If "propaganda has integrity", then Andrew Bolt is a paragon of virtue.
One commenter wrote:
"Given that Global Warming has been news for a few years now, surely some of those early prediction dates must have passed and the events forecast failed to materialise. Time to "out" all those false prophets and hold them accountable for their claims."
===
Ahh, excellent test. I throw this up as a challenge to the sceptics commenting here and, of course, Andrew: if anyone can find verifiable evidence that one of the early prediction dates have passed I will publish it on my blog, Global Warming Watch, under a big heading saying that "I could be wrong about global warming".
My blog lives here: http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/ and as you can see, I am a strong believer of the idea of man-made global warming.
I might even show Andrew how it's done and say sorry ;)
RULES:
1a. Said evidence may come from the general media, but any claims it makes must be accurate, and be accurately representative of, and sourced to published scientific papers in any of the peer-reviewed scientific journals that exist to cater to the wide-ranging disciplines of climate-science.
1b. No other sources for evidence will be considered. It doesn't have to just ulitmately come from a climate-scientist, or those in closely related fields, but also has had to be published in relevent scientific journals. Don't want nuffin from scientists speaking out of school, so to speak.
2. Entries must be in before Christmas. They will be judged as they come to hand.
3. All entries will be published on my blog, but only those entries proving an earlier-predicted global warming event has not come to pass, and that meet the above conditions, will be posted under the special headline, "I could be wrong about global warming".
4. I am the final arbiter, but will take submissions and consult widely before passing judgement. I commit to remain bias free - hey, my integrity is at stake, and it is something I value highly.
I trust the conditions are not too onerous. You can publish the evidence here, or in the comments section on my blog, and you don't even have to be a sceptic to play - just curious.
So any takers? Can I have a virtual show of hands? Andrew?
I can't believe the first 12 fawning commenter rallying around you Andrew. They're loyal but, like you, they don't read your research - even when it's your first link.Other Blogs on: Global Warning Climate Change climate+change+skeptic Science CO2 Andrew Bolt Media Watch
You say in you latest blog post linked above, "Let me summarise. Objection one: Benny Peiser, whom I cited, has allegedly confessed to some vague error in his survey disproving claims that scientists were unanimous that man was behind global warming. "
Andrew, you're spinning it when you characterise Peiser's 'confession' as vague. The following from Media Watch seems pretty stark and clear, and I note you didn't counter it: "Dr Peiser has advised Media Watch he did not study the same sample of articles as Professor Oreskes, in other words, he did not ?check again?."
Rather you complained, "You have given me just 10 minutes to respond to a claim about Peiser of which I knew nothing."
Well, I remember letting you know that I had posted a rebuttal to your claims about Peiser. I wish you had read it because it shows that the research - and truth is out there and easy to access if you ask the question - and you could have published that retraction.
Link {Note to reader: Only after removing the link can I submit my post for Andrew's moderation when commenting. He has purposefully censored himself from contradicting facts}
You write, "Unable to check for myself what you claim Peiser now says to you, given I am already late for my duties at the school fete, I must simply pass on to you the result of his own review of the scientific literature. See the abstracts he uncovered here."
I followed that link, and to my surprise I found your research source was exactly the same source I used for my rebuttal. Amazing hey? Amazing how you could have missed Meyrick's point that:
"Meyrick Says:
May 9th, 2005 at 3:56 am
So to summarize, Dr Peiser has made 4 errors in his research:
1. Dr Peiser failed to replicate Dr Oreskes search properly. Dr Oreskes used (as far as I can tell) the following criteria:"
{snip: both links above carry Meyrick's complete summary}
So I hope you can now agree that Peiser's research is rubbish. And as it was the pivotal premise for your next nine points, ie, that the scientific consensus does not exist, that they are same.
The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming rides on - unchallenged by peers. Just the FUD Squad you run with. For what? If it's to pay your kids bills, then ask yourself how they are going to pay their kids bills? It's not for good science, nor good journalism.
If it's for ideology then you shouldn't accuse others of the same. It would only be fair minded and unbiased if you published a retraction. Lead by example and show the ABC how you expect them to behave.
Whether you do or not, you should really should come to grips with the notion of "peer-review".
CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about?
WALLACE: [laughs]
CLINTON: You said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care.
WALLACE: But President Clinton?
CLINTON: ...
WALLACE: We were going to ask half the question about it. I didn?t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.
CLINTON: It set me off on such a tear because you didn't formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don't ask the other side.
WALLACE: Sir that is not true...
CLINTON: ...and Richard Clarke...
WALLACE: That is not true...
CLINTON: Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony...
WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?
CLINTON: No, I want to finish this.
WALLACE: Alright.
TEL AVIV, Israel, Sept. 14 (UPI) -- By 2025, nearly 2 billion people around the world will be able to get their electricity from solar power, according to a new report by Greenpeace and the European Photovoltaics Industry Association.
In perhaps more surprising news, more than 1.6 billion of those people now have no access to electricity at all.
Though installing photovoltaic systems, which convert sunlight into electricity through a chemical reaction, in these poor, rural areas is already cheaper in most cases than extending the national grid to them, few countries have ventured into solar so far.
The report, called Solar Generation, cites Brazil and India as exceptions. So how will the world go from a handful of solar projects to 1.6 billion solar users in less than 20 years?"It's a two-step strategy," said European Photovoltaic Industries Association Communications Officer Marie Latour, speaking to UPI by telephone from France.
The solar boom will "start from grid-connected technology supported by (government) policies like the feed-in tariff system, and these markets will enable the takeoff of the rural solar market by reducing the cost of the modules," Latour said.
Feed-in tariffs are payments for solar energy -- in places such as California and Germany, utilities pay customers with solar panels for the electricity they provide to the grid.
According to the study, the numbers look like this: "By 2025, PV systems could be generating approximately 589 terawatt hours of electricity around the world."The International Energy Agency predicts that world electricity demand will be about 23,000 terawatt hours in 2025.
Greenpeace International Renewables Director Sven Teske told UPI that "in 35 to 40 years, PV could deliver 15 percent of the world's electricity production."
He said this would be mostly from household use, as photovoltaic systems are decentralized by nature.
The muted reaction to our impending disaster comes down to two things:1. The name.
Global is good.
Warm is good.
Even greenhouses are good places.How can "global warming" be bad?
I use the term global warming because that is the dominant search term in the genre. That's what people type in when they are looking for information on the phenomena. While current global warming is the effect of man-made greenhouse gas build up in the atmosphere, its own consequence is rapid climate change. That's the term I would prefer to frame the discussion with. We would be be giving the problem more attention. People at large don't like change, and rapid climate change sounds very unsettling. But my logs show me that the search term climate change appears half the rate of global warming. Hence Global Warming Watch!
If the term global warming is like the long, slow, gradual, initial incline up to the top of a roller coaster then rapid climate change is the Oh-Jesus-stomach-in-the-mouth-drop, the loop-the-loop, and the dives, twists and jinks. We are still on the slow incline, and that is why global warming is more accurate and will be the preferred term for denialists and skeptics to frame the discussion around, but those interested in moving the discussion on should brand it rapid climate change. There is less room for doubt than with global warming, and less room for the public debate which has been undermined by a disinformation campaign mounted by vested interests in cheap fossil fuel energy.
The term has urgency, focuses the mind on averting outcomes and we should use it well before we get to the Oh-Jesus drop. Or we may get ourselves trapped on this rollercoaster ride. Permanently.
At time of post, the CEI's own ad was listed at #3, behind YouTube's at #2. The CEI receives hundreds and thousands of dollars a year from fossil fuel companies to muddy the message about the science of global warming, so there is some poetic justice in cost-effectively placing ahead of their commercial with just a tvc script. The Google algorithm is based on the number of 'votes', or links, to the page being ranked so thank you to all who voted in the great big Google election and linked me. It a message that the public won't tolerate bad adverting, let alone bad science. For those who haven't read the script, please do, and if you like it, link it. The election is dynamic and you will be helping me maintain my Google ranking for :::[Carbon dioxide spot: They call it an ad, we call it a lie] ahead of CEI's :::[Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution. We call it life] for 'co2 commercial' and improving my ranking for other terms such as 'carbon dioxide commercial', 'carbon dioxide ad' and 'co2 ad'.The CEI commercial
Carbon Dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life
| Video | Audio |
| Long shot opening on a shot of man standing in a large glass tank up to his ankles in water. Water is filling it fast, with the level rising as he speaks. | |
| Presenter: "Some oil and coal companies tell us that carbon dioxide is natural and shouldn't be classified as a pollutant by politicians wanting to legislate against rising emissions. | |
| The level is at his waist and rising fast. | |
| Presenter: "They imply C02 can't be a pollutant because we expel it, and it is absorbed by plants for food." | |
| The level is now at chest height and rising. | |
| Presenter: "That it provides us with transport and is it is harnessed to make energy and free us a life of back-breaking labour." | |
| Level is starting to cover shoulders. Presenter stretches to full height. Tilting chin al | |
| Presenter: "That it supports all life." | |
| Water level is at chin height. | |
| Presenter: "But you can also say the same thing about water." SFX: last few words spoken under water yet audible. | |
| Camera pulls back to longer shot as the water continues to rise rapidly . Presenter starts to float off. Super: Carbon Dioxide: Too much is dangerous for all life. | |
| VO: Don't let big oil flood you with lies. The scientific consensus holds that the current rate of emissions increase, unchecked, IS going to change the climate. It's time to act. |
Skeptipundit: Global Warming Denial - Spinning the Scales
:: DOSSIER::BOB CARTER
DETAILS
Bob Carter
Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University
former Director, Australian Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program
Contributing Writer, Tech Central Station
KEY QUOTES
"The first thing to be clear about is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."
5 May, 2004
Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter
"contrary to strong public belief, the effects of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are generally beneficial. Enhanced plant growth has many obvious benefits, amongst them increased natural vegetation growth in general, and increased agricultural production in particular. And to maintain or slightly increase planetary temperature is also very much a global good if -- as Ruddiman and other scientists assert -- the human production of greenhouse gases is helping to hold our planetary environment in its historic, benignly warm, interglacial mode."
5 May, 2004
Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter
ORGANIZATIONS
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Contributing Writer
Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter
http://www.techcentralstation.com
1133 21st St NW Suite M100c/o Ralph R BrownWashington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-546-4242
OVERVIEW
Tech Central Science Foundation was formed in late November 2002 (Form 990). The Foundation appears to be a funding arm of the free-market news site, TechCentralStation.com.
FURTHER DESCRIPTION
ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support." According to Guidestar.org, a nonprofit research tool, the Foundation had 2003 income of $150,000 and $110,903 in assets.The Foundation commissioned a study by Charles River Associates alleging that the costs of the McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003 would be a minimum of $350 annually per household through 2010, rising to $530 per household by 2020, and could rise to as high as $1,300 per year per household. Related information: Tech Central Station was launched in 1999 as "a cross between a journal of Internet opinion and a cyber think tank open to the public" (TCS news release). According to Washington Monthly, TCS is published by the DCI Group, "a prominent Washington public affairs firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called 'Astroturf' organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot." TCS shares office space, staff and ownership with DCI Group. ("Meet the Press" Washington Monthly, December 2003. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html) Corporate funders of Tech Central Station include AT&T, Avue Technologies, The Coca-Cola Company, General Motors Corporation, Intel, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, PhRMA, and Qualcomm (Tech Central Station website).
FUNDING FROM EXXON
Total funding to Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station from Exxon corporations since 1998: $US 95,000
2003
$95,000 ExxonMobil FoundationClimate Change Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
KEY QUOTES
"The core issue underlying all climate policy debates is whether politicians and bureaucrats should have the power to regulate America into a condition of energy poverty. The Edison Electric Institute surely believes government should not have such power, which is why it opposes Kyoto and other carbon cap-and-trade schemes. Yet EEI, beguiled by the prospect of turning "voluntary" reductions into easy cash, is leading the charge for transferable credits -- a political force multiplier for the Kyoto agenda of climate alarmism and energy suppression. This is about as sensible as selling the rope by which one will be hanged. The nation's premier electric industry lobby can and should do better."
27 April, 2004
Source: "Et Tu, Edison?" TCS 4/27/04
"There is also enough scientific doubt about the nature and pace of climate change to avoid committing to blueprints like Kyoto that have little effect, except to reduce economic growth. The practicable approach to climate change is research and development of technologies which will contribute positively to reduction of greenhouse gases. They will not have the dramatic effect hoped for by the designers of the Kyoto blueprint. Just as well. But they will be more effective. Poor countries can't afford fancy research and development, but wealthier countries can. Making Asia prosperous is a surer bet."
29 April, 2004
Source: "Prosperity First," TCS 4/29/04
KEY DEEDS
Letter to Sen. McCain November 16, 2004 on Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment Press Release Source: Tech Central Station Climate Experts Respond to Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Tuesday November 16, 10:41 am ET
Recent Warming Trend is Unexceptional Compared to Natural Variability in Centuries PastWASHINGTON, Nov. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Today 11 climate experts sent a letter(please see below) to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who is the Chairman of theSenate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee and is holding a full committee hearing this morning to hear testimony on the Arctic ClimateImpact Assessment (ACIA).In the letter, the climate experts respond to statements made in the ACIA that temperature changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of global warming. The signers of the letter point out that sediment and ice core samples show that the arctic has experienced past warming that can not be attributed to greenhouse gas concentrations. There is also a history o fstrong year-to-year variability of Arctic temperatures. The letter also calls for the need for advances in Arctic climate science in both models and measurements in order to assess a more complete picture of Arctic climate understanding.
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science CO2 Skeptic ExxonMobil Australia Bob Carter Energy
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science CO2 Carbon Sink Earth Satire Kyoto Energy
