13 thoughts on “Fruit loops

  1. Could not agree more. The delusional line continues to receive substantial support from the commentariate who festoon the pages of the major papers and hence nullify the occasional minor report providing some sensible facts with which to do some serious thinking.

    One observation; common to the delusional mythological spouted by the likes of Barnaby, agriculture is not excluded from Carbon schemes (Solar credits, carbon sequestration permits etc), it is just not fully included and some of the accounting for a lot of these natural processes remains diffcult to quantify but it will be. Which also goes to show how hideously difficult the sell of the ETS, no matter what form, will be when it finally gets up, it is devilshly complex and difficult to work through. I have spend nearly three days working through layers of bureaucratic complexity to register for and properly have registered our small properties contribution to carbon reduction and sequestration programs. Explaining that and providing easy access to many people who do not even understand the basic physics of how carbon dioxide is produced will be a very very hard task.

    Barnaby and the lunatic right continue to resist and energy efficient world and new ways of living and doing business, which qualifies them for the conservative tag but they do so based on a delusional paradigm.

    Cheers to Mike Carlton’s piece on Lord Monckton on Saturday in the SMH and as bring on the changes to internet delivery of news and information. The sooner the mainstream media is locked up behind a paywall where few will read their mad meanderings the better. Rupert bring on the paywall please!!

  2. MH, you should repost this on the active “fruit loops” thread. This one is a mistake, it will get deleted once the good professor realises.

  3. I didn’t see the Four Corners program, so the following refers to Professor Quiggins comments rather than Minchin’s.

    Saying that the fall of communism sent the Left on a quest for another anti-capitalist cause is not the same thing as saying there is a “communist plot”.

    A silly talking point (if it was) proves nothing, I’ll bet that for every one given by a skeptic I could find ten given by a warmist.

    Sharp and effective political operator’s who have no interest in the truth of their ideas tend to run with a majority pack rather than with a beleaguered minority.

    Beliefs are often derived from tribal myths (e.g. religious beliefs) but skepticism of the dangerous anthropogenic climate change orthodoxy is less likely to be derived this way than just about any belief I can think of – much less likely than the orthodoxy is.

    Tribal beliefs require proximate groupthink, e.g. within a church, university, or political party. Where is the skeptics’ church, university or party? Climate skeptics are conservatives, libertarians, Protestants, Catholics, atheists, ex-Greens, humanitarians, and etcetera(mostly they are just people of common sense); but every one of those “tribes” have warmists too. Any skeptics in the academic Left tribe?

    Being a climate skeptic in today’s culture requires confidence in ones independent judgment. Being an anthropogenic warming activist doesn’t, all it requires is conformity with the most publicized myth of our day: that urgent and costly government action is required to curb carbon “pollution” to avert a catastrophe.

  4. A silly talking point (if it was) proves nothing, I’ll bet that for every one given by a skeptic I could find ten given by a warmist.

    OK … here are the rules.

    Make a list of 10 silly talking points given by proponents of mitigation.

    Qualification: Must be a person prominently connected in the public arena with mitigation policy as evidenced by being quoted by name on the issue three times in a major media outlet within any seven day period.

    Talking point must be demonstrable nonsense.

    Off you go. 10 silly talking points.

  5. “Being a climate skeptic in today’s culture requires confidence in ones independent judgment.”

    typo John Dawson – I think you mean “over-confident in one’s independent judgement”. Otherwise your comment doesn’t fit the psych profile.

  6. @nanks
    Nanks – we are all in the wrong thread (JQ accidentally duplicated this one – Im glad it happens to him as well!)

    But nevertheless I dont think people will notice and once started it will probably keep rolling along (like a fruit loop on the kitchen floor?).

  7. I don’t accept your rules Fran, but the first ten pieces of warmist silliness that come to mind are:

    1. Tim Flannery, to school children: “what this treaty will determine is the air you breath, will it be filled with CO2 from industries and the destruction of forests…?” The treaty is vital to “life on the planet”.

    2. Peter Garret: the Opera House could be flooded by six metres of sea.

    3. Just about everyone: it’s about “carbon pollution”.

    4. Quiggin: skeptics are delusional believers in tribal myths.

    5. Clive Hamilton: “climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous.”

    6. Today’s Age: “Whilst climate change skeptics happily reap the benefits of aeronautical science and trustingly fly in planes, at the same time they denigrate the science that comes up with evidence of climate change.”

    7. Clive Hamilton: “The Australian” is to be condemned for giving skeptics space, the ABC for acknowledging their existence.

    8. Kevin Rudd: Skeptics are “quite literally holding the world to ransom”

    9. Rudd: “our children’s fate – and our grandchildren’s fate – will lie entirely with [skeptics] … The clock is ticking for the planet, but the climate change skeptics simply do not care. The vested interests at work are simply too great”.

    10. Bill McGibbin: “slowing down [climate] change is the most important task human beings have ever faced, a kind of final exam for the human species, tick, tick, tick tick.”

  8. Being a climate skeptic in today’s culture requires confidence in ones independent judgment.

    It also requires an inability to write and publish even one credible scientific paper which refutes the evidence for global warming.

  9. @John Dawson

    1. Rhetorical, but not silly.
    2. It could be, when the Greenland Ice sheet and West Antarctic ice sheets decompose enough, which could happen sometime next century.
    3. Ellipsis: CO2 above certain levels is pollution
    4. Accurate description of many of the foot soldiers
    5. Accurate smmary as holocaust deniers have no pertiennce to current policy
    6. Fair comment. Aeronautics depends on the modelling of a chaotic non-linear system which many deniers claim can’t be modelled
    7. A political opinion, which I don’t share but which is arguable. Not comparable to fact-based false claims of deniers
    8. A political opinion which is arguable
    9. A political opinion which is arguable and attested by Pew Centre
    10. Arguable

    So any others …?

  10. Fran if you think that none of those ten are as silly as a skeptic relating how a judges ruling in an unfair dismisal case that “a belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of [the 2003 law]” implied it is a religion, then you have illustrated my point more eloquently than I could ever have imagined anyone doing – so I think I’ll leave it there.

  11. @John Dawson

    Misdirection. The “silly talking point” was Minchin’s

    Saying that the fall of communism sent the Left on a quest for another anti-capitalist cause …

    It’s sad that even in a text-based medium you can’t argue in a coherent way.

    And for the record the assertion that the judge’s ruling entailed seeing climate change as a religion really was spurious (and thus silly). It’s clear since Crichton why this line (“Gaia”) was run.

  12. No Fran

    JQ: “I had a string of people pointing me to the latest silly talking point in which a British unfair dismissal case was supposed to prove that global warming is a religion”

    But take your pick.

  13. @John Dawson

    A prerequisite to be able to say you know something is that you believe it. Knowledge can be said to be justified true belief. Anyway, although the judges didn’t determine that the belief was a religion, contrary to your view, even if they had, so what? Do you rely on judges to determine scientific truth? Or maybe you do? You certainly must rely on some unusual source for your ‘knowledge’. You deniers are so funny!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s