Gus: it is insane... I place the blame of failure of proper global warming negotiations on the likes of Jones and Bolt. They are ignoramuses with big mouth and polished skills devoted to promoting the wrong ideas, claiming to be the easy truth...

Governments — in this country and in the US, where the likes of Glenn Beck spruik — are timid and refuse to lead because... they are afraid of the dorkjokery or is it the shockjokery... Of course they are also supported by the religious nuts. Everyday, these idiots-peddlers of ignorance hold court on the airwaves or via a readership of uneducated morons and are successful at it. They know ignorance is much easier to emotionally muster than to acquire proper hard-yakka scientific knowledge on a problem that is far bigger than they could ever understand. These self-appointed doodahs of the shockporkerie are presently the mushroom-heads of the carbon lobby fungus which, below the surface, is also rotting the debate...

These professional motor-blowhards belong to the self-righteous ratbag right-wing nuttery. And Jones is the grand doodah of such in Australia. Remember, Alan, there is no religion higher than the truth. And the truth is not what we believe but what we can verify. That you believe global-warming-does-not-exist is not a truth. Global warming is scientifically verifiable, contrary to what you peddle.

Yet, despite the most compelling scientific evidence, these professional blabber-pie-hole liars are winning. That's what they do best. Lie and promote with apparent conviction — to the point they convince themselves that their ignorance and fudge is correct...

How can they sleep at night? It's the privilege of sociopaths to always be right whenever they are proven wrong... They use a hint of doubt as a 100 per cent certainty against reality. And they slap themselves on the back for a job well-done in demolish proper scientific argument and figures — with no argument at all, but yellow bile and brilliant windbaggery.

Why do they do it? Well, it's more popular to entertain the troops with dancing girls than telling that tomorrow they are going to die in pain or that their balls will be blown-off. Ignorance has a greater audience than proper knowledge. It is easier to fabricate false information summaries than to have to study lines of frightening boring data. The "devil" carbonery also pays well. There is quite a lot of exciting sadism in the shockjockery process too...      

From Richard Glover...

After 25 years writing this column, I've had my first experience of an internet hate campaign. So far, more than 2400 people, nearly all American, have emailed me. More emails come every time I hit the send/receive button. About 5 per cent contain threats of violence. Even stranger, quite a few threaten me with sexual violence. They say, in various forms, that they want to rape me.

The only good news: quite a few don't seem to know the precise location of Sydney. Or Sidney, as some call it. ''You are so out of touch with America, I cannot believe you are published by an American paper,'' writes one emailer, having read the story on The Sydney Morning Herald website. Quite a few tell me I should be nervous if I ever try to leave Britain.

Here's how it started. Last week, in this spot, I wrote a piece about climate change. It was critical of both the left and the right and contained some comic hyperbole about both: that environmental zealots wanted us all to live in caves and that climate-change deniers should tattoo their beliefs on their bodies so they couldn't later deny their role in preventing action on climate change.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-climate-change-wave-of-hate-20110609-1ftix.html#ixzz1P7HtA42g
The ignoramuses are frothed up in anger by the ratbags of the right-wing nuttery... The shockdorks are spreading the glory of ignorance and falsification... Welcome to the fray, Richard. We're on a similar page...

Dear Alan,

I know you mean well and have a heart of gold on most occasion. But when you get a bee under your bonnet, you can become irrationally obnoxious, while spruiking whatever — especially when having to sell something for money.

I have been interested for a while by one of Lord Monckton's hypothesis when you were chairing a debate. It was in regard to a major ice age about 700 million years (life only existed in the seas, then). Apparently there was quite a lot more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that there is now. The Monckton correlation was thus that CO2 did not induce a global warming then, why should it now...

This of course is a very valid argument should the conditions be comparable. But science is quite definite about the process of experimentation and analysis — especially in regard to conditions of the experiment — including global warming, than what you seem — or are willing — to understand. You are a clever person and you can see "that" if you push this button, "this" will happen but if there is a broken link somewhere, it won't — nor will it happen if the link is too flexible.

The warming directly-induced by carbon dioxide is quantifiable but to some extend quite modest. There is only 0.035 per cent of CO2 in the atmosphere at present.

This could appear insignificant, but the science of global warming through experiments and observations shows that CO2 greatly influences water vapour behaviour, in various way, but mostly a way in which this water vapour will be inducing more global warming as well as increasing weather extremes... Please note that most global warming computer models are conservative in their predictions...

Anyway, CO2 pushes water vapour's button so to speak. There has been a noticeable increase in humidity world wide, except for a few pockets where the reverse is the trend, due to complex counter currents of wind and weather patterns.

I have already alluded to Lord Monckton's ice age conundrum on this site and there are several plausible explanation for a severe ice age with a high level of CO2 in the atmosphere. First, there could have been a higher concentration of oxygen. Oxygen has a "cooling" effect in the atmosphere. Remember that without the "greenhouse gases" — such as CO2, the atmosphere would be about 30 degrees C cooler everywhere on earth.

In the possible cooling of 700 million years ago, slightly cooler conditions due to extra oxygen as mentioned above would have reduced evaporation leading to less water vapour in the atmosphere, this in turn of course reduces the influence of CO2. This cooling process would have lead to a much drier atmosphere eventually accelerating the cooler conditions despite the presence of high level of CO2. In the end, with ice forming nearly all over the surface of the earth, less and less water vapour could have been sustained in the atmosphere...

Scientists know that sometimes it does not take much — or it may depend on a lot — to change the conditions of a complex system — depending on the system itself.

We should extraordinarily be grateful that scientists are working on —and explaining — the problem of the present global warming... We should thank these scientists like we did thank those who helped fix the ozone layer problem. The scientists are not doing research on global warming to prove a point or be better than thou. They know that under the present conditions of our geological era, we (life on earth) are flying into trouble at geological time warp speed...

The link between CO2, water vapour and global warming was made nearly 120 years ago. Many studies and scientific papers since have confirmed the link. The main problem is that the extra CO2 that is inducing the present warming conditions is coming from our industrious lives. We are using energy that has been "stored" underground and which was not part of the "surface carbon balanced equation" for millions of years. The next surface carbon balanced equation may sit at a 9 degrees C increase by 2150...

We are presently in a situation where we can limit the damage at a two degrees C increase on present temperature by 2100... But this demands sacrifices... Sacrifice that we are not prepared to make. Homo sapiens' (us) entire economy relies heavily on the extra carbon (coal oil, etc) that we burn daily. Can we create equivalent comforts by burning less carbon? I believe we can but those who profit from selling oil and coal are reluctant to let go understandably...

Eventually we will have to let go entirely of our extra-carbon based economy. The longer we wait the harder it will become to achieve the minimum increase of only two degrees C by 2100. At the rate we are going, it will be more like six...

For once or twice, please Alan, talk to scientists who are actually seriously working on the global warming issue — without biting their heads off. Listen to them ca-re-ful-ly.... Be patient, you might learn something. It is their area of expertise... It is not yours.

Have a good day.

Gus

A spokesman for 2GB did not return calls yesterday but, speaking to the Mumbrella website this week, Mr Jones distinguished between being a journalist and being a broadcaster.

''Much of my stuff is opinion … I am a broadcaster, I don't pretend to be a journalist, I don't know what that means anyway - they've got a certificate or something,'' he said.

''… if those opinions lack validity, or if those opinions are extreme, or if they are overly provocative, people won't listen, I've stood the test of time.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/media-authority-to-investigate-complaint-about-jones-comment-20110727-1i0bg.html#ixzz1TNAr3nOJ
-------------------

That's the problem with people like Alan Jones... They have the voice of authority but they are only bad stand-up comedians without the canned laughter... Un-informed people who believe that Alan is telling the truth should be warned at the beginning, in the middle and the end of each programme: "Boys and girls, what I am going to talk about (I have been talking about) is (was) pure bullshit — opinions based on nothing but ignorance and should you believe what I say, get your head examined.

The same warming should applies to Andrew Bolt. of course.

http://media.smh.com.au/business/businessday/hear-alan-jones-comments-2521423.html?from=newsbox

 

The media watchdog has ruled that comments made by Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones on climate change last year were unsubstantiated.

On his 2GB breakfast show last year, Jones said "human beings produce 0.001 per cent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere".

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) says the station failed to make an effort to ensure the statement was accurate.

ACMA chairman Chris Chapman says the watchdog is not penalising the licensee of 2GB, but is working with it to improve procedures.

"The licensee is currently reviewing right across its major production teams their compliance procedures with respect to several code provisions," he said.

"We will look at that to ascertain what further undertakings, if any, may be required."

 

Mr Chapman says the licensee of 2GB conceded that Jones's statement was not factual.

"They conceded that it was a claim researched by Mr Jones himself and they weren't able to adduce any evidence supporting that claim," he said.

ACMA has also finished its investigation into Jones's commentary about a number of political figures, including Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

In July last year Jones called for Ms Gillard to be "put in a chaff bag" and thrown out to sea.

But Mr Chapman says Jones has been cleared over the comments.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-15/acma-rules-against-alan-jones-on-climate-change/4073048

 

see toon at top...

 

 

Shock-jock Alan Jones has taken to the radiowaves today to defend himself against the media regulator's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training.
Yesterday, the Australian Communications and Media Authority released a damning report on Jones's show, finding he breached broadcast rules by falsely claiming in March last year that Australians contributed just ''1 per cent of .001 per cent of carbon dioxide in the air''.
The authority accepted an offer by 2GB that it provide training to all its news and current affairs staff, including Jones, and use fact-checkers for Jones's show.
Jones told his listeners this morning that ''much clapping has been heard from the apologists for climate change'', and questioned whether the episode was ''another chapter in the campaign of punishment for anyone who dares challenge the prevailing Government ideology of global warming''.

Nevertheless, Jones said, he had apologised for the error as soon as he had become aware of it, and had corrected the record.
''I was wrong and found to be wrong when I said, 'Remembering all this when the percentage of man-made carbon dioxide Australia produces is 1% of .001% of carbon dioxide in the air. Nature produces nearly all of the carbon dioxide in the air. Human beings produce .001% of the carbon dioxide in the air and Australians produce 1% of that - that's one percent of .001 is .00001% of the air. 1/100,000th'," Jones said.

''Now this is an obvious error, because human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent.

''And I can't recall the number of times I have said, and it is uncontested, that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air.''So how did .001 per cent get into my head? It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/shockjock-jones-001-per-cent-apology-20121019-27v88.html#ixzz29i2ws7YZ

 

 

Meanwhile Jones still gets it wrong and his "apologies" are ALWAYS diluted with excuses (too much work too much vino too much charity too much sex too much apologies too much to do not enough time — I am right anyhow even when I say something wrong) — but never says he: not enough (proper) research...

As explained in this site many times: see

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/19286

 

Even Jo Nova, an ardent global warming skeptic will tell you that there has been an observed relationship between CO2 and temperatures on this planet . For Nova, CO2 is not the inductor of such relationship, for the serious scientists, CO2 is one  — of seven major —  inductor of global temperatures. (see the Vostok ice core record)

But the scientific figures are:
Presently, humans add 4 to 6 ppm of CO2 per annum in the atmosphere — to 394 ppm already present in the atmosphere. If one calculates the proportions, this represents about 1 to 1.2 per cent of the total CO2 present in the atmosphere. A proportion of this human-created CO2 is reabsorbed by natural process. The accepted figure of anthropogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere is 3ppm per year, which is thus 0.7 per cent of CO2 in the atmosphere — PER ANNUM. 

In the 1850s, CO2 has been measured at 175 ppm average. Since the industrial revolution, humans have added EXTRA CO2 from fossil fuels (carbon buried under the surface of the earth for million of years) at a variable rate as demonstrated by Arrhenius in 1889 and other scientific (verifiable) experiments.... To this day, humans have added the anthropogenic CO2 amount of 395 minus 175 = 220 ppm into the atmosphere. Over 160 years, humans have added about 129 per cent anthropogenic CO2 on top of the CO2 of the "natural" carbon cycle (180 to 300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere)..

What would be great one day, would be for "journalists" — reporting on mad Jones and pathetic Bishop — to include the scientific facts in the SAME articles... 

Presently I believe journos are too lazy, too ignorant or too scared to do so...

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/19732

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/19279

 

See toon at top...