-----Original Message-----
From: Ambit Gambit
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 11:36 AM
To: g87@optusnet.com.au
Subject: [Ambit Gambit] New Comment On: Paedophilia, climate science and
the ABC
There is a new comment on the post "Paedophilia, climate science and the
ABC".
http://www.ambitgambit.com/2012/11/24/paedophilia-climate-science-and-the-abc/
Author: chinese gender predictor
Comment:
I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you create this
website
yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you?
Plz respond as I'm looking to design my own blog and would like to find out
where u got this from. kudos
See all comments on this post here:
http://www.ambitgambit.com/2012/11/24/paedophilia-climate-science-and-the-abc/#comments
To manage your subscriptions or to block all notifications from this site,
click the link below:
http://www.ambitgambit.com/?wp-subscription-manager=1&email=g87%40optusnet.com.au&key=dcd3b00f3bafcd86ac790cc56dc6fe39
http://www.ambitgambit.com/2012/11/24/paedophilia-climate-science-and-the-abc/
Opinion on politics and social policy
from across the board
from across the board
November 24, 2012 | Graham
Paedophilia, climate science and the ABC
In today’s Science Show Robyn Williams smears climate change sceptics by comparing scepticism of the IPCC view that the world faces catastrophic climate change because of CO2 emissions with support for paedophilia, use of asbestos to treat asthma, and use of crack cocaine by teenagers.
Don’t believe me? Then listen to the broadcast.
It is hard to believe, just at a moment of heightened sensitivity about offensive speech, and only a week or so after the commonwealth government announces a royal commission into the sexual abuse of children. Even harder to believe is that he specifically links former ABC Chair Maurice Newman into his comments and refers to his ideas on climate change as “drivel”.
But this is what you get when federal ministers like Greg Combet, licence abusive attacks on sceptics by referring to the Leader of the Opposition’s scepticism as “complete bull shit”.
Indeed it is worse than that. The government, via the Australian Research Council is involved in suppressing dissent.
Williams’ comments are part of an interview he conducted with Stephan Lewandowsky, a professor of psychology who has received over $2 million worth of ARC funding to support his efforts to equate climate change scepticism with mental disorder.
“Punitive psychology” as it is called, was widely used in the Soviet Union to incarcerate dissidents in mental institutions. In modern Australia the walls of the prison are not brick or stone, but walls of censorship, confining the dissident to a limbo where no-one will report what they say for fear of being judged mentally deficient themselves.
Williams wants to put some more bricks in the walls by making climate scepticism as respectable as paedophilia.
Williams is a serial offender on the abuse of his opponents, as you can see from these posts:
- The ABC broadcast bullying and science hooliganism problem
- A Schneid look at Aitkin
- Old thinking deters crucial carbon debate
- Why you should be careful dealing with Bob Ward, Director of Communications for the Grantham Institute
Lewandowsky is making a career of it, although on the basis of very shoddy science. His latest effort is a paper where he attempts to equate belief that the moon landing was faked with scepticism of catastrophic climate change using a survey instrument.
I have the survey data and was shocked to find that this conclusion is based on the responses of 10 respondents – it has no significance at all.
Heads must roll over this, including Williams’. But the problem is obviously more widespread and involves the University of Western Australia, where Lewandowsky holds his chair, the ARC, the ABC, and possibly even the government.
“Robert,
If for instance I fill my bath with cold water, and leave it sitting in a warm room , wont it warm up , eventually ?
Is not just trash TV, but trash TV with an agenda ?
Or is it just designed to appeal to those educated lefties who are more likely to be taken in by anything, as the referred to research by Dr Walker suggests.
I thought the interviewer (Williams) was totally disgusting.
The othe guy (Lewandowski) was even further out in space, pretty well on another planet. He is another one with his snout deep into the public climate change trough.
This global warming fiction has been scientifically debunked over and over; yet it still pops up on the ABC regularly, and is claimed to be a fact.
You all at the so-called “Science Show” need to know the following before you go on air next time and make a total fool of yourself again;
2) ALL the projections of sea level and temperature rises by those on the alarmist side have so far proven to be totally wrong; I can produce a lot of evidence on this.
3) The case for dangerous human-caused global warming exists only inside computer models; models which have been proven to have the wrong settings. (see above)
4) There is no “consensus” of 98% of scientists; that is complete fiction too. I can present lots of polls done on this which prove this idea to be totally incorrect.
5) Science does not work by consensus anyway; it works by the scientific method,which has never been used by the IPCC’s so-called climate scientists.
5) The climate sensitivity is low, and has been shown to be low in many empirical studies, all peer-reviewed.
6) There are over 1,100 scientific peer-reviewed papers which refute the need for any sort of so-called “action” in a futile attempt to alter the planets climate.
7) The biggest lie of all is that of eustatic sea levels. We are likely to see no more than 10cm of sea level rise by 2100.
Posted on STW 16 July 2012 by Stephan Lewandowsky & John Cook
When will this whole episode in history become so embarrasing that onlycommitted nutters will dare bring it up ?
who believe infrared heat
therefore your life has to be shut down.
This demonising of co2 goes back to the Thatcher government. Thatcher needed more power stations and she didn’t want coal because of Arthur Scargill so even though coal was cheapest and nuclear was unpopular nuclear was pushed and Mrs Thatcher’s scientific advisors by a shocking coincidence discovered that coal produced co2 and that could be heated and the heat could increase ocean surface temperature causing a chain reaction. So was born AGW. The scientists assumed that everything obeyed the second law of thermodynamics i.e. heat will automatically flow from hot to cold under all circumstances but the forgot surface tension and they didn’t check. I did check and you can’t heat water from above on this planet. There is a further check that you can do. Get two identical basins of water one uncovered and on the second one float a baking dish to breakdown the surface tension.. Apply heat from a heat gun to both basins for 15mins. The uncovered basin will rise 6degsF the covered basin will rise 48degsF. The reason for any rise in basin one is that the heat is fan forced and this simulates heat causing a slight breakdown in surface tension but the second basin is an upside down pot and accepts heat readily. Show this to your kids you owe it to them, they are being taught tripe. In fact right now I would suggest that scientifically the entire western world is TWIT CENTRAL
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333902/gop-and-racism-yet-again-jonah-goldberg
Robert says above about not being able to pass heat from the atmosphere to the ocean.
Such a proposition does seem rather implausible.
If for instance I fill my bath with cold water, and leave it sitting in a warm room , wont it warm up , eventually ?
….
I do wish people wouldnt peddle with such assurance, that which they have heard but have little understanding of.
———————————————-
There is some truth in what Robert says. Let me explain why the comparison with your bath is not 100% accurate.
The oceans have a cool skin. This is a known feature of how the oceans behave, due to evaporation – so the upper cm of the ocean are colder then the below.
The infrared radiation from the atmosphere does not penetrate more then 5-6-7 microns into the oceans, as water is opaque to infrared radiation.
So no heat transfer to the ocean – only heat exchange with the very surface of the ocean. But the net heat transfer through radiation is from ocean to atmosphere and not vice versa.
For the atmosphere to slow down the heat lose of the oceans it would need to increase the surface temperature of the oceans. There are good satellite measurement of it, and there has been no warming of it since 17 years – so what Robert says above is true, at least since 17 years.
I did wonder about the bath tub itself contributing . So I guess I need a sunken bath, or an (indoor) swimming pool.
I remain to be convinced however, but I will keep trying.
Direct sunlight appears to heat up at least shallow water though, as I recall from swimming in the stuff, so its effect must be penetrating further than a few microns, even if only to heat the bottom, which may then heat up the water.
The lack of sea surface warming for 17 years mentioned by Lars P., seems only consistent with the reported observation of lack of atmospheric warming at the surface over the same time. If Lars is from Sweden, I guess he knows his oceans though.
I once knew a Lars B. P. , a delightful gentleman , who would paint his boat every autumn. No relation I suppose
ABC BBC SVT/SR in sweden CCN .. .. the list goes on and on and on. Lewandowski wasnt asked what his political history laid. that qustion would have spoiled the hole set upp off the interwiew. In AU you sare in real deep s### with the coalition and coop netween finkelstien CICERO ALP ABC Univeristies Its looks as you allready neen sc####ed. Only if voices within parliament takes action and confront the corrupted and the hijackers you can succeed its the only place left wherer there is any formal power left who can sort this out and sack all the hijackers!
Williams and the ABC can be criticised for unfortunate choice of words, but they can rest secure that they are just speaking the truth, if exaggerated a little. While the CSIRO, the AAAS, the USA APS, the UK Royal Society etc etc all support the need for urgent action on CO2 then Williams and the ABC feel that they have a licence, if not a duty, to speak as they do. If the commenters here have time to do something, they should be getting the CSIRO and the AAAS and other scientific bodies to change their language, after that, have a go at the ABC.
The lack of sea surface warming for 17 years mentioned by Lars P., seems only consistent with the reported observation of lack of atmospheric warming at the surface over the same time. If Lars is from Sweden, I guess he knows his oceans though.
I once knew a Lars B. P. , a delightful gentleman , who would paint his boat every autumn. No relation I suppose
Comment by Joe V — November 25, 2012 @ 9:28 am
Of course, you are right about the sun warming the ocean, direct sunlight goes deep into the ocean 100 m and more, warming it. Sun’s infrared is also higher frequency and goes about a meter in the ocean warming it.
See also here absorbtion spectra and penetration depth:
http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/es151/gallery/images/absorp_water.html
or here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
Above I was talking only about infrared radiation from the atmosphere.
Here about the “cool skin” of the oceans:
“It is well known that temperatures at the sea surface are
typically a few-tenths degrees Celsius cooler than the temper-
atures some tens of centimeters below [Saunders, 1967;
Paulson and Simpson, 1981; Wu, 1985; Fairall et al., 1996;
Wick et al., 1996; Donlon et al., 2002].”
There is a myth that climate change is a recent invention. It is not the 1958 Bell Television Science Programme http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg is the first known attempt to alert the wider public to the risks associated with CO2 emissions. The first person to recognize that elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat was the French Mathematician Baron Fourier (born 1768) the first calculation of a green house effect was done by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
One of the realities of scientific research is that when the results of a theory are confirmed by hard evidence, when other independent studies arrive at the same conclusion then scepticism is no longer a rational response.
In fact I would suggest your post is indicative of this. As a journalist I would have thought you would have had a closer look at what Lewandowsky received his ARC funding for. His research is about scepticism generally. The logic of Williams’s piece is well summarised here http://www.skepticalscience.com/
As a result your piece becomes little more than a hysterical rant that gives comfort to those who wish to shelter under the illusion that climate change can safely be ignored.
I believe Williams to be right when he refuses to cut any slack to those who seek to encourage politicians to reject climate change. The risks are far too great to play russian roulette with our children’s future.
A psychopath’s lack of human empathy makes paedophilia possible!
Whereas, you only need to be extraordinarily stupid; and or, able to simply ignore the rising tide of evidence, to become a climate change sceptic?
Sceptics, who seem not too different from former flat earth believers, who clung to their peculiar belief system, when all the credible evidence, was screaming otherwise.
One can’t create a credible position, if all the building blocks of any argument, are based on an entirely false premise.
The links Williams relies on to build his quite extraordinary hypothesise; if accurately reported, are built on, I believe, just such a premise!
Alan B. Goulding
http://socialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/email-continuum-to-managing-director-of.html
Regards
Moreover, trapped radiant heat, can and is transferred by warmer than water, wind, air, convection currents and atmospheric absorption.
We are after all, talking about oceans, rather than glazed lakes, made into reflecting mirrors, by the early morning lack of air movement.
Some of our ocean currents, are already 2C warmer, than when we first began taking and recording temperature measurements!
Alan B. Goulding.
yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you?