Delusion and delay

Tony Abbott demonstrates yet again why he is utterly unqualified to be Prime Minister, pushing the absurd line that “global warming stopped in 1998” [1]. As John Cook points out, this silliness requires three separate cherrypicks, each worse than the last. And, as the same story shows, the rest of the Liberal Party is just as bad.

But is it any better to understand the science and do nothing about it as the Labor Party under Gillard is doing? The hacks and spin merchants who now control Labor policy are every bit as bad as Abbott. Delay is just as bad as delusion.

Truly this election is the most depressing I can recall in forty years. If there has been one in our history where both parties have so thoroughly dodged the issues, I’m not aware of it.

fn1. As previously stated, I’m not willing to debate the science of climate change on this blog, since there are plenty of better venues. But you don’t need much expertise in the statistics of time series to expose this line for the dishonest piece of cherrypicking it is. Anyone who espouses it is either a liar or a fool. If anyone wishes to put themselves into one or other of these categories in the comments thread they are welcome to do so.

96 thoughts on “Delusion and delay

  1. For those interested in the latest Galaxy poll, the results show primary support for the ALP has gone down since Nov 2007 from 43.4% to 38% & the L-NP down from 42.1% to 33% and but not enough for the L-NP to win tomorrow after preferences are distributed.

  2. @Michael of Summer Hill
    Have the liberals won any opinion polls in the last 10 or 15 years except on election day?

    as an example, howard was almost always behind in the polls, having to fight back to win on the one day that counts.

    I am sure latham was a bit surprised when he lost in 2004. Was the swing to howard and his winning the senate picked up in the polls?

  3. Yes Jim, of course it was, particulary after the judas like response of the Tassie Logging mafia against Latham’s more economically and environmentally sound policy, released, then sabotaged.

  4. Paul Walter, if I am not mistaken the majority of voters voted for Labor in 2007 because:

    “John Howard is a liar and a backflipper.”
    “I can’t stand the country being run by a corrupt PM.”
    “I have never liked the Liberal puppets — Howard is Bush’s puppet.”
    “John Howard is too American.”
    “I think John Howard should never have gained leadership of 21 million people — he never achieved anything and he took Labor’s ideas.
    “I despise John Howard. His policies of fear and lies, as well as Iraq.
    “Because I wouldn’t trust John Howard as far as I could throw him; he’s a liar.”
    But then I could be wrong.

  5. To conclude, I find the Roy Morgan & Galaxy polls more credible than the Newspoll. Until next time all the best for tomorrow.

  6. I find it amazing that Tony Abbott believes firmly in a being which conveniently dictates that men rule. There is no way of proving that God exists although I suppose those that are making Mary McKillop a saint would disagree.

    On the other hand Tony Abbott doesn’t believe in global warming which has a mountain of science to support its existence.

    And he is within the grasp of being Prime Minister of this country. If he is elected then not only will the case have to be made again and again there will not even be any way to change his mind to take action – unless we can arrange a message from God. Perhaps on one of his runs he will find a tablet of stone to guide him.

  7. ” Unless we can arrange a message from God”- Jill Rush.
    A lightning strike, say?
    Now why would God typify the wastage of carbon dioxide creating a lightning strike, when we know She is a good Green, most likely?

  8. Tony G:

    It was necessary to change the theories name from global warming to climate change.

    At least his spelling is as good as his climate science.

  9. Chris O’Neill said @ 35

    “What a shameless liar.”

    It is better than being a dickhe-d like you Chris, next you will be telling us they can accurately measure a global average temperature, well they can’t Chris and that is a funny anomaly just like you.

  10. Anyone who votes for an undefended shameless liar like Tony Abbott deserves everything they get.

  11. @Tony G
    Well, you can’t measure the average of something that doesn’t exist – temperature – because that is what the Essex paper told us all. That is why scientists just make it up using a random number generator called a thermometer. It does a great job, and with just a little more work the scientists can compute some really strange numbers they call anomalies. Sure fooled the grant payers (oops!, Let the cat out of the bag.), and we all know that scientists get to spend grants on cars and iPads ‘n’ stuff for themselves, their partners, the kids, etc. And supercomputers; the biggest gaming boxes in the world. That’s what you taxpayers – scientists and their mates are not taxpayers, thanks to grants – pay for!! And you get a bunch of anomalies no one can make head or tails of. Whattabargain, ay?
    [/sarcasm]

    Take a chill pill Tony.

  12. Don,

    they use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements because temperature averaging generally shows cooling. (which is probally what is happening)

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html

    NOAA;

    “Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were BELOW average.”

  13. NOAA make an example to illustrate the concept of consistency of anomalies but Tony G can only pick up the word that is used purely for the sake of example, i.e. “cooler”. What a moron. No wonder he’s a science denialist.

  14. Chris, they admit themselves that they cant measure a global temperature so how can they tell if it is changing? you moron.

  15. Tony g, if you are standing knee deep in a septic tank, you know you are doing better than with the water flooding up towards your mouth past your chin?

  16. they admit themselves that they cant measure a global temperature so how can they tell if it is changing?

    So someone could take a mercury thermometer that had all its markings removed (and thus doesn’t show the standard temperature), put a mark against where the mercury currently is, but couldn’t tell if it was warmer or cooler later on by referring to his mark.

    This Tony G is as dumb as they come.

  17. Not as dumb as you Chris, one who believes in the AGW hoax data that NOAA peddles; when the absolute temperature readings show a cooling, normalize the data and express it as an anomaly, that’ll warm things up.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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