CSP – climate sceptics party or communist and socialist party?

The Climate Sceptics Party are worse than communists. So there is no confusion, that is the “No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party” How did I arrive at such a conclusion? It’s pretty straight forward really. Let’s talk very briefly about freedom of speech and assembly.

In 1842, Karl Marx argued in favour of a free press, decrying censorship as “a tool of the powerful to oppress the powerless.”

Just prior to WW2, Mao stated “[the people] should subject … the party in power, to severe criticism, and press and impel it to give up its one-party, one-class dictatorship and act according to the opinions of the people….The second matter concerns freedom of speech, assembly and association for the people. Without such freedom, it will be impossible to carry out the democratic reconstruction of the political system.”

And what do the CSP think about individual freedoms? Well according to Geoffrey Brown, the official blogger for the CSP, James Hansen, renowned NASA scientist and occasional climate activist should be stripped of individual US constitutional freedoms.

“As a Government employee he shouldn’t have taken part in protests.”

So, according to Geoffrey Brown and the CSP, individual government employees should not share the same rights as other people in their spare time. In light of how Marx and Mao felt about freedom of speech and assembly, one can only wonder what sort of restrictive political system the CSP envision for Australia? Remember…these morons want your vote.

Attack of the scitards

What’s a scitard? It should be fairly obvious to anyone who isn’t a scitard. Essentially not understanding exactly what peer review is or how important it is in ensuring science is sound is a sure sign that you might be a scitard.

My favourite blogger, Geoffrey Brown, the official blogger for the Climate Sceptics Party, has demonstrated yet again, his severe lack of understanding of the importance of peer review is on display yet again in his latest post where he discusses more bullshit from  “Emeritus Professor Don Easterbrook PhD” (notice the excessive use of titles and qualifications rarely seen amongst serious scientists). Essentially he says  “Emeritus Professor Don Easterbrook PhD  has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change.”

So what has the brilliant Easterbrook “published” on global climate change? Well……..nothing actually, at least not in the peer reviewed literature. A full list of the brilliant Emiritus Professor with a PhD can be found here.

When will these idiots, like Geoffrey Brown, realise that when it comes to science, realise they are retarded?

 

Clown of the century – Monckton

This is too funny. Christopher Monckton ……… I’m actually a little speechless. Okay, just remember folks, this clown is adored by The Climate Sceptics Party and their chief blogger, Geoffrey Brown, and they want your vote. Get a load of this…

I apologise for the size. I’ll provide a link to it in the moment but here it is in an easier to read format.

Whereas the Headmaster of St. Mary McKillop’s School, Wagga Wagga, has invited me to debate the motion that Global Warming is a Global Crisis against a champion of the True-Believers;
And forasmuch as I have accepted and will visit the School on 19 March 2013 at 1.30 pm to demonstrate that global warming is indeed no global crisis;
Now therefore I challenge the nine Federal Senators of the Traffic-Light Tendency (the Greens too Yellow to admit they’re Reds) to elect one of them defend the New Religion against my contention that it is pietistic, illogical and exaggerated;
Know also that, if my challenge is not taken up, I shall arrange for a White Feather to be delivered to each of the nine custard-faced cowards in Canberra.
In witness whereof I have set hereto my Hand this Third Day of March in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Thirteen.

Well the good “Lord” certainly thinks highly of himself…and so formal too. What a goose. Thanks for the chuckle Geoffrey Brown, you made my day with this. To see it in all its divine glory, go here.

Fieldwork

Well, I’m outta here for the next 4-5 weeks to do some of that science stuff and will only be checking back occasionally when I have internet coverage. Apologies to any new commentators who find themselves stuck in moderation in my absence. Geoffrey Brown, you won’t be stuck in moderation as you have commented here before and despite your ridiculous lies to the contrary, I do not have you blocked. 

Unfortunately, unlike Watts, Nova and McIntyre, I don’t have any brainless sycophants on hand to insult and heavily censor any guests in my absence, so play nice.

In the meantime, I promise I will work hard while I am out in the field, just like I am in the photo below. Jealous? You should be.

Field work – it’s harder than it looks…….no really it is.

I’m not racist but….

At some point in our lives, we’ve all come across someone who has uttered these words which is promptly followed by something undoubtedly racist. For me, it was a bloke I met in North Queensland who said to me, “Mike, I’m not racist but I really can’t stand Indians.” When I pointed out that what he said was indeed racist, he tried to justify it by suggesting that he was in a majority so that “makes it ok.”  The problem is, he wasn’t really in a majority. He merely socialised with a small group of people who happened to have the same prejudicial views as him. What it interesting about this is that he knows that racism is wrong, hence his need to preface his comments about Indians with, “I’m not racist but…” Well, how about climate denialism? “I’m not a climate denier, but I just don’t accept the evidence.” What about politics? I’m not a right-winger but…” Here is a classic case where this person inadvertently admits that the right is a suspect position by suggesting his political party is “centrist”, however, everything they say and do suggests they are as right-wing as they come. Who am I talking about? The Climate Sceptics Party (CSP) and Geoffrey Brown, their official blogger. In his latest post, he makes the following hilarious statement.

“The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics are not aligned with either the LEFT leaning Green Gillard Government or the RIGHT  leaning Coalition. We are a Centrist party.”

First I’ll deal with the first part. It is very true that the CSP are not “aligned” with Labor, the Greens or the Coalition and I’m pretty sure they’re all happy about that because I’m confident they wouldn’t want anything to do with the CSP.

Second, this notion that the CSP are a “centrist party”. This statement is so ridiculous it beggars belief. It shows either a complete misunderstanding of the electorate, a complete misunderstanding of  what it means to be “centrist” or perhaps, like the bloke in North Queensland, knowledge that what they are is in fact what the majority find abhorrent. I suspect it’s a bit of the first and last. Like any population, the Australian electorate is subject to the rules of statistics and has a normal distribution in terms of the political spectrum.

Schematic of the Australian political spectrum in terms of the voting public’s political views.

This schematic suggests that the majority of voters arrange their political views in a normal distribution. Geoffrey Brown actually acknowledges this with his ridiculous “centrist” statement. Why else would he want to be recognised as such? The vast majority of political parties wish to appear to be centrist and the way they try to appeal to the voting public is with so-called “catch-all” policies. If we were to overlay this normal distribution with where the Labor Party sits in terms of its policies, it would look something like this.

Schematic of where Australian Labor Party policy sits in relation to the electorate’s political views.

 As you can see, Labor is primarily leftist, however, a number of their policies are designed to appeal to the majority of voters and some of the right. An example of a right leaning policy from Labor would be in the treatment of boat people. A chart for the coalition looks like this.

Schematic of where coalition policies sit in relation to the electorate’s political views.

As with the ALP, the coalition sits mostly to one side but overlaps a little to the other side. An example is the recent alignment of the coalition with some unions.

In both cases, with Labor on the left and the Coalition on the right, the tactic of moving towards the centre and over to the other side is designed to catch more votes from the middle where the vast majority of voters are.  Anecdotally, I know many people who complain at election time that both sides of Australian politics are the same. Some, even go as far as collectively calling them the Laborel (Labor + Liberal) party. The success of this tactic is evidenced by the fact that with the exception of a few independents and one Green, the federal parliament has fairly similar numbers of Members from each side. The same applies to the upper house where there is rarely much of a difference between the two major parties but for a substantial number of greens in a couple of States.

So, back to Geoffrey’s “centrist” fallacy. In the last federal election in 2010, the CSP ran senate candidates in each state but not in the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory. If they were truly running on a “centrist” platform I would have expected them to receive many more votes than they did. In Queensland, they received only 0.19% of the overall vote and polled worse than other single issue parties like the Shooters and Fishers Party (1.74%) and the Australian Sex Party. The results were similar in New South Wales (0.21%), Victoria ( 0.15%), South Australia (0.46%), Western Australia (0.16%) and Tasmania (0.23%).  For a party claiming to be in the political centre that is a very very poor result. For that result to happen to a “centrist” party, the political landscape in Australia would have to look like this…

Schematic of Geoffrey’s distorted reality in terms of the political spectrum in Australia in relation to his party’s poor showing in the 2010 election.

What is more likely is the following graphic highlighting where his party fits and where the Greens are. The reason for mentioning the Greens will become apparent shortly.

Schematic of the reality in terms of the CSP and Greens and where they fit in the political spectrum of Australia.

So, how do we know the CSP is a right wing party and not in the centre? The answer can be found in the many pages of the official blog for the party. Given that the ALP do have some “centrist” policies amongst their mostly centre left, why hasn’t Geoffrey Brown, the official blogger for the CSP ever written a single post where he agrees with a policy or at least defended  a policy or Labor member? I performed a search on the site for the term “ALP” and not one of the posts that came up had anything favourable to say about the ALP. A similar search for “coalition” turned up plenty of  posts. I didn’t have to go far to find a favourable one. Here’s one. Here’s another praising Nationals, Barnaby Joyce and Ron Boswell. There are plenty. Even the post with Geoffrey’s ridiculous “leftist” comment that this post is about appears to defend  the leader of the coalition, Tony Abbott.

So what about the Greens? Well there is no doubt that the Greens sit on the political left. The venom and spite that comes from Geoffrey about the Greens is evident in every second post on the official blog for the CSP. I am given the impression that the CSP is diametrically opposed to anything the Greens say or do. In a 2010 post by one of the CSP members on behalf of the CSP by Senate hopeful, Terence Cardwell, the greens are referred to as a “poison chalice” and guilty of pushing a “communist agenda”.  From the same post comes this rant.

“Under that very thin cover of green is a very bright red of the communist, lead by the fanatical Bob Brown, who is a liar and one of the worst perpetrators of this world scam and he wants total control. If the extremists called ‘greens’ should bring their policies to fruition it will destroy our economy and our country. To the point it could bring about an extremely violent reaction from the Australian people when they finally realise that the Greens are deliberately trying to tear our country apart. By that time it could be too late. The only consolation would be that every Green would pay severely for their treachery.”

This has some of the hallmarks of a stereotypical right-wing rant. It’s got “reds under the bed”, appeals to nationalistic pride and suggestions of nationalism inspired violence against perceived “treachery”. There are plenty of posts complaining about Green policies. For example here, here, here and here. In fact, nearly every second post is an anti-Green post.

In contrast, the official blog for the CSP does not have a single post criticising any right-wing parties or organisations. In fact, I think this post says it all. Before I pin the screenshot.Let’s just go back to that key statement by Geoffrey Brown, the official blogger for the CSP again.

“The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics are not aligned with either the LEFT leaning Green Gillard Government or the RIGHT  leaning Coalition. We are a Centrist party.”

So Geoffrey, as a centrist party, who are you aligned with? From your post of 29 september 2011….

The allegedly “centrist” CSP aligning with the far right. That would be odd…if the CSP weren’t loony right all the way.

Geoffrey Brown, if you think you are “centrist” you’re even more stupid than I thought. If you think the majority of Australians are also on your wavelength you’ve completely lost your marbles. My question, why are you ashamed to admit that you are part of the loony right? Could it be because deep down you know how distasteful your ridiculous right-wing party really is?

So to return to the original theme, what Geoffrey is saying here is “I’m not a right-winger, but I denigrate the left, ignore the middle, praise the right, associate with the right and promote the right.”

And I didn’t even get to your blogroll, a veritbale who’s who of right-wing anti-science and conspiracy ideation. Maybe in a future post.

 

 

 

 

 

A prediction

This paper was briefly touched on by WUWT last week but it will be the next one to do the rounds and be cherrypicked, quote-mined and misrepresented. the Climate Sceptics Party official blogger will cut and paste garbage about it from CO2 science or an equivalent denier den.

Denier comment of the day, September 14, 2012

Brace yourself! Guess who?

Carbon free cane and cows? Really?

What the hell are they made from, Geoffrey Brown, official blogger for the Climate Sceptics Party?

 

Denier comment of the day August 31, 2012

If ever I want a quick easy find for a denier comment of the day, I can go to Geoffrey Brown, official blogger for the Climate Sceptics Party. Today, the ever shortsighted Geoffrey is taking a swipe at chemistry nomenclature. Yes, you read that right,but in case you think you were mistaken I’ll type it again. Geoffrey Brown is taking a swipe at chemistry nomenclature. The comment I’m about to show you is so stupid, it’s difficult to know where to begin. Apparently, if you take Geoffrey’s idea, when you breathe in, your body will  extract the oxygen (O2) in the air (all good so far) but when you breathe out you will breathe out oxygen (O2C). I know, I know. Rather than explain it, here is Geoffrey’s comment…..first, sit on your hands. Ok, here it is.

No, read it again….slowly. Ok I’ll give you some context. Geoffrey’s complaint is the naming of the carbon tax and he goes on to say,

“The reason for the use of the word “carbon” is to somehow suggest something, dirty, grimy.”

Yes, you’re absolutely right Geoffrey, let’s name it for what it is and we’ll name the “junior partner” second. Let’s call it a Dioxygen carbide tax. Yes yes, that sounds much better. Of course the Dioxygen carbide isn’t the only greenhouse gas being taxed, there is also methane and nitrous oxide and a few others, so in a funny way I do actually agree that the carbon tax is incorrectly named. I honestly think it should be called the “Fossil fuel industry pollution tax“. No chance of being misled there. But back to Geoffrey’s logic (It’s ok readers, I’m scared too) and this “junior partner” bullshit. Most people learn in about year 8 at school (that might explain it) that there is a convention for chemical nomenclature. It’s not difficult. For the sake of keeping it even simpler I won’t mention the conventions when there is a charge involved. For binary metal/non-metal compounds, the metal goes first and the non-metal has ‘ide’ added e.g Chlorine + sodium becomes Sodium Chloride (NaCl). In the case of binary non-metal/non-metal compounds, whichever element is the furthest left on the periodic table goes first and the second has ‘ide’ added. e.g. Sulfur + Hydrogen becomes Hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The thing is, Geoffrey, we have these conventions for a reason. It’s so everyone (except you perhaps) can understand them. If you are basing this “junior partner” nonsense on the element with the least numbers of atoms, I’d like to know what you would call maitotoxin which is C164H256Na2O68S2? Sodium or sulfur? There’s two of each. Perhaps Sodium as it has the lighter molecular weight?

So there you have it, a beauty from Geoffrey. Anyway, I’m not sure I want to visit Geoffrey’s blog too often. Every time I do, I get a tune stuck in my head. 

Idiotic denier graph of the day, August 26,2012

Yep, something a little different. I got my 3-year-old niece to draw on a piece of paper with a fat blue crayon and this is what she drew.

Conrats Steve Goddard! You have graduated from preschool.

Yes, ok. You got me, my niece would never use such a fat crayon to draw a graph, unless she wanted it to be fuzzy. This masterpiece is the work of Steve Goddard who, at his woefully misnamed blog, “Real Science” is trying to debunk a strawman. According to Steve, in 2007 AGW proponents, “went hysterical and told us that the Arctic would be ice free by 2008, 2010, 2012 or 2013″ and then provided this……..graph to debunk it. Of course, Steve ‘I just graduated preschool’ Goddard, didn’t provide a reference to these statements. So some mythical scientists have been debunked. Well done Steve, well done. You really showed…….them. Of course, my mate Geoffrey Brown faithfully cut and paste the same graph over at my favourite denier den, the official blog of the Climate Sceptics Party and included an admission to being a conspiracy theorist of the highest order, but that’s for another day.

So what of this….graph? Well, Steve supplied a link to the data he has used for his blue crayon special and it seems it goes all the way back to 1979. It’s no wonder he cherrypicked the last few years. Here’s a graph or two from the same website. First, what Steve’s magic blue crayon graph would have looked like if he used all the data.

 

Next, let’s take it back a little further and look at the longer term trend broken down into seasons.

So, there you have it. “Real Science” and real science. Which are you going to accept? Personally, I think I’ll go with the latter. I’m not really into crayons.

 

Climate Sceptics Party blog sinks to a new low.

Nevermind the idiocy, the misrepresentations, the lies and distortions and the hypocrisy, this one takes the cake. I was going to make this a denier comment of the day but that is meant to be light-hearted. I think this is quite serious. Let me first remind you of a couple of things.

 

Geoffrey Brown’s blog is the Official blog of the Climate Sceptics Party. As such, it can be safely assumed that the Climate Sceptics Party endorses the views expressed therein. The next thing you need to know is this.

 

These are the rules that Geoffrey has set for comments. I won’t go into the way Geoffrey likes to stifle free speech when it opposes his position. I’ve covered that before here and here. All I will say is that he has a history of picking and choosing which comments he allows and he has complete control over that. It is safe therefore to assume that Geoffrey considers the following comment on his blog as serious, polite and respectful. It was posted in response to a post about the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard.

It was a rant of epic proportions utilising every socialist cliché in the book like “goose stepping”, “card carrying”, “communist” and referring to Gillard as “COMRADE”. I’m no psychologist but I’m pretty confident the person posting has a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock. So, what does this lunatic say in the rant? These are just two parts.

Yes, you read that right. I don’t know about you, but when I read the words of someone who is clearly a bit unhinged talking about people being targets and having targets painted on their heads, a red flag goes up. Especially when they are the subject of the writer’s wrath.

So, in allowing this nutcase to exercise his freedom of speech in such a polite and respectful way, has Geoffrey replied to suggest that perhaps making veiled threats against the leaders of the country is too extreme? I can only suggest that in allowing those comments in such a manner he is endorsing them and as the official blog of the Climate Sceptics Party they are as well. You see, you can’t have it two ways Geoffrey. You can’t filter out comments that you don’t agree with on a political level and then allow obviously deranged comments and claim you are allowing freedom of speech. Your first action negates the second unless you are allowing your hypocrisy to shine through as usual. But that’s a side issue. Threats, Geoffrey, even veiled threats against anyone should be shouted down in the strongest possible way and the person making them put in their place. Your failure to do either, suggests that perhaps you agree with the nutcase and are supportive of those extreme views. Not a good look for you or your party.