabid-Right presented as a "carbon tax" which it is not. But should the media people have their brains in the right place instead of their arse, they would understand that the present global warming is not a dress rehearsal but the real McCoy... And as shown in the record, things can change and will change quicker than we think...

For example on a day like today when the maximum temperature is going to be three degrees Celsius below average in Sydney, the minimum temperature is already five degrees Celsius above... Considering the diurnal and nocturnal variations, this tells us that while we freeze our tits off, the average temperature is two degrees above, still. And this without mentioning the very warm days we had earlier in the month. In the north-west of the country, the daily maximum temperature is often three degrees above average at the moment. But this is not a single weather and local temperature issue. Global warming is a complex upward trend with ups and downs due to the vagaries of weather, GLOBALLY. 

Tony's "direct action" on global warming is a non-policy for a problem he does not believe in. Already, soon after the election, the Libs (CONservatives) announced a cut of $300 millions for this policy... which is worth peanuts though it could cost $3 billions in wasted moneys... 

Gerard Henderson's rationale is poor, idiotic and sophistic. One can only hope is that one day, he will retire or be retired to the glue factory — or the pantheon of dung beetles that push stuff uphill. 

 

Labor should actually start to talk individually to journalists, those who have a tiny bit of ethics left in their brains and get them to forcefully tell the truth about a lot of things, including global warming and that labor did a better than decent job... Really start to froth up a storm about this...  Tony Abbott's silly and nasty policies will come and bite us in the butt too soon... but most of the mainstream media hacks still have potato skin in front of their eyes...

 

He declared a United Nations report on climate change "got it wrong by almost 100 per cent", but shock jock Alan Jones was the one who blundered, Australia's media watchdog has found.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority on Friday found the 2GB host, described on the station's website as "a phenomenon" and "the nation's greatest orator and motivational speaker", breached commercial radio codes in 2013 by making inaccurate comments about the rate of global warming as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The station argued that Jones relied on a front page article in The Australian – an article that was based on incorrect information published in Britain's Mail on Sunday, and which was corrected before Jones went to air.

During his morning program on September 24, 2013, Jones discussed the leaked findings of a fifth draft report prepared by the IPCC.

He claimed a previous IPCC report in 2007 said the planet was warming at the rate of 0.2 degrees every decade, and said the updated report put the figure at 0.12 degrees - "almost a 100 per cent error".

Jones said the report showed "over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate" previously claimed and the panel's climate change theories "have been disproven".

The authority found Jones' statements were inaccurate. It said the figure of 0.12 degrees each decade over the last 60 years was very close to the figure reported in the 2007 report of 0.13 degrees each decade over the 50 years to 2005.

Ninety minutes after his statements, Jones purportedly attempted to correct the error. The authority said the correction, although timely, was inadequate. It did not clearly refer to the incorrect statements and included additional material that was "both confusing and undermines the significance of the correction".

2GB is part of the Macquarie Radio network, a publicly listed company now majority-owned by Fairfax Media, the publisher of this website.

The station's licensee Harbour Radio Pty Ltd argued that Jones based his statements on an article in The Australian, and that The Daily Telegraph also published the incorrect claim.

 

 

read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alan-jones-comments-on-un-climate-change-report-inaccurate-media-watchdog-20150710-gi9fqi.html

----------------------------

 

See image at top... and read all articles below it.

 

“The tentacles of the global warming hoax are everywhere,” said a foaming Sydney shock-jock Alan Jones on his high-ratings radio show.

“I don’t know why it’s not on the front page of the newspapers,” replied Jennifer Marohasy.

The subject of the pair’s wrath is the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) — the Australian government’s weather bureau.

Specifically, it’s the way the bureau collects and records temperatures. 

Marohasy works for the Institute of Public Affairs which, if you want to talk about tentacles, is firmly attached to the body of conservative “free market” groups around the world that deny the risks of human-caused climate change.

Last week, I interviewed former BoM director Rob Vertessy, who described the attacks from a “fever swamp” of climate science denial as being baseless, a waste of time, and dangerous, especially when they’re amplified by Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper The Australian.

“As the costs of climate change accumulate in the years ahead,” Vertessy said, “I can see that leaders of this climate change denial movement will really be seen as culpable.”

Institute of Public Affairs Tentacles

Marohasy has been pursuing the bureau with claims of “corruption” and “propaganda” since at least 2014.

Marohasy claims to have found genuine, substantive problems with the BoM data and that these problems undermine the credibility of the data that shows Australia has warmed about 1°C since the start of the 20th century.

So let me explain why it’s not on the front page of the newspapers, why there is no scandal, and how the bureau’s data has largely stood up to scrutiny.

First, Marohasy’s “criticisms” of the bureau’s data have been mostly fixed on a dataset known as ACORN-SAT — a temperature record that goes back to 1910 using data from 112 locations.

That data shows that Australia’s five hottest years on record have all happened since 2005 (starting with the hottest, the list goes 2013, 2005, 2014, 2016, 2009).

Homogenize This

There are two elements of the ACORN-SAT data that Marohasy has tried to argue against. Let’s take them in turn.

Marohasy says the bureau has data going back much further than 1910 (which it does) and that this would show that Australia was warmer back then than it is now, if only the bureau would include it.

This, by the way, is the exact same claim put by climate science denier and One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts (who may not be a senator for much longer).

In a letter to Senator John Birmingham in March 2014, Marohasy wrote: “But inclusion of this data into the official Australian temperature record would likely show that the years of the Federation Drought (1896 to 1902) were as hot, or hotter than temperatures now.”

Would it really show that?

Well, the Berkeley Earth project used the same pre-1910 data that Marohasy refers to in a reconstruction of temperatures in Australia. The results could not be clearer. Marohasy is wrong. Australia is much warmer now than it was then.

read more:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/09/25/how-australia-fever-swamp-climate-...

 

As mentioned in a recent post, Alan Jones is not going to be happy that Turdshitt is asking the NSW to get fracking — as this would mean Alan's estate(s), leading by example... 

AND BY THE WAY:

 

Record dry spell sends Sydney's water use soaring

 

 

Sydneysiders are turning on the sprinklers and hoses at the highest rate in years in a bid to save their withering parks and gardens amid temperature spikes and the city's driest spell in more than a century.

The city's water use peaked just shy of 2 billion litres on Saturday, or 42 per cent more than typical for a September day, Sydney Water said. 

read more:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/record-dry-spell-sends-sydneys-water-use-soaring-20170924-gynz16.html

 

 

READ FROM TOP...

On May 26, 2011, the brash, trash-talking Republican acknowledged for the first time that humans were causing the climate to change. Then, just three minutes into his 14-minute speech, he announced the Garden State’s withdrawal from a popular and effective interstate pact to lower planet-warming emissions and raise money for energy efficiency projects. 

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, includes Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, which have put limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and created a cap-and-trade market that allows utility companies to buy and sell permits to pollute. The program is credited with reducing average utility bills by 3.4 percent across the Northeast, driving $2.7 billion in revenues reinvested into public projects and creating at least 30,200 new jobs over the past eight years. 

Yet Christie called it a “failure.” He insisted that the burden RGGI put on companies would drive job creators over the state line to Pennsylvania, New Jersey’s fossil fuel-rich neighbor and one of the few states in the region outside the group.  

 

Read more:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/chris-christie-climate-change_us...

-------------

Just when the people of New Jersey believed they were done with governor-turned-meme Chris Christie, a recent report shows him returning for a bite out of the taxpayers’ pockets.

According to the Bergen Report, Chris Christie's official portrait by famed Australian artist Paul Newton will cost a staggering $85,000.

The man once named "America's most hated governor" has been out of office for several weeks, but this news can arguably make one feel like he never left. Despite a poor relationship with the public, Christie felt the need to end his political legacy with a portrait that allegedly costs more than those of the past three NJ governors combined.

Considering his approval ratings leading up to his departure didn't even make it out of their teens, perhaps the former governor is springing extra for a graffiti-proof sealant.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/cartoons/201804211063770042-chris-christie-gone-...

----------

At this level, even if given a million dollar for a tiny sketch, Gus Leonisky, caricaturist extraordinaire, would not singularly touch the geezer (though Christie appears in Gus' groups such as ten green bottles (second from top) hopeful GOP candidates — before being decimated by El Trumpo — from a Jeb Bush's sketch fattened by an electronic stretch). A portrait By Paul Newton, our famous Australian triple-zero-brush-licker, for $85,000 is a steal. A cartoon by famous Ted Rall is an opportunity to annoy the punters.

 

Read from top...