Junk (Climate) Science

Sadly, many of the studies behind the current climate alarmism are not science at all. Scientific propositions are different from other propositions in that they are capable of being verified. However, key studies crucial to the alarmist positon fail this basic test. The 'scientists' achieve this by deliberately failing to publish their data and models. This is often done explicitly to prevent their work from being verified.

See here for yet another example of the tawdry arrogance that characterises the alarmist approach:

The Met Office refuses to release data and methodology for their HadCRUT global temperature dataset after being asked repeatedly. Without the data and procedures there is no possibility of replication, and without replication the Hadley climate data is not scientifically valid.

Of course, the catastrophists who rely on this 'science' for their alarmist views distinguish themselves by arrogantly hectoring their opponents and labelling those who question them as unscientific!

This is is merely another example of censorship to further a political power grab.

Kevin Rudd's Censorship Regime

This is staggering:

VICTORIAN principals are being forced by the Brumby Government to sign contracts promising not to speak out against Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's computers-in-schools policy — or risk losing tens of thousands of dollars in funding.

It is absolutely unbelievable that Rudd would think he could get away with this. He is trying to shut down criticism by punishing school-kids. If anybody doubted Rudd's overweening arrogance, doubt no longer.

This thin-skinned bullyboy needs a good boot up the bum!

Treason Against Reason

The standard form of disputation by climate catstrophists is to assert that the science is settled, the debate is over, and anyone who begs to differ is a traitor to humanity. Bjorn Lomborg notes this tendency in an opinion piece in the Australian:

Is it really treason against the planet to express some scepticism about whether this is the right way forward? Is it treason to question throwing huge sums of money at a policy that will do virtually no good in 100 years? Is it unreasonable to point out that the inevitable creation of trade barriers that will ensue from Waxman-Markey could eventually cost the world 10 times more than the damage climate change could ever have wrought?

Today's focus on ineffective and costly climate policies shows poor judgment. But I would never want to shut down discussion about these issues, whether it is with Gore, Hansen, or Krugman.

Everybody involved in this discussion should spend more time building and acknowledging good arguments, and less time telling others what they cannot say. Wanting to shut down the discussion is simply treason against reason.

Conroy - Internet Villain of the Year

Stephen Conroy has been given this prestigious award for his attempt to screw up the internet:

Stephen Michael Conroy was actually born in England, but has found fame (or should that be infamy) as an Australian politician. Specifically for his role as the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in the Australian Government.

The Internet censorship policies which were pitched as protective measures for children in the face of online pornography, have actually ended up painting a much broader filtering landscape. Indeed, so broad are the censorship brush strokes that they include revolting and abhorrent phenomena that offends standards of morality. Whatever that means.

Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee

John Mellencamp shares his views on free speech:

“I don’t think people fought and gave their lives so that some guy can sit in his bedroom and be mean. I don’t think that’s what freedom of speech is,”

He seems to view the not being mean rule as not applying to himself. For example at John Kerry fundraiser he referred to George Bush as "just another cheap thug" and a "Texas Bambino" in a song he had specially composed for the occasion.

Doubleplus Ungood!

The wheel are turning in the Ministry of Truth. A new lexicon is being devised to guide our thoughts in the politically correct direction. How easy it is to achieve hope and change and peace in our time.

Free Speech Denialists

The thing climate catstrophists fear most is rational argument. Their general approach is to avoid getting into arguments. Al Gore refuses to publicly debate opponents. This is hardly surprising coming from the person who has done the most to publicise the hopelessly flawed 'hockey stick' graph.

As anyone who has tried to reason with a climate catstrophist knows, most of them rely on the ad hominem argument that "the science" is settled, so there is no point arguing. The aim here is not to debate, but to shut down debate. The last thing they want is rational questioning of some of the dishonest scienctific practices that underpin the catstrophist view.

Many non-catastrophist scientists report great difficulty in attracting grants for their research. This is in stark contrast to the billions available to scientists prepared to toe the IPCC line. However, if a private organisation funds an organisation that sponsors a conference that takes a questioning view of the IPCC dogma, the catastrophists froth and squeal, rather than debate the issues.

This is just another way shutting down debate rather than engaging in rational discussion.