An important essay by Richard Lindzen

I am an admirer of Richard Lindzen, an American physicist whose field is the dynamics of the atmosphere-ocean circulation. In this area he is probably without peer, and it gives him a strong position from which to talk about climate change. He is the most prominent critic of the orthodox, IPCCC view of global warming. He recently gave a speech in London for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It is too long to simply republish here, but what I have done is to edit it down by about two thirds.

He started his lecture with a quote from a famous essay of 1960 by C. P. Snow, ‘The Two Cultures’, in which Snow lamented the incapacity of politicians who had no scientific understanding to grapple sensibly with issues that were heavily related to science of one kind or another. Nothing had changed, in nearly seventy years, Lindzen remarked, and that theme echoes through his lecture.

He then set out a simple and understandable account of the climate system, which he sees as the outcome of turbulence between two immensely powerful subordinate systems, that of the oceans and of the atmosphere, which are unevenly heated by the sun, and much affected by land topography. These turbulent interactions have several timescales, ranging from seconds to millennia. There is a greenhouse effect, and its mighty engines are water vapour and clouds. For those who would like a refresher in this area, that section is a must-read. But it requires concentration and persistence.

What follows are his words, after my editing.

‘Much of the popular literature (on both sides of the climate debate) assumes that all changes must be driven by some external factor. Of course, the climate system is driven by the sun, but even if the solar forcing were constant, the climate would still vary. This is actually something that all of you have long known – even if you don’t realize it. After all, you have no difficulty recognizing that the steady stroking of a violin string by a bow causes the string to vibrate and generate sound waves. In a similar way, the atmosphere–ocean system responds to steady forcing with its own modes of variation (which, admittedly, are often more complex than the modes of a violin string). Moreover, given the massive nature of the oceans, such variations can involve timescales of millennia rather than milliseconds. El Niño is a relatively short example, involving years, but most of these internal time variations are too long to even be identified in our relatively short instrumental record. Nature has numerous examples of autonomous variability, including the approximately 11-year sunspot cycle and the reversals of the Earth’s magnetic field every couple of hundred thousand years or so. In this respect, the climate system is no different from other natural systems.

Of course, such systems also do respond to external forcing, but such forcing is not needed for them to exhibit variability… Consider the massive heterogeneity and complexity of the system, and the variety of mechanisms of variability as we consider the current narrative that is commonly presented as ‘settled science.’

The popular narrative and its political origins

Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance.

This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics. This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified.

Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control carbon dioxide levels.’

[At this point Lindzen gives his account of what he thinks the history of the move to decarbonize the world has been. It is widely reported this way, and while I have no quibbles with it, there seems no great reason to repeat it here.]

‘This past August, a paper appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Littered with ‘could be’s’ and ‘might be’s’, it conclude that ‘Collective human action’ is required to ‘steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold’ and keep it habitable. The authors said that this would involve ‘stewardship of the entire Earth System – biosphere, climate, and societies’, and that it might involve ‘decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values…

Nevertheless, when these claims are presented to the leaders of our societies, along with the bogus claim that 97% of scientists agree, our leaders are afraid to differ, and proceed, lemming-like, to plan for the suicide of industrial society. Again, nothing better illustrates the problem that Snow identified.

Interestingly, however, ‘ordinary’ people (as opposed to our ‘educated’ elites) tend to see through the nonsense being presented.

The evidence

At this point, some of you might be wondering about all the so-called evidence for dangerous climate change. What about the disappearing Arctic ice, the rising sea level, the weather extremes, starving polar bears, the Syrian Civil War, and all the rest of it? The vast variety of the claims makes it impossible to point to any particular fault that applies to all of them. Of course, citing the existence of changes – even if these observations are correct (although surprisingly often they are not) – would not implicate greenhouse warming per se. Nor would it point to danger. Note that most of the so-called evidence refers to matters of which you have no personal experience. Some of the claims, such as those relating to weather extremes, contradict what both physical theory and empirical data show. The purpose of these claims is obviously to frighten and befuddle the public, and to make it seem like there is evidence where, in fact, there is none. If there is evidence of anything, it is of the correctness of C.P. Snow’s observation. Some examples will show what I mean.

First, for something to be evidence, it must have been unambiguously predicted. (This is a necessary, but far from sufficient condition.) [Lindzen here offers a long account of changes in the prediction of Arctic ice levels, in which he concludes that there are so many of these, and they are so different, that they provide nothing of consequence.]…

This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use.

Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem. However, this hardly stops ignorant politicians from declaring that the IPCC’s claim of attribution is tantamount to unambiguous proof of coming disaster.

Cherry-picking is always an issue. Thus, there has been a recent claim that Greenland ice discharge has increased, and that warming will make it worse. Omitted from the report is the finding by both NOAA and the Danish Meteorological Institute that the ice mass of Greenland has actually been increasing. In fact both these observations can be true, and, indeed, ice build-up pushes peripheral ice into the sea.

Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence.

Conclusion

So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science.

There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5?C of warming, although the 1?C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history. As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’.

 

Endnote Editing someone else’s work is always fraught with possible errors. I urge readers to go to the original speech for checking. It is well-written, but, as I said at the beginning, you need to concentrate!

 

Join the discussion 157 Comments

  • Boambee John says:

    “Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence.”

    Count down to Chris W agreeing, but claining that all of the cherry picking et al has only ever been by sceptics.

    So Chris, given Lindzen’s eminence in the actual field, will you fall back on non-experts in the field such as Flannery, Cook and Loondowski for uour rebuttal?

    • Chris Warren says:

      Boambee John

      You deserve a prize for stating the obvious.

      However there has been no cherry-picking by sceptics – only by denialists.

      Everyone should be sceptical until they have examined the data and science. Scientists were once sceptical about the earth’s movement around the Sun – they are not now. Scientists were once sceptical about the cause of cholera, leprosy, plague and typhus – they are not now.

      Lindzen is a pay-pal for fossil-fuels. His slander against John F Kerry, politicians and scientists was obnoxious.

      His speech, full of rancour, spitting accusations of “bogus”, “dogma”, “ignorant”, false, “unfathomable silliness” reduces Lindzen to a laughing stock. He even tries to suggest that his betters are “lying” or “cherry-picking”. I take this as his own Fruedian Slip.

      His one bit of useful evidence – his fig 1, shows that ice melt is occurring much faster than most models predicted.

      His vomitous piece may well be a balm to our denialists who may like to keep a copy under their pillow, but barking dogs will not stop the caravan.

      Some of his claims have no basis in science, such as: “had convention produced a uniform temperature there would not be a greenhouse effect”.

      Maybe Lindzen was sprouting all this hymn-to-denialism, to succour favour within his tribe. Maybe you would like to send the link to his piece off to SkyNews because that is the level at which it is at.

  • stu says:

    Ah Prof Lindzen.

    Just saying:

    Background

    Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a position he held from 1983 until his retirement in 2013. He is the Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. [2], [3], [76], [77]

    Lindzen’s academic interests lie within the topics of “climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability,” according to his faculty profile at MIT. [3]

    The Cato Institute, a conservaive think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services. [4], [5]

    Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US.” [6]

    In addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute, a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide. [58], [59], [62]

    Fossil Fuel Funding

    As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties. [94]

    In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015. [98]:

    The above quote from Desmogblog. Not an ad hominem attack, just quoting his predilection for working with and taking money from vested interests in this subject. Peabody coal is clear, Cato and the TPPF have direct funding links with fuel industry and a tendency to provide events in support of that position. Like wise Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation are clear in their intentions.

    • spangled drongo says:

      No, stu, what you alarmists have to do is to fault his science, not his personality.

      Go on, give it a go!

      But then, when you can’t cope with real science, I suppose all you have left is to bully the messenger.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Here’s some of Lindzen’s science from your mates at DeSmog Blog, stu, who never stop calling rational, sceptical scientists “deniers” when they far from deny anything scientific about climate.

      Please try and fault it.

      By that I mean using empirical evidence for a change instead of the usual assumption-filled GCMs:

      “To summarize this overview, the historical and geological record suggests recent changes in the climate over the past century are within the bounds of natural variability. Human influences on the climate (largely the accumulation of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion) are a physically small (1%) effect on a complex, chaotic, multicomponent and multiscale system. Unfortunately, the data and our understanding are insufficient to usefully quantify the climate’s response to human influences. However, even as human influences have quadrupled since 1950, severe weather phenomena and sea level rise show no significant trends attributable to them. Projections of future climate and weather events rely on models demonstrably unfit for the purpose. As a result, rising levels of CO2 do not obviously pose an immediate, let alone imminent, threat to the earth’s climate.”

  • Tezza says:

    That’s a very good summary, Don. Many thanks. I’ve read the original Lindzen address, and the major early part of it dealing with the science of oceans and the atmosphere is hyper-compressed and consequently quite heavy going.

    Readers can read Lindzen and think through his arguments for themselves, or they can avoid thinking by following stu’s line of ad hominem. Of course if Lindzen’s arguments don’t need to be considered because he receives money from someone, so too we can dismiss all arguments by mainstream proponents of dangerous anthropogenic global warming, all of whom have entire careers and research programs wholly dependent on being paid by others. Stu would proceed, I presume, by somehow assessing the comparative moral worth of the paymasters.

    Better just to consider the arguments and the evidence, I reckon.

  • Boambee John says:

    stu

    “The above quote from Desmogblog. Not an ad hominem attack, just quoting his predilection for working with and taking money from vested interests in this subject. Peabody coal is clear, Cato and the TPPF have direct funding links with fuel industry and a tendency to provide events in support of that position. Like wise Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation are clear in their intentions.”

    Care to post a similar item on the predilection of many proponents to have connections weth renewable energy organisations?

    “Not an ad hominem attack …” LOL.

    • Stu says:

      Classic response. Even the renewable industry does not have the scale of funds and the income to lose that the fossil guys have. The scientists (the credible ones) are publishing current work which is open to review. And contrary to the rubbish spouted by Prof Ridd and co that peer review is dead, remember that the initial peer review by two or three is merely to get published. After that it is open to refutation or confirmation by others in the field and a researcher gets more cred for proving someone else wrong rather than right. That would be true of Ridd, Lindzen and others if the rest accepted their postulations. The field remains very one sided regarding who is right and wrong on the subject of climate. And all the valid ones are most definitly open to new ideas and research to further the understanding.

      Go back and read that NIPCC report quoted after Don’s initial post. It is called draft “Fossil fuels summary for policy makers”. Never mind the stats in there, many of which are dodgy, just read the words. Like everything that has links with Heartland, GWPF, Cato etc it reeks of being no more than a giant apologia for the fossil fuel sector. Why else bang on about all the wonderous things we did in the past with electricity. Of course they were beneficial to the growth of our societies, the question is “are they past their use by date”. The whole document is structured on the premise of preserving the profitability of the enterprise.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu just doesn’t get that because group-think alarmists blame the less-than-Nat Var warming on human CO2 emissions, it must be right.

        You really can’t see the lack of logic in that, stu?

        But it’s more than that.

        You have then also to provide empirical evidence of the degree of warming that extra ACO2 is capable of incurring, globally.

        Please show us all where this measurement has ever been achieved.

        We all know where it has been assumed.

        If a rational person couldn’t provide that evidence, he would at least admit that he could be wrong.

        So let’s see you provide it, stu.

        Or admit you could be wrong.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Mille pardons, I should have said: “Stu just doesn’t get that because group-think alarmists blame the less-than-Nat Var warming on human CO2 emissions, it must be right…” is not logical.

      • Boambee John says:

        “The scientists (the credible ones)”

        Defined as those whose results you like?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Classic response. Even the renewable industry does not have the scale of funds and the income to lose that the fossil guys have.”

        Christiana Figueres, former UN IPCC secretary-general, wants the world to spend $US38 trillion on renewables over the next 16 years. A later comment of yours states that “The top ten global oil and gas companies last fiscal year made a net profit of over US$90billion. They have a lot to lose and will obfuscate until they have lost the battle. And they have plenty of players who have fallen for the money gig.”

        Perhaps that difference in scale between $90 billion and $38 trillion might suggest that the renewables industry also has a lot to lose? Your statement about obfuscation and players who have fallen for the money gig might have wider application?

  • JMO says:

    As a former climate alarmist/catastrophist/doomster, I now realise the “swamp” this AGW nonsense has created. I have seen it myself at ANU Climate Institute (I have now unsubscribed). They relish the doomster predictions, and why wouldn’t they? – It attracts continued funding.

    I slowly started to become more sceptical after 3 weeks of “drought is a new climate” prediction when it rained, rained and when thourougly sick of it – it rained more and became cold , very cold. So doing my own research and calling in my physics and astronomy knowledge these helped me to target many fact findings. Some of these include:

    CO2 has been shown by John Tyndell FRS who in early 1860s experimentally (gee…what a strange process for climate scientism) as ” one of the feeblest absorbers…” of what he called the calorific rays Ch 14 of his 16th May 1865 lecture “On Radiation”. The strongest IR absorber of all gases was water vapour – ” we should be entitled to rank that (water) vapour as the most powerful absorber of radiant heat hitherto discovered” (ch 13),

    CO2 is transparent across nearly all the IR spectrum (0.7 to 100 microns – a micron is one millionth of a metre) and 3 of its 4 absorption lines are outside Earth’s radiation into space leaving the weakest absorption 15-micron line , at the lower energy end of Earth’s radiation spectra, to be absorbed in the atmosphere. Water vapour absorbs 60%-70% of the 15-micron line and it is much higher (up to 7000ppm) concentration than CO2’s paltry 405ppm.

    A “black body radiator” has to be cooled to a freezing MINUS 80 C in order for 15 microns to be its peak wavelength across its broad IR radiation spectra (google Wien’s Displacement Law calculator),

    A minus 80C BB radiator would produce a radiation forcing close to 1 watt/sq metre (barely 1/1000 from solar radiation at the Earth’s surface).

    BUT we are not dealing with a BB broad IR radiation spectra centred on 15-micron but a 15-micron absorption line, therefore far less energy (think a 100 watt incandescent bulb v LED/fluro bulb) – approximately 16% – 20% energy. Same visible light output but one would burn your hand, the other would feel warm/very warm). This reduces the radiation forcing of CO2’s 15 micron line to about 1/6 to 1/5 watt/sqm – before being absorbed mostly by water vapour. Gosh, a lot of warming in that one! (Admittingly a very slight further warming will occur due to increased mass of the atmosphere – by joining a C atom to an O2 molecule increases atmospheric pressure and therefore temperature (PV=nrT)

    So to the Chrises et all – the above is the settled science, CAGW is not. But to the Chrises of this world I do not know what I am talking about. Well, to me this is empirical evidence of ideological thinking.

    Some more facts while I am at it:

    The litany of failed predictions, not 1 doomsayer/catastrophic prediction has happened, they were all shown to be bunkum (after well over 30 years of listening to global warming I can list many – believe me!). And don’t get me on about electricity prices will go down with renewables – by Gaia, what a con!

    The rent seekers who have done (and continue to do) very well out the stoked public fears (yes, that includes me),

    The displayed shameless hypocrisy from certain climate doomster “scientismists” and their advocates and hangers on,

    I mentioned above climate scientism. Scientism is to science what a Ponzi scheme is to investment. Yes, that nails perfectly.

  • JMO says:

    After “the weakest absorption 15-micron line , at the lower energy end of Earth’s radiation spectra, ” I forgot to add the formula; E=h x mu (mu is Greek letter symbolising frequency) where h is Plancks constant (6.626 x 10^34 m^2 kg/sec) and frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength.

  • Chris Warren says:

    JMO

    It looks like you need a fact check.

    CO2 absorbs less than water vapour and CH4.

    This is the amount of absorption of infrared radiation.

    • Boambee John says:

      Did you read what JMO posted?

      “CO2 has been shown by John Tyndell FRS who in early 1860s experimentally (gee…what a strange process for climate scientism) as ” one of the feeblest absorbers…” of what he called the calorific rays Ch 14 of his 16th May 1865 lecture “On Radiation”. The strongest IR absorber of all gases was water vapour – ” we should be entitled to rank that (water) vapour as the most powerful absorber of radiant heat hitherto discovered” (ch 13),”

      He said quite clearly that CO2 is a weak absorber, water is strong. Were you perchance indulging in a spot of cherry picking?

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee John

        Please focus.

        CO2 absorbs less infrared than water vapour or methane.

        This is entirely consistent with Tyndell.

        So you have embarrassed yourself.

        The amount of CO2 absorption is shown here:

        https://youtu.be/kGaV3PiobYk

        Water vapour and methane would be worse.

        So remember – CO2 absorbs less than water vapour or methane.

        Please print this out and stick it on your fridge to remind yourself that CO2 absorbing less than water vapour or methane is exactly the same as Tyndell.

        The will be a test next week, so I hope this all sinks in.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          Please stop being a pompous a***h*le. You told JMO he needed a fact check for saying exactly what you said.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            You are wrong.

            JMO’s statement was:

            “CO2 is transparent across nearly all the IR spectrum…”

            This is the exact opposite to facts and he was given the necessary fact check.

            You have deliberately wandered off on another tangent.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          JMO posted from Tyndell that CO2 is “one of the feeblest absorbers…”. You said that “CO2 absorbs less than water vapour or methane”. You say that “This is entirely consistent with Tyndell.”

          Not entirely. “Absorbing less” is not the same as “feeblest”. The latter suggests a less significant impact.

          As JMO pointed out via Tyndell, CO2 absorbs in only the “weakest absorption 15-micron line , at the lower energy end of Earth’s radiation spectra”.

          If there is a solution to the (assumed) CAGW problem, it lies with water vapour, not CO2. Good luck selling that one. Still, you might find it more comfortable than shutting down the CO2 wastrels of the international tourism industry.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            I find your fakery rather disruptive.

            I never said that feeblest is the same – you made this up.

            I never referenced Tyndell until – you inserted this diversion.

            I have cited JMO’s the need for JMO to undertake a fact check.

            It was its statement that;

            “CO2 is transparent across nearly all the IR spectrum…”

            which is clearly wrong based on scientific evidence, demonstrated here;

            https://youtu.be/kGaV3PiobYk

            and

            http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/curve_s.gif

            The CO2 trap is around 667 (waves per cm). The red curve is the curve of emissions if the Earth was a black body with no atmosphere.

          • spangled drongo says:

            BJ, remember, it only takes the feeblest factor to upset our enuresistics.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            I believe that it is 42 angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

            Or is that the meaning of life?

            But keep parsing, it keeps you out of other mischief!

  • Boambee John says:

    From Stu at 1131

    “The scientists (the credible ones) are publishing current work which is open to review. And contrary to the rubbish spouted by Prof Ridd and co that peer review is dead, remember that the initial peer review by two or three is merely to get published. After that it is open to refutation or confirmation by others in the field and a researcher gets more cred for proving someone else wrong rather than right. That would be true of Ridd, Lindzen and others if the rest accepted their postulations. The field remains very one sided regarding who is right and wrong on the subject of climate. And all the valid ones are most definitly open to new ideas and research to further the understanding.”

    Yet, strangely, our very own BOM refuses to allow study of the algorithms used for the process of “homogenisation” it uses to fill in the gaps in coverage of the Australian landmass. Nor is it particularly forthcoming about the process it uses to “adjust” old temperature records.

    Were they to be, what was your phrase, “open to refutation or confirmation by others in the field” we might be able to have a better informed discussion of this matter.

    • Stu says:

      BJ says:
      “Yet, strangely, our very own BOM refuses to allow study of the algorithms used for the process of “homogenisation” it uses to fill in the gaps in coverage of the Australian landmass. Nor is it particularly forthcoming about the process it uses to “adjust” old temperature records.
      Were they to be, what was your phrase, “open to refutation or confirmation by others in the field” we might be able to have a better informed discussion of this matter.”

      I think the answer is that they are sick of fending off spurious attacks on their credibility and ethics and have better things to do. And just how many anomalies do you think there are in a year? Only a small statistical problem I think.

      I happen to know one person at BOM who contrary to earlier posts about being dependent on AGW for his livelyhood could make a lot more money putting out papers on behalf of the fuel industry, that is where the dollars are. The top ten global oil and gas companies last fiscal year made a net profit of over US$90billion. They have a lot to lose and will obfuscate until they have lost the battle. And they have plenty of players who have fallen for the money gig.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        I guess if you can dismiss attempts at “refutation or confirmation by others in the field” as “sick of fending off spurious attacks on their credibility and ethics and have better things to do” it does make life easier for them.

        Perhaps a little more humility on their part might be more, how shall I phrase it, scientific?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu, does it occur to you that it was very convenient for the BoM to start their records from a cool point in 1910 and thus avoid many earlier heat records from well known and accepted extreme heatwaves throughout the 19th century when there were reliable records of large populations fleeing to the coast to escape the heat?

        That the bulk of this less-than-1c warming [~ half of Nat Var] has occurred alongside the change from manual to auto weather stations?

        Do you think it is unreasonable to audit this huge change in data collection method?

        And have you ever compared a manual to any BoM auto weather station?

        As BJ says, a little humility would convey some scientific philosophy.

        And, considering the potential trillions involved, a little honesty would help, too.

  • michael reed says:

    I’ve said “gobsmacked” at Don’s site before and had the word repeated back to me by an alarmist as a kind of put down.My argument then and still
    now is after 30 years of experience (the definition of climate 30 years of weather) I have seen no major changes in climate.I have seen many predictions
    (as we all have)of “tipping points, and global environmental disasters” but none have materialised.However the tedious discussion of C02 being the MAIN driver of climate still goes on.In the meantime major issues of real human suffering are ignored.The money that has been spent (wasted) on this issue is obscene to say the least.In this time clean drinking water could have been achieved for those who still do not have it now.The spectre of hunger
    of hunger and malnutrition still (now today) affects 800 million people. What I have seen also in this time frame is(here at home in Aus) government policy directing massive subsidies towards renewable energy .While the large scale RET certificates (the money raised through our power bills) helps
    mostly overseas crony capitalists.All this goes on while over 100,000 Australians are in energy poverty -having to make choices over having enough
    food on the plate or just keeping warm!!!! On a lighter note(sarc) think of the number businesses that are reducing their workforce or just closing.These are the very real outcomes demonising and making a “criminal”of the cloudless, odourless gas -C02 (never Carbon ) on which all organic life earth depends.

    • Stu says:

      MR,
      You wrote “My argument then and still
      now is after 30 years of experience (the definition of climate 30 years of weather) I have seen no major changes in climate.”

      Could you clarify that please. I assume you mean you have seen no change in climate in your backyard, or maybe your state, or even the country. Do you realise that while we may see significant changes in the future the big changes are occurring now particularly in the north of the northern hemisphere. Your local observations do not mean much. And BOM certainly disagree with you in the Australian context.

  • Michael reed says:

    Substitue colourless for cloudless -Mike

  • spangled drongo says:

    If our true believers can’t achieve victim status through “Climate Change” and enuresis, they can always try the DNA way:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKxtXzAgGew
    2

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Have any of the guys swimming to Australia from the former island of Tuvalu arrived yet?

  • Stu says:

    Have you ever stopped to consider one of the fundamental differences between those who accept the published and overwhelmingly agreed science of climate change and those relying on belief in some alternative, the deniers?
    I have, and it makes one wonder why people are so predisposed.
    The difference I refer to is the fact that almost certainly all those accepting the science advice would be deleriously happy if it turned out in fifty years that they were wrong, while on the other side the deniers maybe would just be regretting that they held up change that might have made improved the outcome for mankind.
    Which side sounds more rational. In similar vein I wonder how it is that all the well known publishing climate scientists dismiss the work of the few, the Soon’s, Lindzens, Balls, Carters etc. Perhaps it is not quality science.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “…those who accept the published and overwhelmingly agreed science of climate change…”

      When you and they have no empirical evidence to support your groupthink you and they will be most despondent if and when your doomsday predictions fail as many of them already have.

      Yet you keep on moving the goal posts.

      This is so typical of your rationale:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/mediawatch-jo-nova-mclean-newscorp-fools-govt-committees-are-always-right/

      • Stu says:

        No, it is you and the other Trolls here who are subject to groupthink, albeit a very small group. Get with the program. Oh and by the way comment on my point that us science acceptors would be very happy to be proved wrong. How would you climate change denying believers react if through some acceleration of events had to admit you are totally wrong. Big difference I think.

  • MD says:

    Don — Thanks for drawing my attention to the speech. I was fortunate in being exposed to a range of predicted catastrophes, from inexorable immiseration and famine in India, the ‘population bomb’ which would break the global economy and the offbeat and amusing ‘future shock’ (Alvin Toffler) from which we would all suffer. So when catastrophic warming turned up on the public agenda, it looked just like another millenarian prophecy but as a non-scientist, I did not know. Now, after some 30 years, it seems increasingly apparent that a great deal of money has been wasted that could have been much better spent on practical benefits such as clean water and TB eradication.

    Your blog performs a valuable public service, and thanks for putting in so much time into investigating the climate change debate.

  • Stu says:

    Just in case you missed it in the backchat above:

    No, it is you and the other Trolls here who are subject to groupthink, albeit a very small group. Get with the program. Oh and by the way comment on my point that us science acceptors would be very happy to be proved wrong. How would you climate change denying believers react if through some acceleration of events had to admit you are totally wrong. Big difference I think.
    Reply

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Oh and by the way comment on my point that us science acceptors would be very happy to be proved wrong.”

      You’re not very observant are you.

      As I just said: “…you and they will be most despondent if and when your doomsday predictions fail as many of them already have. Yet you keep on moving the goal posts.”

      The fact is, far from being “science acceptors” you have no empirical science whatsoever to either “accept” or to back up your GIGO, assumption-fed, GCM-based “projections” yet you are in complete denial of this simple fact and try to overcome this huge problem with consensus-claiming groupthink.

      In the meantime try living in the real world instead of the one in your dreams.

      Where the real situation is that the little warming we have enjoyed is not only a non-problem and less than natural climate variability but it has improved the climate, the world’s food production and the environment.

      You and your groupthink buddies are simply up to the old Paul Ehrlich trick and you enjoy every minute of the feeling of power it gives.

      Even though you know the costs will be far greater than any benefits.

      • Boambee John says:

        “In the meantime try living in the real world instead of the one in your dreams”.

        And if the correlation between periods of “quiet” sun activity with sharp reductions in global temperature (see Dalton and Maunder minima) turns out to be causation, how deep in the sh1t will the CAGW proponents have left the earth?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “No, it is you and the other Trolls here who are subject to groupthink, albeit a very small group. Get with the program.”

      So the way to avoid groupthink is to join a group? Way to go man!

      On the subject of decades after regrets, if in fifty years time CAGW proponents are “deleriously happy if it turned out in fifty years that they were wrong”, will they (you) have any regrets for the opportunities lost, the people who died from drinking unsafe water that could have been purified with a small fraction of the money spent on CAGW, those who died from preventable illnesses that also might have been avoided, those who died because of the criminal practice of converting food grain to motor fuel? I am sure others here could add more examples of better uses for the trillions that CAGW proponents like the UN’s Christiana Figueres want to spend on renewables.

  • Stu says:

    FFS guys,
    “The fact is, far from being “science acceptors” you have no empirical science whatsoever to either “accept” or to back up your GIGO, assumption-fed, GCM-based “projections” yet you are in complete denial of this simple fact and try to overcome this huge problem with consensus-claiming groupthink.”

    How about almost all climate researchers reports coupled with every national science institute and all the world meteorological organisations. And you scream for empirical data. Fuck off, you are just a bunch of ignorant trolls. Excuse the language but you are beyond reach.

  • Stu says:

    And I should have added that you lot, the believers, are the outliers, the conspiracy theorists, the denialists who continue to be deluded by the fossil funded so called researchers. I am surprised you are not ranting about chem trails as well. Maybe you are in other places. The weight of scientific opinion is totally against you.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Re your two posts at 1008 and 1021, if this kind of screeching hysteria is all you have then you have nothing.

      From your responses, I take it that you will not be offering a rational response to my post at 1959.

      Pity, you seemed more rational than Chris. Apparently not.

      PS, re the “weight of scientific opinion”, science is not based on consensus. Groupthink is.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “The weight of scientific opinion is totally against you.”

      I’ve been telling you about this “scientific opinion” for ages, stu, but you just don’t understand.

      When you ever produce some measurable evidence Instead of simply blithering, we rational sceptics will be more than happy to listen to your “scientific opinion”.

      Make sure you get back to us if this ever happens.

      In the meantime go back and practice your “science” instead of conning people.

    • tripitaka says:

      Stu you have to realise that this blog is a lifeline for those who are not currently enjoying their experience of being in the world as much as they once did.

      This blog provides an opportunity for them to voice their pain and frustration at the meaninglessness of their achievements – after all this climate change ‘nonsense’ and all the other bad things that are happening developed on their watch.

      Poor old Don was handing out
      ARC grants to all sorts of lefties – like me.

      I can feel for them and understand the dissapointment and existential pain that the narrow and shallowness of their very exististence has created and here they are in their dotage with nothing better to do than emulate King Canute.

      It is amusing to stir them up and so easily done. But it’s too easy and really they need empathy ; the poor old buggers are not happy and surely we need to try and understand what leads them to lack any embarrassment at such obvious foolishness. It is particularly interesting and worth study to understand how they can maintain the delusion that they are more intelligent than the scientists who work in the area.

      Of course we all know about Dunning Kruger but what is it that leads to this level of dysfunctional thinking?

      • Boambee John says:

        Tripitaka

        “Stu you have to realise that this blog is a lifeline for those who are not currently enjoying their experience of being in the world as much as they once did.”

        You have our profound sympathy.

        Is there anything we can do to improve your current life experience?

  • michael reed says:

    Well my comment created a real stir for you Stu!! I’ll repeat the world is not ending here in Australia (southern hemisphere) nor is it in the northern
    hemisphere-I’ve been there many times in the last 10 years.So now I’ll stand corrected yep you sure have convinced me that all the hype of a conjecture
    CAGW produced by climate models is infallible and yep I’m an ignorant troll.Oh and by the way that was a nice little rejoinder you made when you told us trolls to “f… off” Okay you must sleep very well at night knowing that people are dying of dysentry through poor water quality, malnutrition ,preventable disease while shamefully ridiculous amounts of tax payer money are being spent on climate change science research.Its your kind that really don’t care about
    real world here and now issues.Okay if I’m a troll (together with others at this site) then you Sir Stu are a very heartless person who must have flushed your moral compass down the toilet a long time ago.
    PS I swear at times -but I would never do that here on Don’s site so thank you again for elevating this discussion to the level of the gutter.
    Yours Very Sincerely Mike Reed

  • Neville says:

    I’m sure that light weight fantasists like some of the people commenting here are beyond any appeal to logic and reason.
    Best to forget about their empty rants and just concentrate on the latest PR scientific studies. Let them follow ignorant fools who tend to use data upside down to try and fool gullible people who haven’t the interest or understanding to know the difference.
    Steve McIntyre has almost turned this into a joke fest at the expense of these con merchants.
    Best to leave these fools to their fantasy world and instead concentrate on the real planet earth.

  • Boambee John says:

    Chris and Stu

    Listen very carefully, I shall say this only wernce.

    Computer models that include multiple “tuneable parameters”, more commonly known as fudge factors, are not empirical data.

    Historical temperature records that have been “adjusted” by an opaque process are not empirical data.

    Current temperature rerords that have been “homogenised” between distant stations using an opaque process are not empirical data.

    Meteorological organisations that cannot reliably predict the weather seven days ahead have no prospect of reliably predicting the climate 20, 50 or 100 years ahead.

    Here endeth the lesson, in accordance with the Chris principle, you will be examined on this matter over the weekend.

  • Stu says:

    A quick question for you denialists to clarify where we are at to get back on track:

    1. Do you deny that there is any change in the climate of the world. Or

    2. Do you agree that things are changing but it has nothing to do with humans over the last 150 years. Or

    3. Yes it is changing but we can’t do anything about it so don’t worry.

    I ask because there seem to be elements of all three in the arguments in this space and it is confusing.

    And Mr Reed, sorry if you are offended by a little profanity indicating my extreme frustration with the continued dismissal of the huge amount of science out there as being merely groupthink. That science covers a myriad of different aspects ranging from the biological through the cryosphere to the atmosphere etc. wheras from what I see here the whole argument seems dependent on references to rubbery (on both sides) figures for temperatures going back millions of years.

    As for Don being offended, I would assume he has a thicker skin than that, but then again as leader of the cult here I guess he is due respect so sorry to him also.

    Cheers.

    P.S. have a look at the 7:30 report on the farming response. Even the National Farmers Federation seem to have succumbed to groupthink, about time too.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      I agree that the climate is changing. It has been changing for millennia, I see no reason that it should stop now.

      I agree that there is some human influence, if only from the collective effect of urban heat islands around the world. Whether this effect is significant in comparison to natural variation remains an open question that no CAGW proponent seems to wish to consider.

      Whether we need to do anything depends on the significance of the human effect, but nothing so far (except computer modelling) suggests that the effect is likely to be catastrophic.

      The Australian Chief Scientist has told a Parliamentart committee that nothing Australia does, including complete decarbonisation, will have any significant effect. The science is “in” on that question.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      If you have to revert to the childish insult “denialists”, then your arguments must be thin.

    • Neville says:

      A question for Stu—– can you understand English? IOW YES I believe that climate changes over time, sometimes thousands of years sometimes 100s of years and sometimes over 30 years.
      If you think that the LIA was simply wonderful, you should tell us why? I’ve given you the entire HAD 4 Crut IPCC bible warm periods and shown the big changes made since 2010, so I don’t have to explain anything.
      This isn’t too difficult to understand so what’s your problem?

    • spangled drongo says:

      You missed the most important question of all, stu.

      This is the one that all alarmists and bed-wetters deny and the simple fact that should make any reasonable person relax and not go into meltdown as you groupthinkers do.

      Here it comes:

      4. Do you agree that the less-than-1c warming that we have enjoyed since the end of the LIA which coincided with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution [around 200 years ago] is well within the bounds of natural climate variability which, according to peer-reviewed science, is around 1c per century for the last 80 centuries?

      We sceptics say “yes”.

      What do you say, stu?

      At least have the courage to answer and supply reasons.

      If you don’t, you are just a time waster.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Here is that global warming for as far back as it goes with empirical [verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory] evidence:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2018/trend

        Nobody denies this warming.

        So stop inferring that anyone does.

        And simply answer Q4.

        • Stu says:

          I note that at the bottom of the Woodfortrees page he says this.

          “Ten years on, it now seems clear to me that CO2 is indeed the primary driver of global warming, which is proceeding at roughly 1.5°C per century, but with some interesting short and long-term cycles overlaid. These cycles can produce shorter-term periods of both flatline and rapid increase, which get both ‘sides’ over-excited.
          However, please remember this is only historical data, and “past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future”. Climate models which do predict the future take into account positive and negative feedbacks such as water vapour, clouds, albedo and frozen methane, and to my mind the most (only?) interesting discussion in this field is around the sign and magnitude of those feedbacks. What this site can do is act as a check on those models and illustrate how the climate system has reacted to past forcings.”

          So your source agrees it is CO2 and the rate is now higher than your pre LIA rate. All in agreement with the research. Hansen et al all say things have never changed as quickly as they are now. And I love how on one hand you rubbish data like HADCRUT as unreliable then on the other use it to draw conclusions in favour of your position.

  • tripitaka says:

    Keep posting ?and giving psychologists more data.

    • Boambee John says:

      The psychologists might be more usefully employed in the groves of academe, providing support to precious petals who somehow manage to combine arrogant certainty as to their own intellectual brilliance with a desperate need for safe spaces in which to hide from the reality of the world?

  • tripitaka says:

    The creditable scientists are the ones who are published in reputable journals and are employed by or work in institutions that have good reputations. It’s just hilarious that you can try and pretend that there is any doubt about the integrity of climate scientists.

    If any of you had the capacity to offer any valid and useful information about the climate change issue, you would have signed up for a science degree and put your money where your mouth is. You would have paid your dues and earned the right to be part of the reputable debate rather than hang around here indulging in a dysfunctional sort of group therapy that provides you with the illusion that you are anything but a bunch of anti-social irrelevant people airing your irritation and irrationality.

    • Boambee John says:

      “It’s just hilarious that you can try and pretend that there is any doubt about the integrity of climate scientists.”

      Two points.

      Have you caught up with the problems with HADCRUT?

      I have a science degree.

      • Chris Warren says:

        In origami?

      • tripitaka says:

        Me too has a science degree – first class honours even. So What?
        You are a hoot, boombadeir John. But it’s too easy to get you going. ? and you are disappointing in that you don’t even get it when you have been well and truly shown to be a pretentious ignorant fool Who rushes in where angels fear to tread.

        • Boambee John says:

          Pot meet kettle.

        • Boambee John says:

          Triptych

          You might have forgotten the bit in your post where you said “you would have signed up for a science degree and put your money where your mouth is”.

          I simply pointed out that I had followed your recommendation, albeit probably before you were born.

          Anticipation?

          • tripitaka says:

            You really are oblivious to your clown like status boombadeir Johnny. A lot of it going around though.

            You really think a basic science degree is enough to qualify anyone to be a credible source of knowledge about climate change? Such ignorance about how science in a civilised society works is impressive, not.

        • Boambee John says:

          So you are not only a precious petal, but an intellectual snob as well.

          But you are quite right, there is a lot of obliviousness to clown like status hete.

          Do you own a mirror? You should look into it.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Tripluv, when you discuss science you need to be specific.

      Don’t handwave.

      Like stu and blith.

      Why don’t you try answering Q4 yourself?

      It would improve your cred no end.

      Just see if you can disprove the general belief that alarmists invoke groupthink and handwave rather than debate the facts.

      • tripitaka says:

        Who said I need to be specific? You just make it up as you go drongo.

      • tripitaka says:

        Lol what would you know about “cred”? Where or what is your cred?

        • spangled drongo says:

          Tripluv, you claim you have been discussing science for the last few hours but not one specific sci statement has come out yet.

          Just blither.

          Even stu asks us to answer specific questions. Even if they’re dumb ones.

          You just dodge and handwave like someone who hasn’t a clue on cli sci.

          But prove me wrong.

          Answer Q4. And give reasons.

          Here it is again:

          4. Do you agree that the less-than-1c warming that we have enjoyed since the end of the LIA which coincided with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution [around 200 years ago] is well within the bounds of natural climate variability which, according to peer-reviewed science, is around 1c per century for the last 80 centuries?

          • tripitaka says:

            You drongo Drongo, you wouldn’t know a specific sci statement or a discussion about science if you fell over them. Wait what am I saying? You fall over them all the time and you don’t even notice the people laughing at your staggeringly inflated belief in your intelligence.
            or increasingly the concern that those who know and love you despite yourself must be feeling and wondering if it might be time to have grandpa’s cognitive functioning checked. Higher levels of dementia in people with rigid thinking patterns, you know.

            Drongo hon, there’s no need for me to prove you wrong or answer your pointless question. When there is a change in the settledness of climate science, I will hear about it from reputable publications and those who have track records of being capable of rational thought and able to cope with complex concepts.

            You have never answered my question as to why I should doubt climate scientists and their findings.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Just as I thought, tripluv, you can’t cope with the simple climate facts coming from the real world.

            So you actually deny that current global warming is less than Nat Var?

            And that this Nat Var has nothing to do with climate science when applied to current warming?

            “You have never answered my question as to why I should doubt climate scientists and their findings.”

            Q4 is that answer. Think about it and get back to me.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    I have responded to your three questions, how about you respond to my post last night about regrets in 50 years time?

  • Stu says:

    BJ,
    You said “On the subject of decades after regrets, if in fifty years time CAGW proponents are “deleriously happy if it turned out in fifty years that they were wrong”, will they (you) have any regrets for the opportunities lost, the people who died from drinking unsafe water that could have been purified with a small fraction of the money spent on CAGW, those who died from preventable illnesses that also might have been avoided, those who died because of the criminal practice of converting food grain to motor fuel? I am sure others here could add more examples of better uses for the trillions that CAGW proponents like the UN’s Christiana Figueres want to spend on renewables.”

    In there are lots of the usual throw away lines of the deniersphere. Easy to answer. Why is fixing CAGW going to prevent fixing the clean water problem etc. The food grain to fuel thing, at least in this country came from your National Party mates propping up Manildra. And what about those who will be healthier when not breathing diesel fumes and heavy metals from coal power plants. And you neatly ignore the payback from operating renewable energy at much lower cost than that black lung inducing coal stuff, and transporting explosive luquids all over the place to keep the US$90Billion profit machine going. The trillions argument is in net terms bull shit.

    Any how, we won’t need 50 years to see where this is going, I will see you back here in ten, or as Tripitaka hints maybe you won’t be. That would explain the head in the sand thing. This is a classic market problem, where the free market (in fuel) has been operating for 150 years without having to acknowledge the social costs of it activity. This includes the mine subsidence, moonscapes, run off from ash dumps etc, not to mention Exon Valdiz. But it is common for folk to not care about the externalities when they wont be around to pay the price.

    Given the tendency here, as in USA, for attitudes to the climate question to be closely linked to political allegiance, you must be shitting yourself about the outcome tomorrow in Wentworth and not soon enough, in the National poll.

    And BJ you refer to our position if proved wrong, but how WILL you react when circumstances prove you wrong? Oh yeah, sorry I forgot you probably won’t be here to answer.

    Tripitaka keep up the good work you argue much better than I do.

    • spangled drongo says:

      And following your reply to BJ, stu, [which I’ll let him respond to] how about answering that very straight forward Q4 I asked twice above.

      Should I take a no-reply as a straight admission that you agree that there isn’t a problem or simply that it conflicts with your true belief in CAGW and you can’t cope with it in either situation?

      • Stu says:

        Spangled Dreadnought,
        You ask:

        “4. Do you agree that the less-than-1c warming that we have enjoyed since the end of the LIA which coincided with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution [around 200 years ago] is well within the bounds of natural climate variability which, according to peer-reviewed science, is around 1c per century for the last 80 centuries?

        Well, let us ruminate on the LIA. It is not clear, (poor stats) if this was localised to Europe (seems likely on the evidence) or global (evidence says not) so your question is non sensical in relation to global temperature.

        Oh and by the way you guys always work on the principle that one degree is trifling. Do I have to remind you we are talking about the average temperature of the whole globe, big difference.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Well, stu, you made a start but don’t stop without saying anything. BTW, one of the recent IPCC reports listed AVERAGE GLOBAL warming since the LIA as 0.6c +/- 0.2c.

          Many science papers establish both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period as climatic anomalies with worldwide imprints, so your claim that the LIA is only local to the northern hemisphere has been well refuted.

          I am trying to point out that after the LIA which was the coldest extended period of the Holocene, the global temperature was only going to go in one direction yet our less-than-1c AVERAGE GLOBAL warming compares with 4c average natural global temp variations for the Holocene.

          And there are historic sea level changes to support this.

          Now please continue with your answer.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    Some brief responses.

    There is such a thing as opportunity cost. Money spent on “fighting” CAGW is money that cannot be spent on such things as providing pure water in the Third World. It is not infinite.

    E10 was (criminally, as I indicated) produced in Australia partly at the behest of the Nationals. We are, however, only small beer in the world wide production of E10. It is just as criminal wherever it is produced. Don’t try to suggest that I defend its productiin.

    While you are expressing concern about the air quality near fossil fuelled power plants here, I note little concern about people in the Third World cooking over far more polluting open fires.

    The long term payback from operating renewables ignores both the shorter operating life of solar and wind generators compared to fossil plants and the heavy pollution (again largely in less developed countries) from their manufacture. The disposal costs and pollution impact are also not yet apparent, but will be significant.

    As an aside, why do you seem less concerned about bad pollution in the Third World than much lower levels of pollution in western countries? Do you regard Third World people as of lesser value?

    Finally, it must have been an oversight, but you seem not to have responded re the advice of Australia’s Chief Scientist that nothing we do here will have any significant effect.

  • Boambee John says:

    PS I have no axe to grind in Wentworth. My interest in the stupidities of eastern Sydney nongs is low. You should try to avoid stereotyping people based on limited knowledge.

    Similarly you should not assume that I have no long term interest in the future. I have both children and grandchildren, and care what world they will live in. Your comment is a cheap shot that demonstrates the limitations of your argument.

    You are correct, though. Tripitaka does argue better than you. That is not to say that he/she is any good at arguing, just that he/she is better than you.

  • Stu says:

    Have you guys noticed how few play here? I only step in out of a sense of fun though I deny trolling, just dealing in facts. This is a dead argument. If you had any sense you would just ignore my posts which, have you noticed, are all at odds with your dogma. BTW did you see the statement by Shell, who must be having an attack of the guilts, promising to connect 100 million third world people to electricity by 2030, using Solar and small scale biomass. Hooray

    Meeeoooowwww.

  • Boambee John says:

    Shell wants a share of that $38 trillion?

  • Boambee John says:

    And at this point we accept your gracious acknowledgement of your lack of anything of substance to say. Enjoy the emptiness of your dogma.

  • Neville says:

    Another benefit of a warming world is that less people die from deadly cold spells. Jo Nova has just posted on Aussie deaths from heatwaves, colds spells or temp variation.
    Cold spells are the big killer and the huge Lancet study also supported these findings all around the world. In fact the ratio is about 6 to 1. ( heat versus cold)
    So once again we find that some extra warming since the LIA is something we should be grateful for and of course life expectancy today has doubled around the world.
    China’s life expectancy has surged since their extreme use of coal and is the same as western countries in the larger cities.
    All inconvenient facts I’m sure, but I’m describing the real planet earth, not some fantasy world.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/despite-record-heat-six-times-as-many-people-die-of-cold-in-australia-not-heat/#more-61232

    • tripitaka says:

      Hahaha what a great example of virtue signalling, Norty Nev. As if you care about the leaners who can’t afford electricity or to prevent themselves being killed by the environment. Surely they are losers and snowflakes and must have genes that mean they should be either working for the wealth creator’s or allowed to die out?

      Clearly you and the people who fit into BJ’s royal we category made the right choices throughout your wonderfully productive lives and it’s unfair that those who were too stupid and lazy to set themselves up should get any of your hard earned.

      Actually though Nev, life expectancy may be increasing in China and of course for you with those cognitive bugs that infest your old man brain, you see this as a direct result of burning coal the reality is that life expectancy is dropping in western countries.

      But really, it’s a good thing don’t you think, that life expectancy is dropping in western countries? It’s poor white women in the US who are leading this much needed correction. Google it yourself.

      But hang on! Maybe those scientists who do population research have been corrupted by the all powerful alarmists.

      • Boambee John says:

        You don’t really read what others post do you? Such posts are simply the vehicle for you to virtue signal.

        If you go to my last group of posts to Stu before he retired from the fray, you will find that I was at pains to point out that much western virtue signalling over CAGW comes at a cost in pollution and lower standards of living in the Third World.

        Still, I am intrigued that you have convinced yourself that people whom you probably regard as alt-right racists should be happy with falling life expectancy among white westerners.

        As I said to Stu, you might be better at arguing a case than Stu, but you are still not very good at it.

        • tripitaka says:

          No I don’t read your comments for any information about the fundamental irrationality of the standard right wing tropes. Everyone knows your basic ideology and that it’s a joke made up by irrelevant white people who have formed themselves into a loud and ugly identity group.

          Now like Stu I am bored and my performance artwork is over.

          Lordy lordy. A fray you say? Hahaha. It’s frayed and fraught but there is no contest. You lose.

          • Boambee John says:

            Yet you put so much effort into countering those “irrelevant white people” who seem to be your obsession.

            But please feel free to also withdraw from the fray now that you are reduced to the bottom end of the insult scale, racial stereotyping.

          • Boambee John says:

            “You lose”

            Pigeon chess?

  • Neville says:

    Here is a part of the huge Lancet study of deaths from different temps/countries around the world. Cold temps are the biggest killer and heatwaves and moderate heat deaths are tiny.
    So much for the dummies who think the LIA was a wonderful time to be alive. BTW average life expectancy in 1800 was under 40 years of age and most of the world’s population were poor and sick.

    https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/79cee7d6-8e9d-4659-a6cf-f334e1403498/gr2.jpg

    • tripitaka says:

      Hope you haven’t been triggered Nevvie. You seem to be going off half-cocked as they say.

      So where is the data set that is being used to calculate this average life expectancy before 1800? Possible to check it for errors and for irrational and flawed assumptions? You sure it is reputable scientists making this claim?

      • Neville says:

        Trip you are a gullible fool and probably too ignorant to learn anything new.
        Here’s Dr Rosling’s history of the world since 1810 and his work was mostly funded by the US State dept. Just a pity Obama and his silly Science???? adviser Holdren didn’t understand their own data and evidence. This is from his BBC program.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Neville

          Yet again you have posted stuff that contradicts your dogma.

          Rosling specifically called for “Green Technology”.

          His presentation did not chart the associated rise in CO2 that was caused by deforestation, population increase and latterly, fossil fuel exploitation since 1810.

          “Green technology” is not fossil fuel.

          Maybe you could hunt up Rosling’s views on carbon emissions?

          Why didn’t you link to videos where Rosling shows the pattern of carbon emissions and specifically calls for the use of less fossil fuels?

          Do I have to do your homework for you?

          • Neville says:

            Chris, stop your nonsense, I’ve shown you the data since 1810 and if you can’t understand it I’m sorry.
            But by all means show me where Rosling advocates the use of dumb S&W energy and then show me the difference it would make to your so called CAGW?
            At the moment the world generates just 0,8% of TOTAL energy from S&W and even you seemed to understand that Paris COP 21 is just BS and fra-d.
            But be the first to tell us how to mitigate your so called CAGW and include real data for 2040 and 2100?

          • Chris Warren says:

            Neville

            You seem to have suffered a short-circuit in your brain.

            Rosling’s call for less fossil fuel is NOT your “S&W energy”.

            Why would you move goal posts like this? Denialist trick number 2.

            If you want to champion the benefits of industrialisation since 1810 the you also have to champion the harm it has done to the global climate system.

            Otherwise you are just cherry-picking comfort facts and ignoring Inconvenient Truths.

          • Neville says:

            Chris you haven’t got a clue. But if you’d like to live 200 years ago in your perfect LIA climate, you could move to a very cold part of the world with no mod cons or modern health care, or communications or electricity ETC and I’m sure you’d be very happy, NOT.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Neville

            You haven’t answered the question.

            Why cherry-pick just one theme from Rosling that did not mention CO2 while ignoring all the other Rosling videos which do explore CO2?

          • Boambee John says:

            “Otherwise you are just cherry-picking comfort facts and ignoring Inconvenient Truths.”

            Cherry picking as defined by Chris is posting something he doesn’t agree with.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            By adding in the videos missed by Neville – I have negated his cherry-picking.

            This is the opposite to your claim.

        • tripitaka says:

          I know I know Nev; the bloody Kenyan born Muslim magic negro Obama did so much damage to the world order and western civilization. So powerful those black men eh? But clown shoes McFckface Trump the magnificent entrepreneur and deal maker is fixing things.

          Any day now Trump dumpy will come across this blog and all the evidence he needs to smash and discredit all that fake climate science will be at his very short fingertips. He can copy and paste the drongo question to end all questions and send it to all the underpaid overworked grad students working with climate science and then we’ll see the truth come out and fools like me will be silenced. ?

  • Chris Warren says:

    An important essay by scientists…

    https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/glacier_balance.html

    • spangled drongo says:

      No blith, there’s nothing important about that essay. Glaciers come and go and NSDIC never stop telling us about the problem with land ice melting and yet local sea levels are lower than they were 70 years ago.

      I’ve been suggesting you go and check your local beaches at king tide for years, blith.

      Have you done it yet?

      As a builder of sea front infrastructure all my life, I have been checking sea levels all my life and there is nothing more revealing about sea levels than solid infrastructure like long, level, reinforced concrete sea walls built to the old king tide height datum.

      On all those sites going back to as far as 1946 modern king tides are lower today than they were then.

      When “scientific” groupthink tells us we must deny our own observations and believe their consensual science, it is only the sheeple who go along with it.

      • Stu says:

        I think you will find that simply measuring king tides is not a good measure of actual sea level. It is much more complex than that. Just saying!

        • Boambee John says:

          He’s baaaack!

        • spangled drongo says:

          “It is much more complex than that.”

          You can make it as complex as you like, stu, especially if you have no idea but wish to impress your faculty however it’s the highest point the sea regularly comes to that is the crucial aspect of SLR as it affects humans.

          And if that height not only fails to increase but actually falls, when the “experts” are telling you the exact opposite, what is that telling you about the rest of their climate “science”?

          That observation of sea levels is a simple thing that people can easily check against benchmarks that go back many decades, but why do they choose to avoid such obvious empirical data?

          Could it be that they are determined to believe something that may not be happening?

          BTW, there was a Greens group who called themselves “King Tide Watch” who were going to demonstrate to the world the catastrophe that is befalling us by reporting on the ever-rising king tides.

          They have gone very quiet in recent years.

  • Boambee John says:

    Yet you put so much effort into countering those “irrelevant white people” who seem to be your obsession.

    But please feel free to also withdraw from the fray now that you are reduced to the bottom end of the insult scale, racial stereotyping.

  • JimboR says:

    An important speech by Pauline Hanson…… channeling Malcolm Roberts? (Jump to 17:00).

    https://iview.abc.net.au/show/shaun-micallefs-mad-as-hell/series/9/video/LE1814V005S00

  • Neville says:

    I just tried a number of temp trends for the different data-sets, using WFTs.
    The RSS V 4 satellite trend 1979.1 to 2018.9 is the most extreme and UAH V 6 is the lowest trend. No surprise there.
    Of the surface data-sets GISS and Best both have higher trends than HAD 4 Crut.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979.1/to:2018.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979.1/to:2018.9/trend/plot/best/from:1979.1/to:2018.9/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979.1/to:2018.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1979.1/to:2018.9/trend/plot/uah5/trend:1979.1/to:2018.9/trend

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, what is most interesting and telling of the gatekeepers’ mindset is that their “adjustments” only ever seem to go in one direction these days whereas back in the ’70s it was the reverse:

      “If you really wanted to melt the polar ice cap, spreading a layer of black, heat-absorbing soot over the North Pole should do the trick very neatly in about three years

      There are more schemes for controlling climate now than for controlling the climate controllers.”

      Steven Schneider National Center For Atmospheric Research 1975

      https://realclimatescience.com/2018/09/out-of-control-climate-scientists/

      If we ever needed evidence of sci groupthink…

  • Neville says:

    SD you’re correct and I’m finding that even so called sceptics have a hard time understanding some of the data manipulation. Or perhaps outright corruption?
    Dr Nic Lewis is a maths Professor and he and Dr Curry have provided recent studies that show a lower (GHG forced) temp trend.
    I presented my post about HAD 4 Crut changes since 2010 and after Jones’s BBC interview and this was Dr Lewis’s response.

    niclewis | October 20, 2018 at 9:49 am | Reply

    ngard2016,
    ” HadCRUT is not perfect, but I would trust its temperature record more that GISTEMP or NOAA GlobalTemp. Some revisions to past values are to be expected, as more historical records are dug out, and homogenisation adjustments to the data reappraised (particularly in relation to ship measurements of SST). The revisions are only a cause for concern if they have not been pursued in an even handed way, but with a bias towards favouring changes that depress early temperatures and boost recent ones”.

    To be fair he was the only prominent expert to offer any response after I decided to link it at WUWT and Climate etc.
    Even some of the well known activists like Mosher, Zeke etc gave it a miss and Bob Tisdale didn’t offer an explanation either.
    Nic seems to agree with me at the end but I’m a little concerned about his response as well. I mean I’m not the one making these big changes to the IPCC preferred data-set that started 168 years ago.
    And all this has changed just 8 years after Jones’s admission about temp trends to the BBC in 2010. What’s going on?

  • Neville says:

    Sorry here is the link to Nic Lewis’s latest post at Climate etc. Very interesting from Nic as usual.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/18/remarkable-changes-to-carbon-emission-budgets-in-the-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c/

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks Neville. That seems a much more reasonable and logical step, to include SST [which is 70% of the earth’s surface] instead of using SAT for the total calculation of past warming.

      The “science” mustn’t be “settled” after all.

      Even if they [strangely] don’t use that for future warming.

      So, what the IPCC are now saying in their SR15 report is that Total Global Warming is now only about 0.5c since 1850.

      Less than one third the rate of Nat Var for this period!!!

      And warming will be delayed even further as now the “carbon budget” for a 50% probability of meeting the 1.5c warming, from 1 January 2018 is from 110 GtCO2 to 570 GtCO2 – over five times as high.

      And as Nic says, “What’s the betting that the new SR15 carbon budgets will also turn out to be unrealistically low?”

      And yet alarmists use this latest IPCC report as an excuse for more climate panic [as claimed in yesterday’s Wentworth by-election].

      When in actual fact by applying logic to their specifics there is really nothing happening to be the slightest bit alarmed about.

      Interesting that the MSM fail to report this.

      • Neville says:

        The Wentworth by election has narrowed and Phelps has a lead of about 880 odd votes.
        Postal votes seem to be supporting Sharma, I certainly hope so. Here’s the AEC Tally room updates.

        https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-22844-152.htm

        • Chris Warren says:

          Neville

          As ever, your link contradicts your statement.

          Phelps is moving further ahead of Sharma – over 1,500 as at:

          Mon, 22 Oct 2018 2:44:15 PM AEDT

          Phelp’s has expressed support for stronger action on Climate Change even when not prompted by a journalist’s question.

          So if she gets elected, it will be one small step by a women, one giant leap for Parliament.

          • spangled drongo says:

            You surely could’ve waited another day or two before replying, blith.

            Just think of all that extra ammunition you might have wasted.

          • Neville says:

            Chris we understand you’re a bit on the slow side, but look at my last sentence and notice the word UPDATES and then perhaps you’ll understand?
            I never claimed I could forecast the result and I certainly never claimed the 884 number wouldn’t be more or less in another few hours of counting.
            I know we shouldn’t reply to donkeys but you are as clueless as they come.
            But by all means tell us how Phelps should act on your so called CAGW delusion?

          • Chris Warren says:

            Neville

            Yes everything you say, needs to be updated with the subsequent facts.

            Nothing new here.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Can the alarmist trolls explain why the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project found only one country (it wasn’t Tuvalu, or Kiribati, it was Samoa) out of the 13 surveyed) recorded a significant rise in sea level over the past thirty years?

  • spangled drongo says:

    The true believers in the climate propaganda are now so emotionally overcome by our endangerment that they want all an out war so they can get their minds right.

    And these are the people who so many want to run the world:

    https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/19/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-global-warming-nazis/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Ah! The wisdom of the kiddies!

    Groupthink propaganda at it’s finest.

    Makes you feel so confident of our grandchildren’s future:

    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/20/teen-climate-activist-crowd-thousands-we-cant-save-world-playing-rules-because-rules

  • spangled drongo says:

    The SJWs who are taking over and destroying the world as we know it, will wake up too late:

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ToDsfkwvikw?rel=0&showinfo=0&autoplay=1

  • Neville says:

    Here is an interview with Dr Pat Michaels giving us the facts about their CAGW nonsense.
    Michaels is a strict data man and is probably in the Lindzen peer group on this subject. But why is the world responding to the fudged modeling and why doesn’t the media explain this to the wider electorate?
    This interview is very recent ( perhaps a few days) and i’ll try to find a longer video if I can. Well worth your time if you want to understand the evidence about their so called CAGW.

  • Neville says:

    Here is the full 21st OCT interview with Pat Michaels, but audio only. I’m sure we’ll miss out on some important graphs etc, but it’s the best I can do for now.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Peter Smith

    Blinded by ‘Science’

    Just in case the earth starts to cool the warmists are already ready with an explanation. This is from LiveScience[ii]

    “A periodic solar event called a “grand minimum” could overtake the sun perhaps as soon as 2020 and lasting through 2070, resulting in diminished magnetism, infrequent sunspot production and less ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth — all bringing a cooler period to the planet that may span 50 years.”

    But wait, “it’s unlikely that we’ll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported” And why is that? You need not ask. It’s because of climate change.

    “You see, its not just rain when drought was predicted, or snow when it was predicted to disappear, or increased tempests and storms which have not increased, or inundated islands which aren’t. Even if it cools across the globe it would have cooled more but for man-made climate change. And you can bet your house that however cold it might get it would have got colder. This is a quite marvellous theory totally impervious to evidence. It is undisprovable. Like Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh.

    Climate science has become a joke – a bad one. A faith-based theory has taken over evidence-based science.”

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2018/10/blinded-science/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Ninety seven percent of rocket scientists agree – NASA climate science is junk science.

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2017_12_03_18_48_41-down.png

    • Stu says:

      Can’t you find some current bullshit quote to publish? That one is six years old and has not been followed up. Also that is Huffpo which is not the lead source on anything much. Dodgy reference to authority, which sort of missed the target given their area of expertise. Much like here really.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Waffling and blithering as usual, hey stu?:

        March 28, 2012

        The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
        NASA Administrator
        NASA Headquarters
        Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

        Dear Charlie,

        We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

        The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

        As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

        For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

        Thank you for considering this request.

        Sincerely,

        (Attached signatures)

        CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

        CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

        Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

        /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

        /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

        /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

        /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

        /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

        /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

        /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

        /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

        /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

        /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

        /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

        /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

        /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

        /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

        /s/ Anita Gale

        /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

        /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

        /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

        /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

        /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

        /s/ Thomas J. Harmon

        /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

        /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

        /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

        /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

        /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

        /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

        /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

        /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

        /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

        /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

        /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

        /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

        /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

        /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

        /s/ Tom Ohesorge

        /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

        /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

        /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

        /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

        /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

        /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

        /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

        /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

        /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

        /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

        /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

        /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

        /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

  • Stu says:

    Yes as I thought, everyone of them is a working, publishing climate scientist – NOT. Dodgy reference to authority.

    • spangled drongo says:

      What you fail to understand is that it is your “working, publishing climate scientist” who has been shown for the fabricator he/she is, along with their reviewers, that is the root of the problem, as opposed to the hands-on scientist who is not financially and philosophically tied to the outcome who is prepared to state the truth.

  • Stu says:

    And read this article for a more up to date and lucid explanation of where climate science is at:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/opinion/climate-change-global-warming-trump.html

    • spangled drongo says:

      And stu produces more blither from one of the best blitherers in the business who fails to produce any empirical evidence as usual.

      Read a little of what our IPCC is really saying even though the MSM will never mention it, then tell us how you are so certain that the tiny amount of warming based on the true global surface temp is anything other than Nat Var.

      https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/18/remarkable-changes-to-carbon-emission-budgets-in-the-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c/

      • Stu says:

        You really are priceless. But I would still like to know what drives your obstinacy. Is it religion, you own a bucket load of coal shares, you are part of the Abbott right wing of the Liberal party, you failed science at school and have been trying to make up for it ever since? Or something even more esoteric. Did you even read the article by Schmidt? I suspect you just like cults and have stumbled into the biggest cult of all apart from the flat earthers and moon landing hoax folks. Which is it I dare you to answer.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Enough of the boring ad hom, stueyluv and a little more of the evidence if you don’t mind.

          If you think your mate Gavin’s article was so good why couldn’t you come up with just one bit of that measurable stuff called empirical evidence?

          Could it possibly be because it wasn’t there?

          And never has been?

          I couldn’t find it. And without it, all you are left with is blither.

          BTW, did you read my link about the reduction in the historic warming by the IPCC?

          And the increase in our “carbon budget” of 500%?

          All because a few climate scientists got honest for a change and were forced to accept reality.

          To the point where current warming is even a smaller fraction of Nat Var than it was before.

          No?

          I didn’t think you did. But try educating yourself anyway.

          It will help you to answer my Q4 above that you are still dodging.

          • Stu says:

            Mate,
            Neither of us I feel is probably competant to engage in actual scientific debate on this subject because we are not qualified in all or even any of the subset of scientific areas that almagamate into the totality of climate science. All we can do is point to relevant papers by people who are competant. My position is that I choose to follow mainstream thinkers who are acknowledged by their peers while you stick with fringe players whose work is either refuted by the work of others or just plain ignored as silly.
            In consequence this trifling debate space is a waste of everyones time. And it is interesting that it is the same small group who participate in all the threads on the DA space. I must say though that I find it interesting that Don has finally posted an essay which has you guys on the other foot and opposing him. The right wing underlayer is showing through. Good luck.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Yes stu, only you mean mainstream GROUP thinkers.

            Who you claim are “competant”. [sic]

            How much “qualification” do you need to see that these people are in denial of the real world and fiddling the books.

            Check the SLR that they bed-wet over.

            Check the real temp increases that even the IPCC admits to but nobody talks about.

            Then check how much more extreme it has been during the Holocene when ACO2 did not apply.

            This isn’t a “trifling” debate.

            Mostly the groupthinkers won’t debate at all. And you know why.

            And you haven’t even noticed yet that us non-groupthinkers make up our own minds about any particular problem.

            It’s known as “thinking for yourself”.

            Try it sometime.

  • Neville says:

    Another new study shows that cold spells are the biggest killer and we benefit from the slight warming over the last 168 years. Indeed cold winters are a very dangerous time for poor elderly people trying to keep their homes warm.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6312003/How-winter-prove-deadly-Heart-attack-rates-highest-temperatures-0-C.html

    And another new study finds that most atoll Islands in the Indian and Pacific oceans are either growing or stable and this backs up the recent Kench et al study that some of our stupid pollies tried to ignore.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/new-study-reveals-90-of-global-atolls-are-stable-or-growing/

  • Neville says:

    More nonsense from Phelps, your ABC and the clueless ACF and easily refuted by Bolt using just some of the latest trends.

    But actual trends and data are the last thing these con merchants care about. And the RS & NAS report tells us that there will be no change to temps for thousands of years, EVEN IF we carry out the Paris COP 21 BS and fra-d to the letter. In fact if we ceased all emissions today it still wouldn’t make a difference.

    Here’s the link to the expanded graphs from the RS report. Meanwhile non OECD emissions continue to soar.

    https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/fig9-large.jpg?la=en-GB

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/how-the-abc-pushes-its-warming-religion/news-story/8da32110d8d3bea91db8eb6d828572f6

    HOW THE ABC PUSHES ITS WARMING RELIGION
    Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
    an hour ago

    “Want to see how shamelessly the ABC promotes the warming scare? How it promotes politicians who mindlessly repeated its alarmist dogma? How it fails to mention a single scientific fact?

    Listen to this incredibly soft interview on AM with an Australian Conservation Foundation preacher and independent politician Kerryn Phelps.

    This is propaganda, not reporting and it is certainly not science.

    To cite just one example, the ACF shill seriously claims that Australia can adopt global I thought Sabra Lane was better than this.

    A sample of her marshmallow questions:

    Kelly O’Shanassy, how will you encourage your half a million supporters to be part of this campaign?

    Kerryn Phelps, you will be in the audience for this speech. Why are you going?

    Kelly O’Shanassy,… you’re naming three seats today. Two are the Liberal marginals of Chisholm and Bonner and you are also targeting the new seat of McNamara… What exactly will you do in those electorates?

    You were with Bill Shorten earlier this year as he visited the Great Barrier Reef are you disappointed or pleased with his positioning so far?

    No statement was too stupid or alarmist for Sabra to challenge, including this nonsense from O’Shanassy:

    If we continue to burn coal for decades to come then we will put at risk the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

    In fact, more people die of cold than heat. A warming world has so far seen crops increase, cyclones decrease, wealth rise and average lifetimes extend.

    Moreover, warming so far this century has been minimal and well under most predictions”.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Looks like Neville got something right – but only by linking to the Royal Society. It looks like we are headed to CO2 at ner 2000 ppm.

    Looks like Neville got everything else wrong – simply by linking to the drongo Bolt with its fake news;

    “Moreover, warming so far this century has been minimal and well under most predictions”.

    Fake, Fake, Fake.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Hey, Neville, aren’t the blitherers amazing the way they are either unable or refuse to supply any factual data to support their arguments?

    And feel that assumption followed by assertion beats evidence every time?

    Now, I’ll be very gentle with your tortured mind, blith.

    How much global warming has actually occurred since the onset of the industrial revolution?

    Try starting from absolute basics and go on from there.

    Just one gentle step at a time so as not to get unhinged.

  • Neville says:

    Bolt is correct, there has been a drop in recent warming. Go back to say 1997.2 and check using York tool and you’ll find that warming since then is under 1 c / century. Using UAH V6 of course and RSS V 3 is even less.

    And have a look at the start and end points of the graph and you’ll understand why I’ve chosen 1997.2. Certainly no cherry pick.

    The Bolter always quotes the science and data while the delusional fantasists avoid it like the plague. BTW Jo Nova has a look at the latest polling that shows little differences between voters concerns issue by issue. Renewable energy is not a major concern and wouldn’t rate at all if people properly understood the RS data and Hansen’s “BS and fra-d” quote.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/80-of-australian-dont-want-the-government-to-put-renewables-ahead-of-costs-health-housing-jobs-etc/

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      Your serious inability is now obvious.

      You will not know what the warming rate per century is starting from 1997 until 2097.

      Where, in you copy pasting from Bolt did it say; “there has been a drop in recent warming”? What para? What sentence?

      Why did you jump to non-current data RSSv3 when current data RSSv4 is available and exposes your frantic cherry picking.

      If you want to use UAHv6 why not start at 1990 or 2000? How about starting at 1980? Try 1970 and maybe even 2010.

      Your dirty trick was to ensure the 1998 El Nino aberration was included in your starting point to generate more fake news..

  • spangled drongo says:

    What our blithering mate doesn’t get is; if temps started from where they should have in the late ’70s they would now be just where they were in the ’40s:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-10-28161151_shadow-1.png

  • Neville says:

    Chris, like it or lump it I’m just testing THEIR so called temp data-sets. I notice you said ZIP when I pointed out the extreme changes to the IPCC’s choice HAD 4 Crut in only the last 8 years?
    They now claim that this 1975 to 2009 trend is 0.193/decade, certainly a lot higher than it was in the 2010 BBC interview. And the two earlier warming trends have also been adjusted down just to increase the overall trend I suppose? But of course you being the greatest picker of nits thinks this is okay as long as it helps your silly arguments.
    You’re the con merchant not me and I’ll continue to show THEIR data any way I please and if it annoys you that will just be an added bonus.
    But you can be assured I will only use their data and not tamper with it, like the extreme recent adjustments made by Jones and Co.

  • Neville says:

    More commonsense from Prof Michael Asten about the so called consensus on their so called CAGW.

    “The ABC today continued its fact-free, shiny-eyed hyping of global warming.

    But scientist Michael Asten, a retired professor of geophysics, says what the ABC won’t:

    “Australians do not appreciate the level of doubt about IPCC science in the science community. We agree the global climate has warmed in the past century and CO2 is contributing to it. What is in doubt is the relative contribution of natural variations and anthropogenic CO2…

    At seminars this year, I have met colleagues working in association with the CSIRO who are aware of differing views within that organisation. They tell me management “discourages” challenges to the IPCC consensus. So, do such views not reach the Science Minister as he helps shape our national response?

    The government is under pressure from the IPCC to join in the decarbonisation efforts it recommends, supposedly to restrict the rise in global temperatures to 1.5C by 2100. I will leave to others the debate over the cost to Australia of abiding by the Paris Agreement — the potential loss of jobs, energy prices and the loss of energy-intensive industries.

    But external costs also will be large; the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has a goal for its Green Climate Fund to spend $US100 billion annually from 2020, with Australia having been “assessed” as responsible for 4.25 per cent of this cost… If we accept this obligation from the UNFCCC, we are saddling our children and grandchildren with an obligation for $A60bn across a decade..

    One scientific example clearly illustrates the controversy within the science.

    The global temperature record supplied by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia for the years 1850 to 2010, can be compared against climate models accepted by the IPCC; the fit, as noted in IPCC assessment reports, is good enough to satisfy the IPCC and validate its modelling.

    However, Nicola Scafetta, of the University of Naples, who has studied natural cycles of climate change in multiple peer-reviewed papers, has taken a closer look at that data and found natural cycles of change embedded in it. After building those natural variations into a set of the same-climate models, he obtains a statistically better fit between observed data and modelling.

    In particular, the temperature slowdown, or “pause”, post-2000 fits Scafetta’s models. They are fascinating since they forecast future global warming to be about half of that used by the IPCC in its demands for urgent action to avoid climate disaster”.

  • Neville says:

    The Friends of Science group brought out their latest report challenging the latest IPCC SR 15 . Well worth a read and point no 7 is something I’d like proper verification of, perhaps even a study that makes this claim.
    I’ve seen this claim many times over the years.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/31/rebuttal-ipcc-sr15-climate-change-report-is-based-on-faulty-premises/#comment-2506530

  • Neville says:

    Here is Dr Lomborg’s recent article from the WSJ. Prof Nordhaus understands the futility of the latest nonsense from the IPCC and Lomborg looks again at some of the arguments.
    But will the Govts and pollies ever wake up. Very simple maths but they still don’t get it? Why is it so?

    U.N. Ignores Economics Of Climate

    New Nobel laureate William Nordhaus says the costs of proposed CO2 cuts aren’t worth it.

    By Bjorn Lomborg

    Oct. 9, 2018 6:51 p.m. ET

    “Yale professor William Nordhaus speaks in New Haven, Conn., Oct. 8.
    Yale professor William Nordhaus speaks in New Haven, Conn., Oct. 8. Photo: michelle mcloughlin/Reuters
    .
    The global economy must be transformed immediately to avoid catastrophic climate damage, a new United Nations report declares. Climate economist William Nordhaus has been made a Nobel laureate. The events are being reported as two parts of the same story, but they reveal the contradictions inherent in climate policy—and why economics matters more than ever.

    Limiting temperatures to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels, as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urges, is economically and practically impossible—as Mr. Nordhaus’s work shows. The IPCC report significantly underestimates the costs of getting to zero emissions. Fossil fuels provide cheap, efficient power, whereas green energy remains mostly uncompetitive. Switching to more expensive, less efficient technology slows development. In poor nations that means fewer people lifted out of poverty. In rich ones it means the most vulnerable are hit by higher energy bills.

    The IPCC says carbon emissions need to peak right now and fall rapidly to avert catastrophe. Models actually reveal that to achieve the 2.7-degree goal the world must stop all fossil fuel use in less than four years. Yet the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 fossil fuels will still meet three-quarters of world energy needs, even if the Paris agreement is fully implemented. The U.N. body responsible for the accord estimates that if every country fulfills every pledge by 2030, CO2 emissions will be cut by 60 billion tons by 2030. That’s less than 1% of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 2.7 degrees. And achieving even that fraction would be vastly expensive—reducing world-wide growth $1 trillion to $2 trillion each year by 2030.

    The European Union promises to cut emissions 80% by 2050. With realistic assumptions about technology, and the optimistic assumption that the EU’s climate policy is very well designed and coordinated, the average of seven leading peer-reviewed models finds EU annual costs will reach €2.9 trillion ($3.3 trillion), more than twice what EU governments spend today on health, education, recreation, housing, environment, police and defense combined. In reality, it is likely to cost much more because EU climate legislation has been an inefficient patchwork. If that continues, the policy will make the EU 24% poorer in 2050.

    Trying to do more, as the IPCC urges, would be phenomenally expensive. It is important to keep things in perspective, challenging as that is given the hysterical tone of the reaction to the panel’s latest offering. In its latest full report, the IPCC estimated that in 60 years unmitigated global warming would cost the planet between 0.2% and 2% of gross domestic product. That’s simply not the end of the world.

    The new report has no comparison of the costs and benefits of climate targets. Mr. Nordhaus’s most recent estimate, published in August, is that the “optimal” outcome with a moderate carbon tax is a rise of about 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Reducing temperature rises by more would result in higher costs than benefits, potentially causing the world a $50 trillion loss.

    It’s past time to stop pushing so hard for carbon cuts before alternative energy sources are ready to take over. Instead the world must focus on resolving the technology deficit that makes switching away from fossil fuels so expensive. Genuine breakthroughs are required to drive down the future price of green energy.

    Copenhagen Consensus analysis shows a ramped-up green-energy research-and-development budget of around $100 billion a year would be the most effective global-warming policy. It would be much cheaper than the approach pushed by the IPCC, and would not require global consensus. Most important, it would have a much better chance of ameliorating temperature rises. Under the IPPC’s approach, by contrast, the costs would vastly outweigh the benefits. Instead, the over-the-top reception to the latest IPCC report means that we are more likely to continue down a pathway where the costs would vastly outweigh the benefits”.

    Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It.”

  • Neville says:

    Even more evidence that their ABC are treating weak minded donkeys like idiots. Yet another study supports the Kench study about the health of island states. But there are plenty of religious fools who still want to believe in their
    CAGW fantasies.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/abc-disappearing-islands-claim-proved-false-again/news-story/3fcaf6b1187d279f06f0bcb9e794db84

  • Neville says:

    Even the latest IPCC report doesn’t show any increase in extreme weather events.
    And despite an increase of about 5 bn people over the last 100 years the number of deaths from extreme weather events per year has fallen dramatically. In fact that number has fallen by at least 97% per year since the 1920s. See Dr Rosling and Dr Goklany recent studies.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/ipcc-report-extreme-weather-events-not-getting-worse/

  • Neville says:

    Another new 2018 study finds that deaths from higher temps in Spanish cities have fallen over the last 36 years.
    I also wonder how much of that temp increase is due to the UHIE found in most cities around the world? IOW a temp increase from more bitumen, more concrete less shade and more housing density + much larger airports + traffic etc and not so much the increase in co2 levels ?

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V21/oct/a9.php

  • spangled drongo says:

    Considering SST is 70% of the earth’s surface could this new paper on unresolved biases in 20th century sea-surface temperature observations have any bearing on genuine global warming?

    Abstract

    Biases in sea-surface temperature observations lead to larger uncertainties in our understanding of mid-to-late 20th century climate variability than previously thought.

    A new analysis of sea-surface temperature (SST) observations indicates notable uncertainty in observed decadal climate variability in the second half of the 20th century, particularly during the decades following World War II. The uncertainties are revealed by exploring SST data binned separately for the two predominant measurement types: “engine-room intake” (ERI) and “bucket” measurements. ERI measurements indicate large decreases in global-mean SSTs from 1950 to 1975, whereas “bucket” measurements indicate increases in SST over this period before bias adjustments are applied but decreases after they are applied. The trends in the bias adjustments applied to the “bucket” data are larger than the global-mean trends during the period 1950-1975, and thus the global-mean trends during this period derive largely from the adjustments themselves. This is critical, since the adjustments are based on incomplete information about the underlying measurement methods, and are thus subject to considerable uncertainty. The uncertainty in decadal-scale variability is particularly pronounced over the North Pacific, where the sign of low-frequency variability through the 1950s-1970s is different for each measurement type. The uncertainty highlighted here has important – but in our view widely overlooked – implications for the interpretation of observed decadal climate variability over both the Pacific and Atlantic basins during the mid-to-late 20th century.

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0104.1

Leave a Reply