GLOBAL BULLY RUDD FIGHTS FOR FOREIGN COMMITTEE, AGAINST CITIZENS

Transcription

1 GLOBAL BULLY RUDD FIGHTS FOR FOREIGN COMMITTEE, AGAINST CITIZENS by Joanne Nova SPPI REPRINT SERIES November 16, 2009

2 GLOBAL BULLY RUDD FIGHTS FOR FOREIGN COMMITTEE, AGAINST CITIZENS by Joanne Nova November 11, 2009 The world is considering a new financial market larger than any commodity, it s based on science, but if you ask for evidence, you re called names Denier, and by our Prime Minister, no less. This is supposed to pass for reasoned debate? In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate. He repeats quote after quote of sensible, ordinary points from his opponents as if it shows they are confused. Yet he can t point out how any of them are wrong. It shows the depth of his own delusions that he thinks merely questioning the UN committee is a flaw in itself. It s as if being a sceptic is a bad thing, yet the opposite of sceptical is gullible. Rudd throws baseless innuendo when he claims vested interests are at work. The truth is the exact centre of the climate opposite. Exxon spent $23 million on sceptics, but the US government spent $79 billion on the climate change galaxy have names industry. Big Government outspent big-oil 3000 to 1. Worse, carbon trading last year was $126 billion like Goldman Sachs dollars. That s for just one year. The real vested interests stand in the open like signposted black holes hidden in plain view by a legal disclaimer. The singularities at the centre of the climate change galaxy have names like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, ABN Amro, Deutche Bank, and HSBC. The banks want us to trade carbon. The singularities at the And the career scientists like their rock-star status. Call us heroes. Thanks for the institute. Ta. The UN bureaucrats soak in their fame and their junkets. Why wouldn t they? Two weeks and ten thousand people in an exotic locale every year. Nobel prizes for just doing their jobs, and the promise that they might be at the centre of new world financial market: dinner with Obama and tea with Gordon Brown. Status knocks, and everyone is home. This global gravy train got rolling in 1988 and when the evidence turned 180, the train ran off the tracks. This global gravy train got rolling in 1988 and when the evidence turned 180, the train ran off the tracks. Now it levitates above the real world on a cushion of snarling spite and 2

3 intimidation. It s as if calling someone a denier replaces 100,000 radiosonde readings, 6,000 boreholes, 30 years of satellite results and ice cores that go back to a time before homo sapiens was sapien. These things are evidence, but a manufactured consensus from a self serving committee is not. Denier is an insult, a cheap attempt to bully dissent into submission. Rudd offers up our nation to global bullies and giant bankers because he s swallowed a UN committee report. The IPCC were set up and funded to find a link, any link between carbon and the climate: they are not audited, elected or accountable to the Australian people. Team IPCC-how-big-is-my-junket would never issue a press release that said, essentially: greenhouse gases are minor forces. Thanks for the funding. We ll all get new jobs. They are not an unbiased source. Yet the Australian government seems to think they help Australian citizens by slavishly repeating UN committee decrees. Rudd claims sceptics play with our children s future, but if a nations leader just obediently accepts a foreign decree without checking it, isn t he the one who lets our children down? He s the one who isn t arranging an independent audit of the claims made by a committee in Geneva before we sign away the hard work of Australian adults and children for decades to come. Ratings agencies repacked junk securities into AAA rated investments and triggered the credit crunch. The IPCC has repackaged junk science and created an expert triple A rated, full gloss quasi prospectus called a Synthesis Report. The Australian government is buying their unaudited package hook, line and stinker. It s sobering to think this man is in our highest office. There is no human subclass called denier, there are only concerned citizens, retired scientists, unpaid bloggers, and working families. Rudd will come to regret his Lowy Institute speech. It s a sad indictment of what intelligent discourse in Australia has been reduced too. The nation that invented the bionic ear considers trashing its economy because someone thinks denier is a scientific term? There is no human subclass called denier, there are only concerned citizens, retired scientists, unpaid bloggers, and working families. All of whom will ship truckloads of money to foreign financial houses in the event we are forced to buy meaningless permits at the point of a gun. Kevin Rudd gambles with our economy. He Nothing bar anything is going the wants sweeping changes based on the science, but he hasn t spent ten minutes right way for the carbonistas. checking the evidence. He claims sceptics can t name any evidence but that s only because he never reads a word sceptics write. He can t name a single peer reviewed paper yet we can name hundreds. But we only need one, and Lindzen 2009 will do. (Thank you, since you asked.) 3

4 Rudd could start with The Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) an enormous non-profit production of around 800 pages of dense scientific text and references. That it exists at all is remarkable. Why do so many eminent scientists around the world feel compelled to donate time to write long detailed reports? But talking papers is a waste of time, Rudd thinks evidence comes from government, and he s waiting for the IPCC to debunk itself. He actually says: Sceptics offer no alternative official body of evidence from any credible government in the world. That misunderstanding about the nature of evidence automatically rules out all independent research until such time as some bureaucratic committee agrees. Einstein pointed out that it only takes one experiment to prove him wrong. Obviously, in Rudd s world, if a government department hadn t legislated the sun to rise tomorrow, it wouldn t come up. In the real world, evidence doesn t come from governments it comes from thermometers. The IPCC even admits carbon will only warm us by 1 degree. Did you know? Don t wait for the IPCC press release in plain English. The they point it out. rest of the projected catastrophe is due to feedback from clouds, rain and humidity. But it isn t there. Outgoing radiation does the opposite of what the models project. Humidity levels aren t rising in the upper troposphere, the greenhouse hot-spot is totally missing, high cirrus clouds shrink as the world warms, which cools us. Low clouds correlate with high energy cosmic rays. Weather balloons showed the models were wrong years ago, beyond all reasonable doubt. For the last few years, sea levels have plateaued, and temperatures have cooled. Nothing bar anything is going the right way for the carbonistas. The ice cores show that temperature controls carbon and not the other way around. One hockey stick graph was based on one freak tree in northern Russia, the other used statistical tricks that create hockey sticks from random noise. The East Anglia CRU has lost the entire raw data set of global temperatures. The whole set?! The carbon crisis charade has become a farce. This calling to consensus is the stuff of tribal witchdoctors. Chief Kevin and the council of crows say storms are coming! Why haven t you heard? Because scientists get called names when The only thing confirmed about the theory of man-made global catastrophe is just how audacious and brazen it is, and how many people have been fooled into thinking they help the planet by insulting scientists. Really. History books will be written about the global warming exaggerations, and people will marvel at how close the world came to feeding a new layer of financial parasites so soon after the economy collapsed due to the last speculative frenzy. Sub prime carbon was on its way. Rudd scores an own-goal by saying we are deniers who do not accept the scientific consensus. Hell no we don t. We stand by Galileo, Aristotle and Einstein. We demand evidence, and not just opinions. 4

5 This calling to consensus is the stuff of tribal witchdoctors. Chief Kevin and the council of crows say storms are coming, the Gods are angry. We must pay them in barnacles to ward off the wind! For a hundred thousand years people have invented crises in order to scare their followers into submission. Rudd drags us back to the stone age. The meaningless consensus is fake in any case. Thirty thousand scientists have signed their names against the theory of man-made catastrophe, that includes a Nobel prize winner, 9,000 PhD s, and countless professors of physics, chemistry and meteorology. The carbon scare is a shell game to distract the masses while bankers take Australia s economic sovereignty and lock in a profitable carbon trading scheme for themselves. (Thanks for the tithe: here s your meaningless paper permits to air that might-have-had-more-carbon-in-it.) Rudd is so behind the times, he makes the mistake of thinking that we deniers think the evidence is inconclusive. Not any more we don t. In any other branch of science this theory would be dead and buried. There are so many flaws, and so many knock-out blows, it s not possible to seriously look at the evidence and think the carbon-crisis theory has any legs left. Sure, new evidence could change that, but it would have to be one mother of an experiment to turn around the results from oceans, sediments, satellites, stalagmites, weather balloons and ice cores. One of the most surprising things is just how clumsy Rudd s long speech was. Not only was 6,000 words indulgent, but the reasoning was extraordinary. Somehow he thinks people will be convinced that Liberals* are crazy if he quotes them saying tritely obvious things like this line from Liberal Senate leader Nick Minchin: Instead this is Turnbull showing he s is not an automaton robot arm of the IPCC. he makes the mistake of thinking that we deniers think the evidence is inconclusive. Not any more we don t. CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant This whole extraordinary scheme is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming. Which was the perfect point for Rudd to name the evidence and show how Minchin was wrong, but Rudd didn t even notice the gaping hole in his own reply. It s as if he thinks just making any point against the hallowed theory is a flaw in itself. Ironically Rudd manages to find the one line, the only sensible comment Malcolm Turnbull has made on the topic all year, and quotes that as if it counts against Turnbull: I think most people have at least some doubts about the science. This is not exactly diabolical stuff, it s not like Turnbull is paying tribute to the Ku Klux Klan, or accidentally said hot air sinks. Instead this is Turnbull showing he s is not an automaton robot arm of the IPCC. Apparently Rudd is. 5

6 Was there an awkward silence in the room as Rudd read sensible line after sensible line from his opponents? Did anyone in the audience notice that Rudd was acting like a cult believer with a quiet chant: The IPCC are right. The IPCC are right. Don t question the committee. There is a consensus. The UN has never got it wrong. I can t name a paper, I can t name a scientist, but there is a consensus only an ignorant tobacco funded fool conspiracy theorist who hates their own children would question it Rudd is clearly very frustrated that the election wedge he thought he had a handle on is bolting out from under him. And it s not a moment too soon. But this time he has gone too far. He needs to apologize unreservedly for baseless attacks on all the scientists who have been trying to warn him and help him understand our climate. Most of us work unpaid to help the country. Bullying is not science. There is never an excuse. * For non Australians: Liberals here are the conservative opposition. Yes, they are more liberal than the Nationals, but the most liberal are the Labor Party. Source: 6