Friday, July 06, 2007


Not only excellent wine but Australia has got to be the home of the world's best Pinatas. Jennifer Marohasy brings word of the Lavoisier Group 2007 Meeting to Rehabilitate Carbon Dioxide. Even better, they have posted the presentations!! Have a whack!


Anonymous said...

IMHO that should be a kangaroo-shaped pinata.

Anonymous said...

Sad to think these folk are from my home country! They get much less coverage in the local media these days having firmly established themselves on the looney fringe. Their cheerleader Marohasy is no better - she is a lobbyist of the "pollution is good for you" school.

What may be of interest to the likes of James Annan and friends, is that one of the workshoppers, a Dr David Evans, was willing to bet on global warming:

"It’s time to put up or shut up on this topic. It’s the old scientific culture of repeated observations versus the new “scientific” culture of theoretical modelling and political meddling.

And in that spirit I made a bet.
I bet an environmental lawyer in San Francisco US$6,000 that the rate of increase of global temperatures would slow over the next 10, 15, and 20 years."

Anonymous said...

Steve, I disagree. It should be a koala pinata, hanging by a thread.

Tim Lambert has summarised their delusions

Anonymous said...

OK I'll have a little swing.
David Evans, is a mathematical modeller/computer scientist. He says:
a) He didn't know about global dimming in 1999
b) CO2 is only an amplifier in the Ice cores
c) Svensmark has solved it all
d) "There is now no observational evidence to support the notion that global warming is
caused by carbon emissions." - it's all pure modelling
e) "Greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the
lower atmosphere" and it isn't ... until they fudged the figures .. and it still isn't in places.
f) It's not good lab science (and no lab science is admissible evidence because the atmosphere isn't a lab)
g) "The scientist involved" in the hockey stick graph "is now widely discredited, and the 4th IPCC report omits all mention of the hockey stick graph—not even an apology."
h) He was a rich contractor, therefore everyone else works on greenhouse for the money.

a) Didn't dimming mainly affect the northern hemisphere ? And we knew about the sulphur dioxide clouds, we just didn't know their temperature effect.
b) and f) why didn't we try burning lots of fossil fuels in 250,000 BCE? That seems to be the only evidence that would satisfy him.
c) Svensmark? Oh really... Note that Svensmark fails his point f)
d) Not my field, but all good evidence is rejected by his point f) Under his rules we cannot possible gather acceptible evidence.
e) Some people say the stratosphere should get cooler. Where do the swindlers get the warmer upper atmosphere idea? What's the right answer? He doesn't care.
Is g) slanderous ? I know it's false about the non-inclusion of the graph.

Sounds like he's been watching The Great Global Warming Swindle.

I'm just a mathematics trained software rodent, but I can see he's just a propagandist even though the U.S. Republicans love him.

Anonymous said...

I especially loved Ray Evans' intro:
"Svensmark should win the Nobel prize for his pioneering work in this field and the basement which housed his big box containing atmospheric gas will become as famous as the squash court at the University of Chicago where Enrico Fermi built the first atomic pile and demonstrated the first nuclear chain reaction." in

Anonymous said...