Set the agenda
This could be interesting. The Sunday Age (part of the Fairfax press, and one of the true believers in man-made global warming) has launched a new initiative entitled “The Climate Agenda”:
What are you confused about in the climate debate? What do you want investigated? Are you furious about the proposed carbon tax, or curious about the role renewable energy will play in Australia?
We are using the website OurSay.org to gather our ideas. Oursay is a Melbourne-based group committed to enabling more people to be involved in public debate. Using it is easy: Go to sundayage.oursay.org to post a question you want answered, or vote on other peoples questions. Voting ends on September 2. (source)
I’m not sure what the SA is hoping to achieve by this, and whether they truly take any notice of the questions people ask, and given the anger surrounding the carbon tax, it might not be pretty. But bearing in mind the urban-green readership of Fairfax, I don’t think they need worry, looking at one of the early questions:
“We need action on climate change. Why can’t the government communicate the issue properly? The government has wasted millions of dollars of advertising on an awful communication strategy but still can’t gain popular support. Why is this?”
Yawn. It will, however, be interesting to check back on 2 September to see what the final ten questions are.
P.S. I couldn’t resist: Read my question and you can register and vote as well.
Australian Climate Madness 
When have the enviro-nazi’s ever given an actual debate? The “science” behind their bogus claims is so easily taken apart.
Is this guy asking why the Australian people don’t like being lied to by their prime minister then given a tax that they don’t want/need and that can only do harm? It must be those evil deniers looking to secure their oil interests.
So far as I and those I know are concerned, when the “Experts” on climate are able to provide anything like a accurate climate forecast for just one week ahead, we MIGHT become interested in listening to their forecasts for some time in the distant future. After all, the forecasts by the most praised forecasters that the seas will rise and flood us all, even those who live 18 metresw above current sea level: there won’t be any more rain – or snow: the Great Barrier Reef will vanish: and all the rest of them have proven to be nothing but gross inaccuracies/idiocies.
And maybe the Mayan prediction will come true, and our world will end i=on 21 December 2013 (or is it 2012 ?)
Might be like the Climate Science Rapid Response team, which is very far from rapid, and seems to choose to answer only those that believe in their faith.
The carbon-stasi Fairfax press is tuned to the looney left and the majority of the questions asked on that website, as Simon correctly points out, supports that fact. The same could also be said for a similar blog-fest if it were in the Murdoch press, except it would be from the right.
I can tell you right now, the top 10 questions will be from warming alarmists and the answers given will be from the same vane. As people more educated than I would say …. whatever!
I wonder how many Dorothy Dix Qs will be in their top 10.. I say at least 11!
Please support my Q ..
http://oursay.org/s/75
You got 1 point from me 🙂
Baldrick , Sorry mate your vote along with at least 13 others were deleted due to the Age’s incompetence in deleting my post that was originally linked here.
Not sure which side of this to spit on!
Please purchase one and address to Julia a letter to ditch her carbon tax. To ensure it reaches her put on senders address as c/o Mortgagee in possession of The Lodge, Canberra.
Correction…..squatter…….not mortgagee.
Can’t wait for the inevitable eviction!
Is that postage stamp of Julia Gillard for real or is it a mock-up? What’s the series? Emily’s list of affirmative action mediocrities? (that’s why the country’s going down the s-bend).
i thought the debate was over and the sceince settled, well at least 90% of it anyway? why are the “authorities” still trying to convince us there is more room for “debate”… agw supporters believe co2 has a heat “amplifying” effect. heres a question NOT ONE SINGLE AGW supporter has answered and that is where does the EXTRA energy come from to enable co2 to “amplify heating”?
Simon check this Q ….
http://oursay.org/s/6q
…..Have you got any published evidence of what this person has written ????
“The medical literature clearly explains the proposed health effects of climate change, from direct effects such as changed patterns of infectious disease and increased morbidity and mortality from extreme weather events, and also indirect effects on mental health, population displacement, reduced health system funding and poor food security etc. Why does this not get any coverage in the media? Surely health issues deserve discussion and underpin all of our actions… after all, if we don’t have health, what do we have?”
Let’s see the data in the peer-reviewed medical literature please.
Otherwise it’s all speculation without evidence.
Note that you can only vote FOR the queestions, not vote against them.
Hence Sceptics can’t have any influence on the voting, it is all one way.
They will get the outcome that they want.
Uh, gee, maybe that big sphere that get’s to about 2 million degrees F on a regular day, not counting solar flares, lol. Well put Scutter, the sun (earths single source of heat, couldn’t possibly have any effect on the NATURAL temperature cycles recorded throughout earths history). And there were NO factories and NO SUV’s around to cause those other fluctuations either. I don’t know what’s worse, those watermelons ( “Green” on the inside, RED [communist] to the core ) out there peddling this Bull$#!t, or the morons who just except it without a second thought.
My Question would be;
The “effective volume” of the Earth’s atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers using the latest scientific estimates of
Nitrogen – 78.084%
Oxygen – 20.947%
Argon – 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide – 0.033%
Total volume: 99.998%
How much of the 4.2 billion cubic kilometers of “effective volume” of the earths atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide and,
How much of this Carbon Dioxide is Man Made (4%?) and,
Of this Man Made Carbon Dioxide what percentage of this “effective volume” does Australia produce?
Would the percentage of this “effective volume” of Australian produced Carbon Dioxide be less than 0.033% and what would be the cost per Cubic meter of Carbon Dioxide produced by Australia?
what does every one think of starting a petition to oppose this carbon con we can all post as many comments on sites like this as we like but we have to do more than that to stop this rot I know that the traitors running our country do not have to respect our wishes but firmly believe that we can gather enough support to make them take notice.
if enough of us are prepared to collect signatures we can get several million they surely have to take notice
Maybe they have a grown-up working for them now?
Surely, one day, the climate sceptics and deniers will ask themselves why they and their supporters employ such emotionalism to express themselves. They clearly feel all sorts of threats: to their comfortable way of life; to their inability to change; the possibility that they might need to do some more reading about climate science; to being exposed for their basic ignorance about the difference between weather and climate etc.etc. Why is it that the best climate scientists in Australia and the world over – and I don’t mean academic geologists/advisors to the mining industry – all agree that the evidence points to anthropogenic climate change and inevitable increases in world temperature of 2C or more? Sure, in science there is never absolute certainty but just as I won’t cross a very busy road with only a 5% chance of not being knocked down, I will take heed of evidence, expertise and probabilities, not emotionalism. I attended a 3 day climate change conference addressed by some of the best climate scientists around. They all confirmed my reading in New Scientist. Reading the latter does not require extraordinary intelligence, only a willingness to be driven by logic and evidence. The sad thing is that the so-called climate debate is being driven both by the disrespect for truth, knowledge and science and political soundbites. I find the whole matter extremely depressing and I despair for my four daughters and their kids.
You know, Bill, I get thoroughly tired of comments like yours. Firstly, “deniers”. Secondly, no challenge to the arguments and blind acceptance of a politicised consensus. Reliance on “New Scientist”… Seriously, please don’t waste my time. And if it’s emotionalism you want, just look at your own post: “daughters and kids”. Geez.
“They clearly feel all sorts of threats: to their comfortable way of life; to their inability to change;..”. ==== ASSUMPTION !!! …GEEZE… TO QUOTE JULIA …”CRAP”!!!
“I attended a 3 day climate change conference… AM I THEREFORE MEANT TO ASSUME THAT STATEMENT OF FACT MAKES YOU A CLIMATE CHANGE GURU?
“I find the whole matter extremely depressing and I despair for my four daughters and their kids.” ….. WELL WORRY NOT TIM FLANNERY RECENTLY CLARIFIED THAT IT COULD TAKE 50,000 TO 100,000 YEARS FOR THE TIDE TO RISE 20 METRES. I AM MORE WORRIED FOR OUR PENSIONER’S 20 CENT/WEEK BUFFER ZONE, CONVINCINGLY PROMISED BY JULIA GILLARD.
“The sad thing is that the so-called climate debate is being driven both by the disrespect for truth, knowledge and science and political soundbites.” CF…. JULIA GILLARD HAD HER NUMBER CRUNCHERS RUNNING FIGURES AND CHANGING MODEL PARAMETERS UNTIL SHE GOT THE RESULT SHE WANTED TO USE IN HER “COMPENSATION PACKAGE” …
See my post below. Perhaps you have respect for ‘science’ based on the IPCC’s flawed version of literature review. Coming from a regulatory agency, I know full well that for any literature review worthy of the name the following MUST be documented viz.
which databases were searched?
what time periods were covered?
what search terms were used?
what boolean logic was employed?
WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR SEARCH STRATEGY?
how many citations were retrieved at each stage of the search?
what criteria were applied for selection/exclusion of papers for further anal;ysis?
what date was the search performed?
This documentation is required to establish that the literature search is
comprehensive, objective, justifiable, robust and repeatable.
Without this documentation a literature search can be presumed to be an exercise in cherry-picking the papers which support your favoured hypothesis while simultaneously excluding/ignoring any contrary evidence.
Guess which method the IPCC used?
Bill Hampel – whilst ever your ‘best climate scientists’ refer to carbon dioxide as ‘carbon pollution’ they’ll have no credibility.
That one simple phrase alone speaks volumes about where there next pay packet is coming from.
If you think climate change has anything to do with ‘pollution’ your sadly mistaken and ill-informed.
I also despair for your daughters and their kids!
The IPCC lacked due diligence and its conclusions cannot be regarded as scientific, thus rendering its Fourth Assessment Report a political advocacy document in the guise of pseudo-science rather than the rigorous, objective, scientific appraisal of climate science many assume it to be. [See The Interacademy Council (IAC) review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)at http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html (which includes the IAC’s questionnaire which was completed by IPCC participants). This documents important deficiencies in the processes of the IPCC. Specifically, irrefutable evidence provided by IPCC participants reveals that the IPCC is manifestly biased, lacks transparency, is subject to overt political interference, failed to respond to critical review comments, made vague statements not supported by evidence, used non-peer-reviewed and unpublished material which was not critically reviewed or identified as such, failed to properly reflect uncertainties and had no policy to preclude conflict of interest. Moreover, the conclusions of Working Group III (which considers mitigation of the effects of climate change) are based on computer models which incorporate many assumptions and large uncertainties limiting their usefulness.
So in effect the reality is that IPCC was given free reign to cherry pick whatever information they chose to include/exclude from consideration for analysis so that its ‘assessment report’ could justify the political agendas of their government sponsors! This does not amount to independent, robust scientific advice.
Given the IAC Review findings how could anyone believe that the IPCC has any integrity or that its findings could ever be trusted?
As Australian Government policy on climate change is based on IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report was it ever justifiable?