Driving in the bush with my son on Saturday I saw some gigantic wind turbines on top of a small range, and he told me there was a line of them stretching up to Crookwell, quite a way away. That got us talking about the fantasy of wind power, while later the talk took me to another excellent Judy Curry piece, the origin of which I have begun to read. Since it is nearly 350 pp long I will give readers bits of the Extensive Summary instead.

Written by two members of the European Parliament, Katinka Brouwer and Dr Lucas Bergkamp, its title is Road to EU Climate Neutrality by 2050. Spatial Requirements of Wind/Solar and Nuclear Energy and Their Respective Costs. Does it apply to those Downunder? Well, yes, it does. The EU has endorsed the objective of achieving by 2050 ‘climate neutrality’, that is, net zero greenhouse carbon emissions. The two authors, assisted by a team of qualified peer reviewers, have sought to find just what that would mean in practice, and why the Commission would not prefer going nuclear rather than embarking on a great expansion of solar and wind sources. Since much of the rest of the world has said ‘we too’ and our own PM seems to be dickering with same goal, what Brouwer and Bergkamp have set out in their book-length report ought to be of great interest.

So here are the take-home messages. The first is that the EU’s 2050 goal ‘involves a high risk of ineffectiveness’. Nuclear power, they argue, can hedge against this risk. Second, nuclear power offers substantial advantages over any combination of wind and solar power. Third, the cost advantages of nuclear power increase once system costs are added to the equation. Fourth, they increase further the higher the penetration of wind and solar. Fifth, even if ‘climate neutrality’ were achieved, the resulting decrease in average global temperature would be so small it would not even be noticed. Semi-finally, there is no proven pathway that would lead to a zero outcome. Finally, Europe cannot prevent other countries from doing what they see as in their national interest, and unless and until they agree with the 2050 goal and take it seriously, the EU goal is a pipe-dream.

There are some memorable lines in the report, and here are two:

While nuclear requires a tiny bit of land to provide a whole lot of power at a low cost, wind and solar require a whole lot of land to provide a tiny bit of power at a high cost…

 EU climate neutrality is an ideal that may never become reality in our interdependent world. The reality is that the EU cannot limit emissions in the whole world, and that the proposed solution, renewable energy, is an ideal with serious side effects.

Plainly the authors plump for nuclear, and I have respect for their arguments and the data they provide. One aspect of land-use I hadn’t thought of, mostly because I regard the nuclear alternative for Australia as presently both difficult and unlikely, is that nuclear power plants can be placed where we already have coal-fired generators. The demolition of the EU alternative energy scenario is thorough, especially because it is central to that scenario that fossil fuels be retired from the system as alternative energy sources are introduced. What is required is an astonishingly large transition.

There is a lot of head-scratching from the authors about the transition. They warn that

Depending on variables such as electricity demand and capacity factors, in realistic scenarios, there is not enough land to meet all power demand if the Czech Republic and The Netherlands were to rely solely or predominantly on wind and solar power. In the Czech case, it is even out of the question that the available land will be sufficient to cover all electricity demand.


As the penetration of wind and solar increases, competing land uses, landscape protection, and nature protection will increasingly come under pressure, resulting in land price increases and deterioration of the living environment. In the Czech Republic, if only 30 % of the power is generated by renewables, all available land is occupied with wind and solar.

It just ain’t gonna work, at least for those two nations. And if not for them, for whom will it work? The authors do not say, and to find the answer you would have to do the same detailed analysis. Their report has already been taken seriously by the Czech Government, but not, so far at least, by the Netherlands Government, let alone by the EU itself. The current freeze in Germany has produced outcomes like the one shown in the following image. What then — back to candles?


Solar panels in the German freeze


The authors take for granted that fossil fuels are not to be used at all as part of ‘carbon neutrality’. I certainly wouldn’t do that here, and Poland, which has large supplies of coal, is no less adamant that coal will remain part of its energy mix. Indeed, the authors show that fossil fuels are still a large element in the EU’s own energy mix right now. And that leads them to point out, not only that the amount of land needed to provide a wind-and-solar only electricity mix is simply not there, but that even to provide a nuclear hedge  would require so many new nuclear generators every day until 2035.

So what do they recommend? Their basic thrust is to put nuclear on the same footing as wind and solar. They point out that wind and solar get astonishingly large assistance from government policies of all kinds that is not available to any other supplier of ‘non-carbon’ energy, and that has the effect of making alternative energies apparently cheaper. It is an apparent cheapness only, because where real money is involved, the whole electorate pays, by transferring funds to the government, which then provides the funds to people doing research, for example, but only research that assists the providers of alternative energy. The authors have a simple statement about the issue.

Because current EU policies favour renewable energy over nuclear energy, assessment of the relative cost of both technologies can easily be led astray and reflect the policy status quo, rather than anything inherent to these technologies.

For a long time people here in Australia have been arguing the toss about the relative cheapness of alternative forms of energy.  As in Europe, those discussions start with the ‘policy status quo’, so we get claims that solar energy is now cheaper than coal. Well, it may be, but let us look at the whole cost of both forms of electricity provision.  My guess is that solar won’t finish up ahead, but first we need to do the sort of careful data collection and analysis that this important paper sets out.

ENDNOTE: Dr Curry offers us another interesting paper at https://judithcurry.com/2021/02/12/a-climate-of-dialogue/. Here two European scholars who have worked and published together take issue over how important climate change actually is. You’ll learn a new word: ‘pacated’, which seems to mean ‘peaceful’ or ‘respectful’, which the debate is. I thought it was the authors’ invention, but no. It is an obsolete alternative for ‘placated’ or peaceful.




Join the discussion 387 Comments

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    These points, or similar, have been made many times before. The climate phenomenon bears a strong resemblance to the mass hysteria associated with the COVID pandemic.
    It appears to be equally unlikely to be susceptible to reason.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    My apologies for forgetting to add the image, but it is now embedded.

  • John Stankevicius says:

    Environmentalist are really showing what they are – frightened children who do not want to work. The anti nuclear rhetoric for all of my life has put a break on development and improving our physical environment. The science and technology lost of greening our interior and the ability to provide spaces to live in these areas has been wasted.
    Wind/Solar are immature concepts and are more wasteful of mining and materials than fossil fuels.
    I have a electric power hedge trimmer. Charge the lithium battery for 8 hours and it lasts for half an hour. First time use it lasted close to 45 min.
    Now the battery is dead. I have a friend who has a petrol hedge trimmer and it older than my electric hedgetrimmer. It is more powerful and does no run out.
    My electric hedge trimmer has to be thrown away. The blades are good, the stem and handle are good. Its is such a waste.
    I know of some who is a proud Tesla owner with solar panels on their home. The Tesla is 18 months old and is showing signs of battery fatigue. The car does not travel the 350 – 400km any more – closer to 300 km.

    • Stu says:

      The Tesla you refer to is clearly a lemon, if the story is true. In any case here is the Tesla warranty so he should have no problem getting it rectified.

      “ Battery and Drive Unit Warranty
      The Battery and Drive Unit in your vehicle are covered for a period of:

      Model S
      Model X 8 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
      Model 3 Standard Range
      Model Y Standard Range 8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
      Model 3 Long Range
      Model 3 Performance
      Model Y Long Range
      Model Y Performance 8 years or 120,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.’

      And regarding your hedge trimmer, you do realise the battery has to be charged when it goes flat! LOL.

      • Stu says:

        Sorry that table did not copy well. Here is a clearer version.

        Model S and Model X :
        8 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.

        Model 3 Standard Range and Model Y Standard Range :
        8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.

        Model 3 Long Range, Model 3 Performance, Model Y Long Range,Model Y Performance. :
        8 years or 120,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.

    • Boambee John says:


      “Wind/Solar are immature concepts and are more wasteful of mining and materials than fossil fuels.”

      I have to disagree. Wind and solar are ancient technologies, improved with modern technology. The extent to which their efficiency can be further improved is, to say the least, debatable.

      • John Stankevicius says:

        Thanks Boambee – well pointed out. Ancient technology which has reached a limit. What you can get away with by saying environmentally friendly using solar and wind never ceases to astound me. The people that go on about this, I find are devoid of reality.
        Please enlighten me how far solar and wind progressed since the beginning. Of the industrial revolution.

  • Stu says:

    Don, an interesting piece. The study you refer to and your comments seem a little caught up in the usual mischievous misdirection in the debate. It is framed in the all or nothing argument. I know of nowhere that the intention is to get almost immediately to all solar and wind. Commonsense sees the existing power generation running down over time and alternatives ramping up. It makes no sense to throw away existing infrastructure until it reaches obsolescence (the case with most of current NSW generation). The question is about the make up in the longer term and that will be influenced by engineering and science changes over those almost 30 years. Prediction of disruptive technology change is fraught with risk, both ways.

    Similarly there is the claim that there will be no measurable reduction in global temperature by 2050. This neatly obscures the commonly expressed aim of the proposed changes to prevent “greater increase” than 2.5 degrees. Perhaps the authors (or our Jo) can advise what they think temperatures might be if we go on, business as usual, ramping up still higher carbon emissions.

    And all this continues in an environment where consumption (burning one way or another) of fossil fuels continues to be free of bearing the social/economic costs of the pollution emitted. It is not a level playing field.

    I would be interested to hear your views on another recent book. “The new climate war” by Prof Mann. I recall in the past you expressed no support for his science but this book is as much about the background to the current argument and does regurgitate some of the work in “Merchants of doubt”. Certainly it makes some claims that should not be just dismissed lightly without counter argument.

    • Stu says:

      Sorry I should have added the question “do you think wind energy is a total myth or just the idea of it being the total solution”? Big difference. There is plenty of evidence of the cost effectiveness of current large scale wind installations in Europe and North America.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “There is plenty of evidence of the cost effectiveness of current large scale wind installations in Europe and North America.”

        Yes, I’ve noticed:


        • Stu says:

          That is rubbish – what is expected from Nova. Go to actual news sites and you will find the bulk of the failures relate to gas fired units and the fact that Texas has no interconnect with any other state so as to avoid federal rules. So, no backup. Plus their deregulated grid is in disrepair. Republican policy at work. Gov Abbott is blaming “green new deal” which has had no implementation anywhere yet and Texas had been governed by Repubs for 20 years.

          • spangled drongo says:

            So what you are saying is that in order to make unreliables work you have to have the right religious mental attitude.

            Not surprising you would think like that when you believe in evidence-free science.

            It’s faith wot counts.

        • Beth Cooper says:

          … ” ‘What giants?’ asked Sancho Panca.’Those whom we see yonder, with their immense extended arms.’ replied Don Quixote. ‘ Some of that detested race have arms that reach two leagues across the land.’
          …Couching his lance and protecting himself with his shield, Don Quixote rushed with Rozinante’s utmost speed upon the first windmill he came to, running his lance into the sail. The wind whirled with such force that his lance was broken into shivers and knight and horse hurled away with it and flung a good way into the field.”

          …So are wind farms ‘good’ for the climate? Do they reduce CO 2 emissions? Well you’d have to say there’s a problem with ‘on- again, off-again,’ back-up technology standing in for ‘on-again, off-again,’ wind technology. An important Dutch Study criticises the energy models that sold wind power to the Netherlands’ Government because the models neglect factors that increase fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. (1) One such factor is the process of ‘cycling’ or ramping up conventional plants connected to stand in when the wind isn’t blowing, and ramping down when it is. Both processes increase fuel consumption and increase CO2 emissions. (2) Other studies reveal similar effects from ramping. (3) (4)

          Then there’s the factor of extra energy needed to build and install huge steel wind turbines, energy needed for cabling and replacing the systems after 15 years, in the UK, a subsidy regulation. The Dutch Study also analyses the efficiency factor in back up generation. Steam Enhanced Gas Turbines, (CCGT,) which are twice as energy efficient as Open Cycle Gas Turbines, (OCGT.) But because OCGT are better suited to rapid ramping, however, the less efficient technology becomes the preferred option as back up.

          So wind technology is NOT so good for the climate and it’s NOT so good for the environment either. The Don was not too wrong about those giant land destroyers.

          (1) Le Pair. C. 2009 Electricity in the Netherlands .(2) Le Pair Ibid Table, p13. (3) Lusvardi.W.2011/10/13 Calwatchdog.com p3. (4) Bentek Energy. 2010 How Less Becomes More. Wind Power and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado Energy Market. p1-4.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that Wiki graph again over the last 30 years or 50 years and wrecks every argument that the donkeys use to forecast future co2 emissions.
    And the leading co2 emitter hopes to start down the net zero path in about 40 years. What a sick joke and yet the donkeys still believe in their fanatical religion.
    Don’t forget that Lomborg and Shellenberger etc quote Nordhaus’s work about the cost of net zero and agree that NZ govt is correct in their estimation ( 0.1% of global emissions) of 5 trillion $.
    Therefore Aussie’s cost would be 55 Tr $, USA 690 Tr $, the EU about 500 Tr $ by 2050. Anyone not starting to see a problem and of course no measurable change to temp or climate by 2100 and for the next thousand years. See my previous sources for all of the above.


  • spangled drongo says:

    When even Greens leader Bob Brown is horrified at the damage just one wind farm can do to the environment [and he is absolutely right] why oh why can’t Greens have the integrity to admit the total destruction that will be done to the environment with this crazy philosophy?

    When probably all current wildlife habitat, world-wide, will have to be used to provide enough siting for these unreliables, it will totally destroy any raison detre the Greens ever had.

    It makes any possible nuclear problems look non-existent in comparison.

    Not to mention the current seriously non-existent F/F problems.

    • Neville says:

      Yes SD and we Aussies should adapt to any weather or climate, because we would alternatively waste endless Trs $ forever and achieve nothing.
      Firstly we should build new HELE coal power stns ASAP to cover us for the next 100 years and forget about dirty, toxic and useless/clueless S&W that will quickly destroy our environment.
      And of course this toxic mess has to be replaced every 20 years and paid for again and again.

      • Stu says:

        Do you want to come and check out the “toxic mess” around the power stations on Lake Macquarie and in the Hunter. The toxic ash piles and lakes at Eraring will be repeated even with your fabled HELE generation. Be realistic. And the environment in the Hunter is not looking all that flash with enormous holes everywhere. At least all the land forever off limits around here due to mine subsidence is preserved for nature. But you insist S&W are dirty and toxic. Try again.

    • Stu says:

      Oh you simplistic fellow. One particular wind farm on one particular island does not make your case. “ all current wildlife habitat, world-wide, will have to be used to provide enough siting for these unreliables, it will totally destroy any raison detre the Greens ever had.”. Rubbish. All the turbines sited near Canberra seem to operate quite happily with sheep and cows all around, not to mention the wildlife. And don’t forget to include the growing number of very large turbines off shore in Europe and north America and soon here. They are now up to 13MW size. I am not aware of wind energy even starting to catch up with the destruction and death so far recorded for nuclear power (Chernobyl and Fukushima, although One Mile Island was trivial). And I note today a pipeline leak of petroleum into San Francisco Bay, no leaks reported from wind turbines there.

      • spangled drongo says:

        When it comes to “simple” stu, you are a world leader.

        Have you worked out yet how much land is needed to power the world, 24-7?

        And as Neville points out above, that is only a fraction of the real problem you create.

        And still it eludes you completely.

        • Stu says:

          Go back to my first post. Yes it is crazy to consider powering the whole world with S&W with the technology of today. That is not being proposed. Who knows what is around the corner. Do you? But it does make sense to use the technology we have to reduce the carbon footprint and maybe hold the world to no more than 2.5 degrees increase. So forget your crap about reducing the temperature. We are talking about a reduced change not reversal. Things will still probably be bad enough with that, but with too many people with your way of thinking it is the best we can hope for. Oh and also the trillions you talk of never take account of the lower operating cost of renewables. Check out current world revenues for coal, oil and gas, several trillion, per year. There is money in muck.

      • John Stankevicius says:

        Stu – the ash is used as a fertilizer

      • Boambee John says:


        “All the turbines sited near Canberra seem to operate quite happily with sheep and cows all around, not to mention the wildlife.”

        Do you exclude birds and bats from your definition of “wildlife”?

  • John Stankevicius says:


    Battery not flat – is dead with in 4 yrs – would na happened if it was unleaded!!!

    • John Stankevicius says:

      Stu – have you considered leaving Oil in its natural state – the earth in Azberjan is hot – it cooks the surface. In USA, the Europeans saw the Indians ‘burning” the lakes – oil on the lakes.
      We are harvesting oil for its good and the side effects of pollution are not causing uninhabitable environments.
      Re the Tesla warranty – too frightened to sent this on due the reaction – and having 500 weird looking people outside my door with a burning crucifix on my front lawn.

  • Ian Macculloch says:

    From the Wall Street Journal this morning on the cost of being cold in Texas – home of the frozen wind turbine and snow covered PV cells

    Enormous new demand coupled with constrained supply caused natural gas spot prices to spike to nearly $600 per million British thermal units in the central U.S. from about $3 a couple weeks ago. Future wholesale power prices in Texas for early this week soared to $9,000 per megawatt hour from a seasonal average of $25.

  • BB says:

    The world temperature data shows that from about 1840 to the present day it has risen about 1°C. That is from HADCRUT4 global mean. The proposition is put forward that humans are responsible because of our emissions. The principal one focused on being CO2. In 1960 it was 0.03% of the atmosphere, now 0.042%. That is 0.012% in 61 years so 0.0002% per annum and in the same period the temperature has risen by 0.8°C. There are many who think this can be changed because surely we are headed for doom! Humanity has leverage on 3% of the CO2 gases produced in any one year. So the 0.0002%
    can only be altered by 3%. Instead of 0.0002% if we were to stop all CO2 anthropogenic emissions it would reduce overall emissions by 0.000006%. Australia has leverage on 1.4% of that 3% so a reduction of 0.00000008% that is if we stop everything and end civilisation. In the unlikely event that we in Australia reach zero emissions in 2050 it cannot possibly change anything. Otherwise you will have to believe by changing the amount of CO2 emissions by 0.8 ppb some noticeable effect will occur! I think there needs to be a study done to determine if tails can wag dogs.

    Those who believe think to achieve this principally we need to change from coal to renewable energy. One of our largest electricity generators is Bayswater. Is that achievable? I have done a model on this here http://www.spasmodicenergy.com/StorageModel.aspx?year=2019&station=1020&size=3&number=3000&type=Pumped&store=300
    This is my website and yes it is slow currently I am working on this and since recently I had to move to a another web host there is a problem with some of the pages but this one is working and it is accurate. To replace Bayswater you need 9 GW of capacity if you apply wind to the task this will occupy 4000 km². To get stability you will need 300 GW hours of storage. The whole infrastructure will cost $45 billion to be equivalent. Bayswater supplied nearly 16 TW hours in 2019 the overall consumption on the Australian eastern grid in that year was 205 TW hours. Note that the wind will be supplying 23 TW hours in the year but if it is to be stable that is the cost that must be paid only 16 TW hours is usable because of the energy storage there will be times when much of this energy must be dumped.

    • Stu says:

      Last time I looked the proposed Kurri Kurri battery will be 1200 MW, add in the proposed 250MW AGL Lydell battery and you are well on the way. As the proponents of coal and gas say, let the market decide. As AGL have said it would cost $900million to keep Lydell going ten years past 2022. Their proposals for alternative generation and storage will be much cheaper and even more reliable. The problem that people forget when raving about big coal generators is that if you have a plant made up of individual 500mw plus generators, and they go offline, which does happen it leaves a big hole in the grid supply.

      • Boambee John says:


        So Kurri Kurri (1200MW) plus Liddell (250MW) gives a total of 1450 MW, but for how long? What is their delivery capacity in MWh? How are they to be charged? With ruinables? What about conversion losses (you always get less out than you put in, at least until perpetual motion is perfected).

        Reality is a bitch.

      • BB says:

        Well first we need to think about the fact it should be just as important to those that believe humanity must reduce emissions and those that don’t whether the proposed solutions actually work. The problem for the believers is that in fact wind is not going to displace coal even though you are being told by the activists that it will. If you are going to talk about battery storage you need to use a measure of storage that is megawatt hours. For instance the Hornsdale power reserve has a megawatt rating of 150 MW and that means it will supply 192 megawatt hours. That costs $161 million. It does sound impressive doesn’t it. The problem with wind is that it will not provide stable electricity supply so the proposal is that the batteries you mention will fix this. Okay a hypothetical let us assume you want to stabilise a wind power station of 100 MW. I have the data for 10 years of generation in five-minute increments so I can accurately forecast the average you will get from this. It does vary but the best I’ve seen so far for a year is 28% so let’s go with that. This means on average it will produce 28 megawatt hours per hour. Wind is too variable for battery energy storage to be viable. The AEMO calls them wind droughts they are frequent and they are long. A typical example occurred at 11 AM on 5 June 2020 from that point the average until 8 PM on 6 June 2020 was 6%. This is 33 hours that the whole of wind on the eastern grid dropped to that. At the time the registered capacity for wind was 7.7 GW. Normally it would produce 2.1 GW. Let us get back to our 100 MW wind power station. Normally it would put out 28 megawatt hours per hour so normally over 33 hours there would be 924 megawatt hours produced. Instead of that 55 megawatt hours were produced. Subtracting the expected from the actual gives us the size of the battery we would need to stabilise one small wind power station of 100 MW. That is 869 MW hours so Kurri Kurri battery when you calculate the megawatt hours could stabilise a wind power station of 200 MW and Liddell about a 40 MW one. Battery storage currently costs $107 million per hundred megawatts so Kurri Kurri will cost $1.3 billion. In Australia we only have coal and gas as the baseload and we depend absolutely on them. The wind drought I have discussed here meant for 33 hours the output from wind dropped by 1.7 GW and you put forward the myth that a single turbine going off-line for repair in a coal-fired power station is a serious event. It is not Bayswater has turbines that are 660 MW each, in 2019 one or more of them was off line for 243 days. That is why the wind drought above was not noticed you just need to crank the underutilised coal stations up a bit. If you are to achieve what you think ought to happen reliable baseload emission free sources of energy must be constructed. Batteries are toys if they can build them in the terawatt range then maybe. Pumped storage is much bigger and cheaper but how many snowy Mountains do we have? My calculations show we need at least 10. I say again renewables are a fools folly which are nowhere near enough to replace fossil fuels. As for Liddell it produces about 12 TW hours per annum wind about 18 TW hours probably now so to replace it on average two thirds of all wind infrastructure we have has to be again built you think that will happen in a year? I don’t know where you’re getting your information from but the current thinking from the activists is delusional.

        • John Stankevicius says:

          Thank you BB. This is excellent. The explanation is well explained that even someone like me can understand it.
          I look forward to your website

    • Stu says:

      BB you wrote “ Humanity has leverage on 3% of the CO2 gases produced in any one year. So the 0.0002%
      can only be altered by 3%. Instead of 0.0002% if we were to stop all CO2 anthropogenic emissions it would reduce overall emissions by 0.000006%. ”

      Your figures are totally bogus, amongst other things confusing stocks and flows.

      • BB says:

        I gave you a detailed explanation of how I derived the figures you give me nothing but a glib comment. My figures are not at all bogus explain where they are wrong. Australia contributes .8 ppb. You have faith that that is wrong I doubt you understand. You also have faith that renewables are the answer to the problems you see in the world. Why because your priests of told you so. Remember me when major blackouts start here in Australia. It is already happening overseas.

        • Stu says:

          “ Human activities have increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
          Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
          and nitrous oxide began to rise around two hundred years ago,
          after changing little since the end
          of the last ice age thousands of years earlier. The concentration of CO2 has increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) before 1800, to 396 ppm in 2013100, 101. This history of greenhouse gas concentrations has been established by a combination of modern measurements100–103 and analysis of ancient air bubbles in polar ice47, 104, 105 (Box 2.1, see page 10).
          Particularly important is CO2. Enormous amounts of it are continually exchanged between
          the atmosphere, land and oceans,
          as land and marine plants grow,
          die and decay, and as carbon-rich waters circulate in the ocean. For several thousand years until around 200 years ago, this ‘carbon cycle’ was approximately in balance and steady. Since the 19th century, human-induced CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement manufacture and deforestation have disturbed the balance, adding CO2 to the atmosphere faster than it can be taken up by the land biosphere and the oceans (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). On average over the last 50 years, about 25% of total CO2 emissions were absorbed by the ocean—making
          sea water more acidic208—and 30% was taken up on land, largely by increased plant growth stimulated by rising atmospheric CO2, increased nutrient availability, and
          responses to warming and rainfall changes (though the mix of these mechanisms remains unclear)109–111. The other 45% of emissions accumulated in the atmosphere112–114. These changes to the carbon cycle are known from measurements in the atmosphere115–121, on land and in the ocean122–125, and from modelling studies109–111.
          The dominant cause of the increasing concentration of CO2
          in the atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels123. Over the last two centuries, the growth of fossil-
          fuel combustion has been closely coupled to global growth in energy use and economic activity126. Fossil- fuel emissions grew by 3.2% per year from 2000 to 2010 (Figure 3.3), a rapid growth that is dominated by growth in Asian emissions and has exceeded all but the highest recent long-range scenarios for future emissions126–128.
          Although fossil-fuel emissions of
          CO2 have grown fairly steadily,
          the upward march of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere varies from year to year. This is caused mainly by the effects of weather variability on vegetation130–132, and also by sporadic volcanic activity: major volcanic eruptions have a significant indirect influence on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, causing temporary drawdown of
          CO2 through the promotion of plant growth by the light-scattering and cooling effects of volcanic haze132–136. By contrast, the direct contribution of volcanic emissions to atmospheric CO2 is negligible, amounting to around 1% of current human-induced emissions’

          Academy of Science – Australia

          • spangled drongo says:


          • Boambee John says:


            If the Australian Academy of Science does not know the difference between “more acidic” and less alkaline, they have lost their way.

          • BB says:

            I think you entirely miss the point! If Australia is only .8 ppb what sort of leveraged do we have? Renewables are remarkably useless in this respect even so. How much can we change that .8 ppb by applying ineffectual power generation? You are on the side that we must do something but it doesn’t seem to matter that the something is useless. By the way all this alarm has only the effect of benefiting China we push our energy costs up industry closes where it is it go mainly China. We can’t burn our coal here oh no no we must export it. There it is burnt and used in manufacture which we in turn by the product of! Only makes this sense if one is a Marxist and believes China should take over the world.

    • John Stankevicius says:

      Hi BB

      Ian Macculloch has excellent articles from Dr Zharkova https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243
      The article is titled “modern grand solar minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling”
      I hope the link works.

    • John Stankevicius says:

      Hi BB
      As read an article about how solar and wind are unable to compete with Fossil Fuels due to mass. The mass of solar and wind is approx .0067, fossil fuels 1.65 while Nuclear is approx 20,000. I cannot remember the measurements of the numbers.
      Cold you educate me please on this and if this is correct.

  • John Stankevicius says:

    BB – thank you for bringing to light mans effect on Co2 is only 3%. Thank you for the calculations – I will save this. I read this in another article by a mathematician who concluded we do not cause MMGW by CO2 emissions.
    The interesting point which you raise is the increase in temp since 1840. A recent interview with the former environment minister in Germany (physicist) was concerned about the CO2 targets which he though were impossible and cause harm. It pointed out the earth was coming out of a cold mini ice age in 1840.

  • Ian Hore-Lacy says:

    Don thanks for good article!
    You say that in Oz ” nuclear power plants can be placed where we already have coal-fired generators.” True, but those are mostly on coal fields and use potable water for cooling the condenser circuit. Nuclear plants could be put on the coast and use seawater for cooling, as about half the world’s 400+ plants do now. That would save evaporating about two thirds of melbourne’s water requirements if all coal plants were replaced by coastal nuclear plants.

    Economically the system costs are the killer for wind and solar (or any intermittent sources) and they increase rapidly as share increases. Modelling for Australia shows that they are likely to overtake generation costs (LCOE) by 40% share. I will send you my summary of all this.

  • Neville says:

    I’m now convinced that Bill Gates has lost it completely and should stick with computer software.
    He has just written a silly book that makes ridiculous suggestions about energy use and now he also claims that SLR will put so many of the coastal cities at risk.
    Willis checks out his claims using an exaggerated example and finds that Gates claims are complete nonsense. Big surprise NOT.
    Of course Bill has just bought a new home on the coast himself, so we can quickly understand that he ‘s not very serious at all. But I’m sure that blog donkeys will truly believe him, minus any evidence to the contrary.


    • John Stankevicius says:

      Neville – I was reading a blogger who calculated that is every piece of ice and snow melted that the ocean levels would rise by 320mm or 1 foot. No disaster at all.

      • spangled drongo says:

        John, I don’t think that is right.

        If all the ice covering Antarctica , Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the coastal cities. And land area would shrink significantly.

        But in actual fact sea levels are not rising so land ice is not net melting.

        The Pacific, the biggest bit of ocean in the world has a current mean sea level lower than its first recording in 1914 [at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour].

        • Stu says:

          Land ice is in fact net melting. And beyond that, the earth is absorbing a lot of excess heat, most of which is being absorbed by the oceans. And guess what, when you heat water it expands. And even if we moved to zero carbon today the oceans will keep on expanding. But you stick with your simplistic views on sea level measurement. I know you are not convinced so save your time replying.

          • spangled drongo says:

            And as usual our stu produces not one scrap of EVIDENCE.

            I wonder why I’m not convinced?

            Particularly when throughout his lifetime mean sea levels have not changed and he has been too obtuse to even notice.

            Do pay more attention to the real world, stueyluv.

          • Boambee John says:


            Stu don’t want no steenkin’ evidence, he’s got feeelz.

  • Boambee John says:


    I will ask again, with no confidence that you can answer.

    On climate change, the Null Hypothesis is that the climate has been changing under natural influence for millions of years, albeit there is now some human influence (demonstrated by UHI).

    What are the experimental results or empirically measured data that prove that human influence now predominates?

    The output of computer models is neither experimental nor empirical.

    • Stu says:

      Simple answer, amongst others, the rate of change – unprecedented in the paleo and other records. But if you believe that mankind can burn in 100 years the carbon that it took nature 100 million years to sequester and there is no impact on the climate system (which has shown strong correlation) then sorry mate I cannot help you. As for the 0.04 percent CO2 in the atmosphere I am reminded of the amazing result of taking tiny 5mg pills each day and the resulting effect on my bodies 89,000,000 milligrams signs. BTW do you understand the mechanisms by which the earth is habitable through much of the latitude range? Never mind.

      • Boambee John says:


        So all you have is flannel and waffle, nothing empirical. Thanks for confirming it.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu sez:

        “Simple answer, amongst others, the rate of change – unprecedented in the paleo and other records.”

        Yeah, simple but incredibly dumb.

        Just check the “rate of change” [warming] at the end of the last ice age.

        Probably 10 times the current rate.

        You never cease to demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the real world.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a quote from Shellenberger ( latest IPCC expert reviewer) and Dr Hansen ( former head of NASA GISS) about the unbelievable safety of Nuclear power. Of course most of our energy around the world comes from FFs ( 80+%) and there has to be higher numbers of deaths from those sources.

    But don’t forget that countries like China now have a very high percentage of their total energy from coal ( 67%) while the USA only derives about 17% of their T energy from coal. But China at 76 is now close to the first world average life expectancy of about 81 and that recent big increase has only occurred when coal usage has surged. So therefore I know Shellenberger and Dr Hansen are not telling us the full story about the benefits of FFs.

    Here’s their quotes + graphs about energy and safety from the different sources of base-load power. Dilute S&W power are a dirty , unreliable, toxic environmental disaster and Energy dense power ( see graphs) are the only reliable base-load sources of energy on the planet.


    “Bottom Line”:

    “The best energy is the smallest and densest that creates the most power for the least environmental impact. That’s nuclear energy. Only nuclear has high power density like the newest natural gas plants but zero emissions unlike fossil fuels. Nuclear’s incredible power density is the reason for its extremely small waste output, easily contained in a few cans.

    Because wind and solar require so much land and air, they expand the impact of energy production, reversing recent global trends that allow us to use less land for food and energy production in order to leave more for nature. In addition, seasonal variation guarantees that a fossil fuel backbone will always be necessary, as the leading wind and solar countries in the world have long known and prepared for. Because nuclear replaces both fossil fuels and renewables, current environmental harm from energy sprawl and future environmental harm from global warming are both mitigated. And yet human flourishing is assured”.

  • Neville says:

    BTW that Shellenberger link above has horizontal arrows to pan through vast numbers of graphs and all types of data on energy around the world. PLEASE check out the data and WAKE UP.
    And I do trust his sources today, but wouldn’t have trusted him a few years ago when he was in his FULL ON left wing extremist mode helping out the Obama, Biden donkeys. And of course their clueless BS merchant friend and so called SCIENCE adviser Holdren.

    Thanks again to Dr Pielke jnr for exposing these donkeys and today he and Shellenberger work closely together trying to expose the mitigation fra-d and con tricks. And both have recently testified before Congress for the Republican party.

  • Neville says:

    Nuclear power is very safe and very reliable and Dr Hansen tells us that it has saved about 1.8 mil lives compared to FFs.
    But how many MORE lives have been saved because we’ve now moved into an era of much higher life Exp of about 72 for the 7.8 bn people around the world?
    And don’t forget that we’ve seen an increase of 4.1 bn people since 1970 and all much healthier and wealthier as well + urban living has increased around the globe.
    Yet AOC and Greta tell us we only have a few years to live and both + DEMS are urging Biden to declare a Climate EMERGENCY ASAP.
    Just unbelievable but true. OH and FF energy is still above 80% of world TOTAL energy.

  • Neville says:

    David Middleton tells the truth about the Texas energy grid collapse and it certainly wasn’t due to the collapse of FF + Nuclear generation.
    And he supplies the graph data to prove it from the suppliers for Feb.


    • Stu says:

      “ While ice has forced some turbines to shut down just as a brutal cold wave drives record electricity demand, that’s been the least significant factor in the blackouts, according to Dan Woodfin, a senior director for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the state’s power grid.

      The main factors: Frozen instruments at natural gas, coal and even nuclear facilities, as well as limited supplies of natural gas, he said. “Natural gas pressure” in particular is one reason power is coming back slower than expected Tuesday, added Woodfin.

      “We’ve had some issues with pretty much every kind of generating capacity in the course of this multi-day event,” he said.

      But you keep on with your not very informative statistical spaghetti.

  • Neville says:

    At the David Middleton link above he provides a tally of the energy generated by all sources for the 16th FEB. Solar is 2% and Wind 6% and 92% is FFs and Nuclear.

    The breakdown for 16 February 2021:
    MWh %
    Wind Generation 73,395 6%
    Solar Generation 20,134 2%
    Hydro Generation 3,833 0%
    Other Generation 682 0%
    Natural gas Generation 759,708 65%
    Coal Generation 204,655 18%
    Nuclear Generation 98,394 8%
    Total 1,160,801 100%

    Fossil fuels accounted for 83% of our electricity generation yesterday. Fossil fuels + nuclear accounted for 92%.

    “While there is plenty of blame to go around, ERCOT had a “dress rehearsal” for this in 2011. At least back then, they successfully employed rotating outages. We haven’t lost power, while many of our friends have been without power since early Monday morning.

    Texas has more wind power capacity and natural gas production than many, if not most, nations. This cluster frack is inexcusable and an embarrassment to the Great State of Texas. We now know that President Donald Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were 100% correct when they asked FERC to ensure that our coal-fired and nuclear power plant fleets be kept in service”.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Let’s do an experiment. Put a standard ice-block on the bench, and time how long it takes to melt. Raise the temperature by 1 degree, and repeat. Multiply the time difference by umpteen trillion tons. Worry.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    To relieve your stress, book a holiday on Tuvalu.

  • Neville says:

    It’s wonderful to see a young Environmental scientist telling the truth about their so called climate crisis or emergency. And of course he just adds to the accuracy of the detailed Lomborg, Shellenberger, Pielke, Christy, Spencer etc research over the last few decades.

    Vijay Javaraj completed his degree and works at the University of East Anglia. Phil Jones and the HAD centre would not be pleased . Here’s a quote and the link and his judgement about the anti FF policies is very accurate.


    “So, there is no actual climate emergency. Instead, what we have celebrities, activists, un-elected political bodies like the UN, and even some climate scientists religiously promoting a popular doomsday belief.

    The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.

    Be a climate realist”.

    Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), is a Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and resides in New Delhi, India.

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova updates some of the latest problems for Texans and they certainly need more of HIPPO Gore’s glo-bull warming.
    Even fish tanks are freezing. But don’t worry, our silly donkeys will still insist we need more cooling.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Viv Forbes gets it:

    Waiting for Wind

    Australia’s elected appeasers
    Push mad energy plans, just as teasers.
    But while coal powers Asians
    And nukes help Caucasians
    Dumb Aussies sit praying for breezes!

  • spangled drongo says:

    Some interesting scenes behind the energy wokery:

    “The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades, despite a monotonic [steady] increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases … Antarctic sea ice area has modestly expanded and warming has been nearly non-existent over much of the Antarctic ice sheet.”


    “The surface mass balance data for the Greenland Ice Sheet from the Danish Meteorological Institute shows that over the past five years, the surface of Greenland has averaged a gain of about 400 billion tons per year, which is slightly above the 1981-2010 mean.”

    Plus a lot more:


  • Neville says:

    Dr Spencer has found UHI effect problems with some of the US temp data and he and Dr Christy intend to do something about it.
    Best of luck to them if they can make a difference, but I’m sure it won’t be easy.


    • spangled drongo says:

      Very true, Neville.

      UHI can be produced considerably by simply installing a single wind-proof panel of fencing. It doesn’t take much.

      When I tended livestock on large, unfenced properties and camped out for weeks at a time, every night, if I cut down a few branches and built a windbreak before unrolling my swag, the increase in warmth was very noticeable.

      It was common Aboriginal practice, too.

      Imagine the warming a huge structure would [and does]create, compared to surrounding bushland?

      Cities are often at least 6c warmer than surrounding natural areas.

      And this is where by far the most of the official thermometers are placed.

      How much did they say we had warmed since the industrial rev?

      Only 1c?

      CO2 must have a cooling effect.

      • Stu says:

        “ CO2 must have a cooling effect.”. I think you might be right out on a fragile limb with that unsubstantiated claim. Good luck resisting gravity with that. Given that atmospheric CO2 has increased by a third since industrialisation, how come we are not all freezing. Do you understand why the earth is habitable and not permanently minus 32 degrees C?

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu thinks that global temperature is directly proportional to atmo CO2 whether hot or cold and also lets his wokery rule his reason as usual. Oh dear!

          But I also forgot to mention that most of the thermometers in the very cold and remote latitudes are conveniently placed either beside a black tarmac runway and/or in a locality that requires a vital central heating system, potentially providing a UHI effect far in excess of big cities.

          From the undeniable existence of these factors, having a UHI effect that is at least double any tiny true global warming is quite possible.

          If that were the case stu, please explain how you could argue that CO2 causes warming?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu is too dumb to recognise sarcasm?

          • Stu says:

            Oh I get it, all the measurements in the world are affected by UHI, and the scientists in charge of calibrating and measuring this stuff are all imbeciles (and in a global cabal) and you guys are correct. Got it.

            And while you are at it please respond to my question “ Do you understand why the earth is habitable and not permanently minus 32 degrees C?”. And don’t just say yes or no explain your answer in light of the rest of your scientific “opinions”.

          • Stu says:

            BJ, your “sarcasm” is so pathetic it is hard to recognise, if even real. Stick to your day job or you might starve.

          • spangled drongo says:

            They’re not imbeciles, stu, they’re just as woke as you are.

            But as any real scientist will tell you, as Neville shows above, to correct for UHIE you have to remove warming as populations increase but all they do these days is keep adjusting upward:


            And by the way, we all know about the greenhouse effect but the known unknown with additional CO2 is feedback from WV.

            That is why you are forever unable to provide your evidence [and will never admit it].

          • Boambee John says:


            “ Do you understand why the earth is habitable and not permanently minus 32 degrees C?”.

            You produce the “killer” evidence, experimentally or empirically measured, to prove that the Null Hypothesis is wrong, then I might consider answering your question. Or I might just wave my hands around, and spout feel good waffle, as you habitually do.

  • Stu says:

    SD, “ the known unknown with additional CO2 is feedback from WV.” Oh so you agree additional CO2 maybe causative. We are making progress here.

    • spangled drongo says:

      The only progress you make. stu, is with your ignorant assumptions that assume the assumptions of the leaders in weather wokery know what is unknown.

      And you also think that is science.

      It is neither.

    • spangled drongo says:

      But it is good to see that you finally admit that you are incapable of providing any evidence to support your CAGW argument.

  • Neville says:

    Australia has just produced another record grain crop and wheat ( 33.3 mil tonnes from ABARE) ) is up on the previous record crop in 2017.
    Of course today very few farmer numbers produce these record crops and most Aussies live urban lifestyles and near the coast, (over 80%).
    Ditto NZ, USA ,UK etc and all modern,developed OECD countries. But coastal living is more of an Aussie feature than USA for example.
    And today more professional contractors harvest the crop from Qld to Vic, SA etc.


  • Neville says:

    More from the GWPF on the true costs of Offshore wind farms. Here’s the conclusion and like all of the S&W idiocy this is a dirty, toxic disaster just waiting to happen and repeated every 20 years. And ZERO change to weather, climate or temp by 2100 or for 1,000 years. SEE Zickfeld study, The RS & NAS study, the LW Conversation etc.


    8. “Conclusions All major political parties endorse the idea that the UK can be almost entirely electrified: heating, transport and industry will allegedly be switched away from fossil fuels, and any sector that cannot be handled the same way is supposed to switch to hydrogen, itself produced using electricity. The country’s future is therefore being wagered on the basis that offshore windfarms are going to produce cheap electricity in the very near future. This paper has confirmed the conclusions reached by Aldersey-Williams et al. and by Hughes that there is no hard evidence that any change in the cost structure of the industry is under way. It has also shown that the views of offshore wind advocates on the potential for cost reductions are incompatible with what windfarm developers themselves have said. Regardless, the government appears determined to proceed with its ‘net zero‘ project. The prospects for consumers and the UK economy therefore appear extremely dim”.

  • Boambee John says:

    Texas prepared for gerbil worming by going long on ruinables, with gas back up. Much the same as is proposed for here.

    That went really well //sarc//

    If nations prepare for cold weather (reliable, continuous power, insulation), then they can manage heat. Going the other way is a recipe for disaster.

  • Neville says:

    The so called NZ dream of more renewables is starting to look like more of a nightmare.
    As linked to before the cost would be a staggering 5 trillion $ and not change climate or temp by 2100 or way beyond. But it would bankrupt the country and leave it with a toxic disaster forever and plenty of power failures as well.


  • Neville says:

    More from Jo Nova on the Texas ruinables disaster and this is what we’re heading for if we insist on wasting endless billions $ more on clueless, toxic S&W.


  • Stu says:

    It must be so disheartening for you guys, bleating away and nobody of importance taking heed. The US has rejoined the Paris Accord and most of the rest of the world is in step. The FF funded “think” tanks are there for you to quote ad infinitum but their mostly unrecognised or otherwise not esteemed contributors words seem to be falling on infertile ground. Some of your climate aligned political figures like Governor Abbott are just looking silly, blaming young second term politicians from New York for the disaster in Texas. Even Don Junior totally screwed that one up blaming the “democrat” governor.

    How do you cope and continue your crusade in the face of such odds? When do you seriously expect to see some return on your time invested?

    While this is an interesting place to argue back and forth I doubt the climate component is having any mainstream results for you. But I admire your tenacity and brazen continued obfuscating the science facts.

    But of course good old boy BJ will fire back with his null hypothesis strand. So have a look here.


    • Boambee John says:


      You should have read and thought about that NASA article before claiming that it is the killer fact. Note this quote:

      “The way science works is that I go out and study something, and maybe I collect data or write equations, or I run a big computer program,”

      Maybe he collects data, or writes a computer program! Yes, it comes back to computer modelling. Surprise!

      Note also the emphasis on future activities. Perish the thought that the desired result might be more important than the actual data gathered.

      Keep trying.

  • Neville says:

    Interesting story about frozen Thresher sharks that washed up on the beach near Cape Cod in Jan 2018.
    Read down and see that the water seems to have been unusually cold in that area at the time.


  • Neville says:

    A new study of SST off SE Greenland has found that it is colder today than 80 to 100 years ago. Look at their graph and you’ll note that the warmer period had started by 1920.
    I’ve linked to the earlier Vinther study that found that the warming for Greenland then was also at a higher rate than our more recent warming. And I’ve also linked recently to the study showing recent cooling for Iceland and this study below seems to point to the AO and AMO as part of the reason. Who knows?


    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, the warmists’ conclusion that global temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, a heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years, is clearly contrary to measured real-time data and thus fails the Feynman test, i.e., their conclusion is wrong.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Did you check my NASA link above, stueyluv?

    Is your main point by any chance: “Publish results that can be “validated” by GCMs even if not by measurement”?

    Because as you just admitted above, you do not have any measurable evidence.

    And neither does NASA but they assume and adjust their way ever upward.

    And I can understand the brainwashed kiddies believing it but you should be able to cope with the real world.

    • Stu says:

      SD, as I wrote above “ It must be so disheartening for you guys, bleating away and nobody of importance taking heed.”

      What keeps you going with such a poor record of success, which is getting worse. I still prefer the information from a very wide range of scientific bodies and people over your dodgy list, many of which like GWPF, have titles as misleading as the Australian Vaccination Network (now fortunately barred from such abuse).

  • Boambee John says:

    Poor old Stu, still thinks that politics is the answer if there is no scientific evidence. Sad, low energy!

    • Stu says:

      I am not talking politics I am talking fact, no one important is following you down the path of denial, but you keep on, you might reach the end of the cul-de-sac one day. Politics is in fact what you are trying to do and is all you have got. Keep on bleating BJ if it makes you feel good, thinking you know more than people much more qualified than you. (And in case you are confused I do not claim to be in that category either)

      • spangled drongo says:

        “I am not talking politics I am talking fact”

        Sorry stu, but you are just fullavit! You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you, and it is. All the time.

        You and the rest of your alarmist lot have never been able to provide one single empirical fact to support your political propaganda.

        Put up or shut up!

  • Stu says:

    But if you want politics, here is piece on the Texas power situation. Not at all like the rubbish from Jo.

    “ We all know by now that Ted Cruz went on vacation while Texas froze.

    Over the last week, millions of Texans have suffered in the cold as workers tried to restore power amid freezing temperatures and icy conditions. So far, the official local death toll from the snow, ice and power outages stands at 24.

    Rather than stay behind and help coordinate aid and federal assistance, the state’s junior senator went to Cancún, if only for a day, before widespread outrage brought him back to the United States.

    Of course, Cruz is not the governor. He has no formal power in the state government of Texas. His is more a failure of optics and political leadership than governance per se.

    Greg Abbott, who actually is the governor of Texas, doesn’t have that excuse. As Texans froze, he went on Fox News to falsely blame renewable energy and the as-yet-unrealized Green New Deal for the crisis in Texas. “This shows how the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal for the United States of America,” he said. “Texas is blessed with multiple sources of energy, such as natural gas and oil and nuclear, as well as solar and wind. But … our wind and our solar got shut down, and they were collectively more than 10 percent of our power grid, and that thrust Texas into a situation where it was lacking power on a statewide basis.”

    Faced with one of the worst crises in the recent history of the state, Republicans have turned their attention away from conditions on the ground and toward the objects of their ideological ire. The issue isn’t energy policy; it is liberals and environmentalists, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a New York congresswoman who was a child when Texas built its first wind farms — and climate activists.

    Amid awful suffering and deteriorating conditions, Texas Republicans decided to fight a culture war. In doing so, they are emblematic of the national party, which has abandoned even the pretense of governance in favor of the celebration of endless grievance.

    It should be said that there’s no mystery about the collapse of the Texas electrical grid. A once-in-a-century cold front spiked demand beyond the capacity of the system as Texans turned up the heat in their homes and plugged in their space heaters. At the same time, much of the infrastructure for power in the state was disabled by the snow and ice. What do you get when you add a sudden surge of demand to an equally sudden loss of capacity? A crisis, whose roots lie in a decade’s worth of deregulation and cost-cutting, of an energy “independence” that has left the state at the mercy of the elements.

    This disaster, in other words, is the fruit of policy, of specific choices made by lawmakers in Texas. And it’s this fact that helps explain the response to the crisis of Abbott and the Texas Republican Party, which has governed the state as a laboratory for conservative ideas for much of the last 20 years. When you don’t want to face the consequences of your actions as a lawmaker — when you’d rather demonize scapegoats than give answers — you fight a culture war.

    But then, this is just what it means to be a Republican politician now. Accountability is out, distraction is in. You don’t deal with problems, you make them fodder for zero-sum partisan conflict. As president, Donald Trump refused to treat the coronavirus pandemic as a challenge to overcome with leadership and expertise. Instead, he made it another battle in the culture wars, from whether you wore a mask to whether you remained away from public places. He spent more time trying to racialize the virus for cheap points — calling it the “China virus” and the “kung flu” — than he did giving guidance to the American public.

    Yes, Trump is an easy target. But you’ll find the same dynamic at all levels of Republican politics. At no point during the Georgia Senate race, for example, did the Republican candidates, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, produce a platform to rival the detailed policy proposals of their Democratic opponents. Instead, they ran on fear, identity and fealty to Trump. “Are you ready to keep fighting for President Trump and show America that Georgia is a red state?” asked Loeffler at one campaign stop. “We are the firewall to stopping socialism, and we have to hold the line.”

    This turn away from even the appearance of traditional governance is most apparent among the newest members of the House Republican caucus. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, also of Georgia, is a glorified social media influencer, seemingly more concerned with making content for fans than bringing aid or assistance to her district. And shortly after taking office, Representative Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina announced to his colleagues that he would be building his congressional staff “around comms rather than legislation.”

    In his Inaugural Address, President Biden urged “unity.” This wasn’t a call for bipartisanship. It was a plea to “lower the temperature” and to “see each other not as adversaries but as neighbors.” Politics, he said, “need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path” and “every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war.”

    Biden’s appeal stands in stark contrast with the reigning ethos of the Republican Party as it exists today. Nothing, not even a deadly crisis, will turn Republicans away from a politics that rejects problem-solving in favor of grievance-mongering.

    Our system has room for two major political parties. One of them, however imperfectly, at least attempts to govern. The other has devoted its energy to entertainment. It is a tragedy for the people of Texas that at this moment of danger, they have to deal with a government of showmen.”

    NYT. Jamelle Bouie

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      “ We all know by now that Ted Cruz went on vacation while Texas froze”.
      Exactly what was he supposed to do? Wear sackcloth and ashes? For God’s sake, have some brains.

      • Stu says:

        You missed this bit “ His is more a failure of optics and political leadership than governance per se.”. A bit like Morrison jetting off to Hawaii during the fires. In politics it is a tricky line. In the case of Cruz, he is being called for going, for lying about it, and for proving that he is all right Jack with his $300/night rooms in Cancun while resisting further help for the masses back home. Have you seen that the billing system in much if Texas means many are now paying ridiculous amounts for the power, if they can get it.

        So yes, sack cloth and ashes may have suited him better. And he left the poor poodle in the cold (LOL – shades of Mitt Romney)

    • Boambee John says:


      I started to read that diatribe, then scanned to the end. Surprise, the NYT! That rag is so woke, it makes WaPo look right wing.

      Try again.

  • Boambee John says:


    It seems that China also has lots of perseverance!

    “A joint report released Wednesday by the U.S.-based Global Energy Monitor (GEM) and Helsinki-based Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) found China built over three times as much coal-fired electrical power capacity in 2020 as the rest of the world combined.”

    Compare with

    “It must be so disheartening for you guys, bleating away and nobody of importance taking heed. The US has rejoined the Paris Accord and most of the rest of the world is in step.”

    Well, except for the world’s biggest CO2 emitter.

    • Stu says:

      “ China built over three times as much coal-fired electrical power capacity in 2020 as the rest of the world combined.”
      And think about it. If they were not investing the huge amount in renewable power each year they would have built twice as much new coal-fired capacity as the rest of the world. Also quite a bit of that “new” capacity is actually replacing old plant nearer large population centres to reduce pollution. Quite a bit of the new stuff is closer to sources of coal, hence the start of the wind back in imports. And yes their home grown coal is more dirty than ours.

      • Boambee John says:


        “And think about it. If they were not investing the huge amount in renewable power each year they would have built twice as much new coal-fired capacity as the rest of the world.”

        So, if they were not going big on ruinables, they would only have built twice as much as the rest of the world, nor three times as much?

        Think about that statement.

        “Also quite a bit of that “new” capacity is actually replacing old plant nearer large population centres to reduce pollution”

        Does this mean you are comfortable with Australia building HELE plants near large population centres to replace old plant and reduce our CO2 emissions? Or is it only China that gets a free pass?

  • Stu says:

    Has it occurred to you geniuses that only Texas had a major problem? The icy wind did not just appear over Texas, it was Arctic air that swept down through Canada. There are plenty of states north of Texas, many of which have higher proportions of power coming from renewable sources and do not seem to have had catastrophic failure. Of course you are so quick to jump on the “it is because of wind power” wagon that you missed this not so subtle point. Expected.

    • Boambee John says:


      Quite obviously, you did not read my comment yesterday, copied here just for you.

      “Texas prepared for gerbil worming by going long on ruinables, with gas back up. Much the same as is proposed for here.

      That went really well //sarc//”

      The big mistake Texas made was to give credence to those “experts”, you know, the people from the “very wide range of scientific bodies” upon which you tell us we should rely.

      Do try to bring even a smidgen of independent thought into your comments.

      • Stu says:

        “ Texas prepared for gerbil worming by going long on ruinables, with gas back up. Much the same as is proposed for here”. Um, yes, just like Arizona, Utah, Nebraska et al. Why did they not fail to the same degree. Answer – preparedness. There are plenty of renewable supplies functioning throughout cold areas. The difference is the privatisation and deregulation of the Texas power system allowed the generators to ignore Federal regulations to “winterize” their systems. Of course in normal times Texas is a lot more hot than freezing cold so they have got away with it, until now. Like many things the problem arises due to the decisions made on an economic not engineering basis, i.e. maximise profits, ignore risk. Please don’t misuse this situation to promote your war on renewables. Just the language you continually use gives away your ideological position, stop pretending it is science based.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Um, yes, just like Arizona, Utah, Nebraska et al. Why did they not fail to the same degree. Answer – preparedness.”

          As usual stu hasn’t got a clue and gets his info from wokey sources.

          The fact was, Texas had a huge influx of moist air [humidity was 100%] and those states further north didn’t.

          Moist, freezing air causes the blades to ice up and they stop turning.

          So, the sequence of events was, wind turbines iced up from February 8 to 10 and their power output dropped 93%. Natural gas ramped up quickly to cover the shortfall, increasing an incredible 450% but then suffered from supply disruptions.

          Thanks to market-distorting policies that favor and subsidize wind and solar energy, Texas has added more than 20,000 megawatts (MW) of those intermittent resources since 2015 while barely adding any natural gas and retiring significant coal generation.

          And suffered the consequences.

          • Boambee John says:


            What SD said.

            We realise that you have a belief issue that you psychologically cannot challenge, but don’t try to inflict it on the world.

            PS, looking forward to your response on China.

          • Stu says:

            “ but then suffered from supply disruptions.” Major disruption way beyond the loss of wind power. And one of the four nuclear plants shut down.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Coal and nuclear are the only serious cold weather generators.

            But even gas kept providing power, unlike wind.

            Some equipment in some nuclear plants in Texas has not been designed for extreme cold weather because there was never a need for this.

            According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the shutdown of the nuclear reactor was caused by a disruption in a feedwater pump to the reactor, and that caused the plant to trip automatically and shut down early Monday. It represented about 1,280 megawatts of the 30,000 megawatts of outages.

            There was no underlying danger to the reactor itself, experts said, and the trip was part of normal safety operations protocol.

          • Stu says:

            SD “ But even gas kept providing power, unlike wind.”. Hmmmm, the figures quoted earlier by Nev show wind at 6% of the power generated (I understand it only ever gets to 10%) and gas was down by over a third. So your statement earns four Pinocchio’s .

  • spangled drongo says:

    Texas, like so much of the world these days, has encouraged the building of wind turbines through direct subsidies and by paying for wind generation, rather than paying for electricity purchased. This guarantee of revenue means generating companies do not have to consider market demand, they can build wind turbines endlessly with no risk. They can even pay others to take their power and then be reimbursed by the government with our tax dollars! Since 2006, federal and Texas subsidies to wind power, have totaled $80 billion, this foolishness is explained well on the stopthesethings website.

    “The wind power excess capacity has distorted the generation mix in Texas to a dangerous and unbalanced level. Natural gas, coal and nuclear generating companies have too little revenue to increase or fortify their plants, since wind can generate as much as it wants and is guaranteed revenue for the electricity it generates.”

    And the stu-pids keep telling us how cheap these unreliables are but following this fierce winter storm that knocked out power for millions of Texans, some residents are reporting colossal spikes in their electricity bills, with some asked to pay more than $17,000 for just a few weeks of service.

    • Boambee John says:


      “some residents are reporting colossal spikes in their electricity bills, with some asked to pay more than $17,000 for just a few weeks of service.”

      Those seem to be people who chose to use an app that allowed them to buy on the spot market, rather than have a fixed price contract.

      Not smart.

    • Stu says:

      And give us the figure for subsidy including tax write offs for the fossil fuel industry in Texas over that period. And is it not funny that renewables have a significant toehold in the most fossil fuel industry intensive state in the US, governed for the last 20 years by hard headed republicans. Just think about that.

      As for the $17000 billing, people should take note before signing up to suppliers offering wholesale rating. It can get a bit like playing the CFD game in financial markets – high risk, high reward, high cost, if it goes wrong. Anyhow the big bills were not to do with renewable cost, it was the market rate for all that fossil power. You said yourself the renewables failed so they had to be paying for fossil power, right?

      • spangled drongo says:

        The only “subsidies” for F/Fs are genuine tax deductions like all normal industries.

        Your unreliables, as with EVs, get so many exemptions, free passes and handouts that we will now all go broke as we go woke.

        • Stu says:

          Yeah, right. No totally wrong. But you keep on in your fact-less dream world.

          “ A new International Monetary Fund (IMF) study shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. The equivalent of over 6.5% of global GDP of that year, it also represented a half-trillion dollar increase since 2015 when China ($1.4 trillion), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion) were the largest subsidizers.
          Despite nations worldwide committing to a reduction in carbon emissions and implementing renewable energy through the Paris Agreement, the IMF’s findings expose how fossil fuels continue to receive huge amounts of taxpayer funding. The report explains that fossil fuels account for 85% of all global subsidies and that they remain largely attached to domestic policy. Had nations reduced subsidies in a way to create efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015, the International Monetary Fund believes that it “would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.”. Forbes

          And from. EESI org. “ Historically, subsidies granted to the fossil fuel industry were designed to lower the cost of fossil fuel production and incentivize new domestic energy sources. Today, U.S. taxpayer dollars continue to fund many fossil fuel subsidies that are outdated, but remain embedded within the tax code. At a time when renewable energy technology is increasingly cost-competitive with fossil power generation, and a coordinated strategy must be developed to mitigate climate change, the broader utility of fossil fuel subsidies is being questioned.

          There are many kinds of costs associated with fossil fuel use in the form of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution resulting from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. These negative externalities have adverse environmental, climate, and public health impacts, and are estimated to have totaled $5.3 trillion globally in 2015 alone.”

          • Boambee John says:


            And the negative externalities of ruinables?

          • Boambee John says:


            EESI, would that be the Environmental and Energy Study Institute?

            “Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to promoting sustainable societies. Today, our mission is to advance science-based solutions for climate change, energy, and environmental challenges in order to achieve our vision of a sustainable, resilient, and equitable world.”

            An entirely technology neutral organisation, of course! //sarc//

          • Stu says:

            “ And the negative externalities of ruinables?”. Are you suggesting burning fossil fuels has no negative externalities. In fact they are huge, yes?

          • Boambee John says:


            “Are you suggesting burning fossil fuels has no negative externalities. In fact they are huge, yes?”

            All generation systems have some negative externalities, from burning animal dung up to nuclear power generation. The issue is the balance between those costs and the benefits gained.

            Are you suggesting that solar, wind and batteries have no negative externalities. In fact they are huge, yes? And the benefit provided does not include reliable, continuous, power.

            Contrary to the ruinables “experts”, on whose every word you seem to gaze in wonder, the current technical state of solar, wind and batteries is inadequate for their intended purpose. To that extent, all of their negative externalities are costs for no real benefit.

            PS, do you regard the EESI as an impartial arbiter on these issues, or do you accept that their output suffers from the same self-intetest as FF proponents?

  • Boambee John says:


    Nothing more about China yet? Avoiding the issue?

    • Stu says:

      China will likely get to net zero before we do. They are making huge leaps with renewables. FF are a transition thing in one of the fastest growing economies.

      • Boambee John says:


        You are deliberately avoiding responding to my earlier questions. I will repeat them here, so you don’t have to go back.

        “And think about it. If they were not investing the huge amount in renewable power each year they would have built twice as much new coal-fired capacity as the rest of the world.”

        So, if they were not going big on ruinables, they would only have built twice as much as the rest of the world, nor three times as much?

        Think about that statement.

        “Also quite a bit of that “new” capacity is actually replacing old plant nearer large population centres to reduce pollution”

        Does this mean you are comfortable with Australia building HELE plants near large population centres to replace old plant and reduce our CO2 emissions? Or is it only China that gets a free pass?

        PS, if you believe that China is heading to net zero, you live in a fantasy dreamworld.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s another more honest way of checking fossil fuel subsidies compared to renewables. Yes FF subsidies are higher but most of those are paid by govts other than OECD govts and of course compared to the energy produced the subsidies paid to renewables are about 25 times higher. IOW chalk and cheese and just more proof that dirty, toxic, unreliable S&W are a disaster for a modern economy.

    The enlarged blue graph tells us the true story.

    This article was written on NOV 2013 and I remember reading it at the time. The graph on the left tells the true story that FFs subs = $63.72 and renewables subs = $1,724 and that’s per billion BTUs of energy production.

    Nov 13, 2013,08:36am EST
    “Renewables Get 25 Times The Subsidy That Fossil Fuels Do”
    Tim Worstall



    “There are various ways that you can look at the various subsidies that go to different types of fuels and of course people will pick the one that best supports the case they want to make. For example, various green types would point to the fact that globally the subsidies to fossil fuels are far higher than those to renewables. I, desiring to make a rather different case, might point to the fact (yes, both are indeed facts) that renewables in the US receive 25 times the subsidy that fossil fuels do. That both are correct, both are straight facts, depends on the point that the details of what is being measured are different.

    Mark Perry makes the second point well with this chart:

    Per unit of energy produced renewables do indeed get 25 times the subsidy of fossil fuels. This is for the US alone of course.

    Elsewhere in the world it is indeed different, as Bjorn Lomborg points out:

    Global fossil-fuel subsidies do exceed those for renewables in raw dollars—$523 billion to $88 billion, according to the International Energy Agency. But the disparity is reversed when proportion is taken into account. Fossil fuels make up more than 80% of global energy, while modern green energy accounts for about 5%. This means that renewables still receive three times as much money per energy unit.

    But much more important, the critics ignore that these fossil-fuel subsidies are almost exclusive to non-Western countries. Twelve such nations account for 75% of the world’s fossil-fuel subsidies. Iran tops the list with $82 billion a year, followed by Saudi Arabia at $61 billion. Russia, India and China spend between $30 billion and $40 billion, and Venezuela, Egypt, Iran, U.A.E., Indonesia, Mexico and Algeria make up the rest.

    These subsidies have nothing to do with cozying up to oil companies or indulging global-warming skeptics. The spending is a way for governments to buy political stability: In Venezuela, gas sells at 5.8 cents a gallon, costing the government $22 billion a year, more than twice what is spent on health care.

    There’s another point that should be made here too. Those fossil fuel subsidies described above, they’re not subsidies to the producers of fossil fuels, they’re subsidies to the consumers of them. Yes, certainly, there’s some leakage as the higher demand for fuels stimulated by the subsidies leads to higher prices for producers. But this is still conceptually different from the renewables subsidies which are expressly designed to go to the producers. Indeed, given the way that most of the green energy subsidies are constructed the producers are subsidised by directly over-charging the consumers.

    These are, as I say, very different types of subsidies. We’re not wandering around throwing money at Exxon and Shell but we are very much doing so for their counterparts in the renewables industry. And we’re not subsidising the consumption of renewables but certain foreign countries are for their citizens”.
    Tim Worstall

    I’m a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, a writer here and there on this and that and strangely, one of the global experts on the metal scandium, one of the… Read More

  • Neville says:

    So stu thinks that China will be at net zero before Australia?
    Just checked over at Wiki for all electricity production from S&W and interesting findings.Don’t forget this isn’t for TOTAL energy used but just electricity from S&W.

    China 3.9% from solar and 4% from wind.

    Australia 8.1% from solar and 8.5% from wind.

    USA 2.8% from solar and 7.29% from wind.

    • Stu says:

      Nev, are we going to play wiki v wiki. Here are some later figures than yours.

      “ Although China currently has the world’s largest installed capacity of hydro, solar and wind power, its energy needs are so large that in 2019, renewable sources provided 26% of its electricity generation — compared to 17% in the U.S.A. — with most of the remainder provided by coal power plants. In early 2020, renewable energy comprised about 40% of China’s total installed electric power capacity, and 26% of total power generation — with solar and wind combined having more capacity than hydropower. Nevertheless, the share of renewable sources in the energy mix had been gradually rising in recent years”

  • Boambee John says:


    One issue relating to the Texas problem is the advice from the climate science “experts”. More than 20 years ago, the infamous Climate Research Unit in East Anglia (home of the Climategate emails) firmly forecast that snowfalls would be a thing of the past. Does their failure in this respect give you any concern about their other predictions?

  • Stu says:

    “ advice from the climate science experts……. firmly forecast that snowfalls would be a thing of the past”. Where exactly? Smacks of being a typical internet misinformation stream.

    So, was that all the “experts”, one or two, maybe a dozen?

    The whole East Anglia thing has been debunked many times.

    You really should move on.

    • Boambee John says:


      It was a statement by David Viner of the CRU, published in The Independent, not one of the leaked emails. You really are not on top of this issue.

      Still, you are partially correct. The idea that the CRU has any credibility has indeed been debunked many times.

  • Boambee John says:


    Have you started working on the negative externalities of ruinables yet?

    Cobalt mining in Congo, rare earth processing in China? Then there is the extensive land clearing for wind farms and solar arrarys, and long transmission lines. Don’t forget the deaths of millions of birds and bats in wind farms. (St Bob Brown can help you there, but only in his own backyard.)

    Then there is removal of expired windmills and solar cells. Those multi hundred tonne concrete and steel foundations won’t just evaporate, while windmill blades and old solar cells are too expensive to recycle. (Perhaps add the cost of recycling them to the initial price, rather than subsidising them?)

    And then there are the dead batteries. Apart from being a major fire hazard, they might not be good for people who handle them.
    All that and so much more.

    We look forward to your report.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the 2020 BP stats on primary energy and this is for year ending 2019 and minus the BS from the usual con merchants.


    And their chart for changes in 2019, see page 6 TABLE 1. Please click the link and you’ll find that FFs generated 84.3% of global energy, S&W + bio fuels 5%, Hydro 6.4%, Nuclear 4.3%.

    Now the next thing we have to isolate is just the S&W energy and I hope to find this out soon. BUT we do know that to arrive at NET ZERO by 2050 would bankrupt every country on earth and is a mission impossible.

    And we also know that this dirty, toxic S&W disaster has to be repeated every 20 years and will wreck the environment and have no measurable impact on temp or climate beyond 2100 and for the next thousand years.

  • Neville says:

    Here at Our World in Data we find that in 2019 just 3% of the World’s primary energy was generated by S&W.
    And 7% of world electricity generation comes from S&W.


  • Neville says:

    Here’s the per capita wind generation for China 701 KWH and Australia 1918 KWH or OZ about 2.7 times higher than China.


    • Boambee John says:


      And how can Stu object to a per capita measurement. After all, he thinks it is the best measure for CO2 emissions!

    • Stu says:

      Yes indeed, if you want to play that game. China’s emissions per capita are much lower than ours. So them having a lower wind generation figure is no big deal. But multiply by population and they are clearly doing a huge job of implementing renewable energy. Back to you genius.

      • Boambee John says:

        And, just remember (according to Stu) if they hadn’t installed so much solar and wind, they would only “have built twice as much new coal-fired capacity as the rest of the world.” Instead, with all that extra solar and wind, they built three times as much!

        See how ruinables increase the need for FF power in China!

        • Stu says:

          “ See how ruinables increase the need for FF power in China!”. Mate you have outdone yourself this time, brilliant deduction – not. Your flawed logic is astounding.

          • Boambee John says:


            I was going to post a detailed response to this, but it isn’t worth the trouble.

            I simply suggest that you re-read my comment at 0630 on 21 February and your response at 0759 that day. You seem to follow the school of thought that arithmetic is a tool of white privilege, to be ignored when it doesn’t suit your argument.

          • Stu says:

            Simple answer, poor expression. Clearly I meant that without the renewables they would have built even more coal power, ie more than three times. I should have said “twice as much as they have built”

          • Boambee John says:


            Minor correction.

            Simplistic answer, appalling expression.

            Truth is you stuffed it up, but are too much of a weasel to admit it. And it took multiple reminders from me to make you, after you stuffed it up a second time.

  • Neville says:

    Also see down at the OWI data page that in 2019 Australia generated 2.5% of primary energy from Solar and China 1.41%.
    From Wind Australia PE 2.71% and China PE 2.55 %. And Australia , China and Spain about the highest % of their PE from Solar in the world.


  • Neville says:

    Just a quick check of some countries’ GDP per year + pop + OZ net zero cost of 55 T $ by 2050.

    USA about 21 Trillion $. population 332 mil

    China 14.5 T $ pop 1400 mil

    Australia 1.5 T $ pop 25.5 mil. Net Zero cost = 55 T $ by 2050.

    Germany 3.8 T $ pop 84 mil

    Japan 4.9 T $ pop 126 mil

    UK 2.7 T $ pop 68 mil.


    • Stu says:

      Typical attempt at misdirection by poor comparisons. You neatly jump from annual figures for everything to suddenly a 28 year total figure for comparison to inflate it. In any event where did you pull the $55Trillion from, and even if valid which I doubt, where is the net benefit figure, after all renewables are much cheaper to run. Typical of the negative camp is to inflate the apparent costs, ignore the savings, refer to cost of “net zero” but somehow no reference to net cost of achieving net zero emissions.

      • Boambee John says:


        “Typical of the negative camp is to inflate the apparent costs”

        Typical of the alarmist camp to ignore the cost of back up for when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine.

        How are you going with estimating the negative externalities of ruinables? Head still buried in the sand?

  • Boambee John says:

    From the US Department of Energy.
    Sunday 14 February at 2000 hrs
    Texas electricity in megawatt-hours:

    Natural gas. 43, 798
    Coal. 10,828
    Wind. 8,087
    Nuclear. 5,140

    Monday 15 February, during the height of the storm, at 2000 hrs

    Natural gas. 30,917
    Coal. 8,023
    Wind. 649
    Nuclear. 3,785

    Draw your own conclusions

    • Stu says:

      Yes, major problem with all sources. Total cock up by the designers and managers of the current grid system. And that includes the decision to not interconnect with either of the two main continental grids, to avoid federal rules, and thus depriving Texas of backup.

  • Neville says:

    My Dad told me to never argue with a fool and it’s incredible how often that seems to be very good advice.

    BTW I just threw around a few morsels above and of course D 2 as usual didn’t understand anything.
    I could’ve joined all the dots for him but chose not to and I’ll just repeat AGAIN that if NZ has to find/waste
    5 trillion $ to reach NET ZERO ( see NZ govt report + Lomborg’s expert maths/stats team agrees) then OZ would have to waste 55 T $ ( NZ 0.1% compared to OZ 1.1% of global co2 emissions) the USA ( 13.8%) 690 T $, China ( 29.5%) 1475 T $ etc.
    How many more times do I have to repeat myself before it sinks in????
    Dr Indur Goklany has just brought out his new report and it’s very good news and backs up Lomborg and Shellenberger’s latest books that there’s been a “False Alarm” and definitely “Apocalypse Never”. Please WAKE UP.


  • Neville says:

    BTW here’s the latest data on the top 25 economies on the planet and Australia is now at number 13.
    A few surprises as Nigeria and others have started to jump the queue.
    Certainly many thousands of trillions $ to be wasted for a ZERO RETURN if these countries actually followed the NET ZERO emissions garbage by 2050.
    China (and developing countries) must be laughing at the others stupidity and sensibly have claimed poor, developing country status for the next 40 years. See the full 25 countries profiles near the end of the article.


  • Neville says:

    Here’s Lomborg in 2019 explaining about Net zero co2 emissions and the cost to NZ of 5 T $.
    Don’t forget there wouldn’t be 1% of voters anywhere who actually understand any of this, but reality will bash them around the ears as their standard of living quickly drops and this will have to start long before 2050.
    Frances’ yellow vests are still waiting for Macron’s next move after he threw in the towel over the fuel pricing riots and those increases were chicken feed compared to net zero by 2050.
    Lomborg is correct that net zero is a guaranteed loser and in more ways than most people understand.


  • Stu says:

    Nev, you do rely on simplistic interpretations of often poor quality papers put out by people like Lomborg, who is not widely accepted as an expert.

    Here is some stuff from the NZ report more on song. “ The studies all support the conclusion that the overall impact of decarbonisation on the economy will be small relative to projected growth. However, different macroeconomic models disagree on whether the impact on GDP will be negative or positive. This disagreement centres on distinct model assumptions around market imperfections and whether the economy operates at full capacity.
    General equilibrium models, like the Commission’s C-PLAN model, assume that the economy is at an equilibrium usually without any unused resources. This means that, for instance, the additional investment required to decarbonise will necessarily reduce investment somewhere else in the economy. The European Commission’s general equilibrium modelling results are similar to ours, with the net zero emissions pathway reducing GDP by 0.6-1.3% relative to the baseline in 2050.”

    Quite different to the bland claim of a $5trillion “cost to NZ”. And keep in mind all economic activity counts as part of GDP

    “ Table 12.2 presents the results of economic modelling, using the Commission’s Climate Policy Analysis (C-PLAN) model. The modelling shows that Aotearoa can continue to grow its economy while taking actions to reduce emissions and achieve the country’s domestic emissions reduction targets for biogenic methane and all other greenhouse gases.
    Under current policy settings, GDP is projected to grow to $512 billion by 2050. This is likely to be an overestimate as this does not factor in the negative climate and trade impacts of not acting on climate change.
    By contrast, Aotearoa taking action in line with our proposed emissions budgets – i.e. TP3 and TP4 – would result in GDP growing to about $508 billion by 2050. This is approximately equivalent to GDP being less than 1% lower in 2050 or reaching the same level about 6-7 months later in 2050.6
    Looking out to 2035, our modelling suggests that reducing emissions to meet our proposed emissions budgets would cost Aotearoa no more than $190 million each year over emissions budget 1, $2.3 billion each year over emissions budget 2, and $4.3 billion each year over emissions budget 3. It is difficult to estimate the benefits of action with any accuracy as there is significant uncertainty in how the benefits will actually be realised”

    Just like with climate science the economics is complex and open to different assumptions and views (economics, like political science often contains much hot air).

    And as usual you and your fellow travellers keep misleading by referring to negligible reduction in temperature by 2050, when as stated over and over the goal of emerging policy is to limit the amount of “increase”. Do you have trouble grasping that concept?

    • Boambee John says:


      “Nev, you do rely on simplistic interpretations of often poor quality papers put out by people like Lomborg, who is not widely accepted as an expert.”

      “Not widely accepted as an expert”: Translation, says things with which Stu (self acknowledged as not an expert) doesn’t like to see.

      “Poor quality papers”: Translation “Stu doesn’t want to hear that”.

      Below pathetic. You accept that you do not understand the subject, but have an (adverse) opinion on everyone with whom you disagree.

  • Neville says:

    Stu your stu-pid idea that Lomborg is some random lightweight couldn’t be further from the truth.
    His group of 24 leading economists, science, maths and stats experts include about 3 REAL Nobel laureates and they advise govts around the world.
    Their advice almost always takes the precautionary approach and they only recommend any action when they are sure that there will be a guaranteed benefit at the end of the project.
    The idea that net zero will yield some return in the future is ridiculous and I’ve linked to studies that find that there will be no change for a thousand years EVEN if we were able to STOP all human co2 emissions today.
    You should read Dr Goklany’s latest report then add that to Dr Christy’s and Dr Humlum’s reports to the GWPF twelve months ago.
    These 3 scientists actually follow the data/ evidence and are very sceptical of the IPCC UN approach although at least 2 of them have been expert reviewers over the years.

    • Stu says:

      Nev Anyone and anything associated with GWPF is somewhat tainted.

      “ The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a UK-based think tank founded by climate change denialist Nigel Lawson with the purpose of combating what the foundation describes as “extremely damaging and harmful policies” designed to mitigate climate change…… Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics said that “Some of those names [on the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council] are straight from the Who’s Who of current climate change sceptics … To me, this is pretty much indistinguishable from the websites that are run by rightwing, free-market think tanks in the US. It’s just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn’t been through scrutiny,”

      “ The similarly-named Global Warming Policy Forum (thegwpf.com) describes itself as “a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Global Warming Policy Foundation” and a “London-based think tank which conducts campaigns and activities which do not fall squarely within the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s remit as an educational charity.” Its Director is Dr Benny Peiser, the same as the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and its Chairman is Neil Record, who also chairs the BP-funded pro-free market Institute of Economic Affairs.

      The reason for the formation of the Global Warming Policy Forum as a seperate entity can be traced to a report by the UK Charity Commission (PDF) that looked into the Global Warming Policy Foundation when “Concerns were raised with the commission that the charity was promoting views that were of a political rather than an educational nature.”

      The Commision examined the GWPF’s website, blog, and publications, and came to the conclusion that the GWPF lacked its claimed neutrality, as it “promoted a particular position on global warming.” The Charity Commission also ruled that the GWPF did not constitute as an educational resource: “The [GWPF] website could not be regarded as a comprehensive and structured educational resource sufficient to demonstrate public benefit. In areas of controversy, education requires balance and neutrality with sufficient weight given to competing arguments. The promotion of a particular view or position would not equate to education.” (Emphasis added). “

      But you keep up your adulation. BTW Lomborg has no science training, least of all climate science, just saying!

      “ The GWPF has rejected FoI (Freedom of Information) requests on at least four different occasions. Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on climate Change and the Environment comments:

      “These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by…the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves…The GWPF was the most strident critic during the ‘Climategate’ row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders.”

      • Boambee John says:


        “Nev Anyone and anything associated with GWPF is somewhat tainted.”

        And is the EESI that you quoted on Sunday any less conflicted? The truth is that none of the pressure groups on either side is completely pure in its motives. Only mugs like you believe that some of them are.

        None of the groups on either side of the climate change debate can claim to have completely pure motives.

        I note the mention of the infamous University of East Anglia, hume of the CRU, source of the discredited “snowfalls will be a thing of the past” failed prediction, Climategate and so much more. LOL.

        • Stu says:

          “ snowfalls will be a thing of the past” failed prediction”

          One of the great poor quotes of the debate. I admit in line with some of Tim Flannery stuff here.

          So yes, there is bias here and there but I contend the field is much more polluted on the negative side. As the saying goes “follow the money”.

          And BTW, East Anglia was merely a focal point, and not driving the science.

          • Boambee John says:


            “So yes, there is bias here and there but I contend the field is much more polluted on the negative side. As the saying goes “follow the money”.”

            Nice of you to admit finally to bias on the alarmist side.

            “Follow the money”.

            There is money on both sides.

            “Researchers” on the alarmist side might not pull in billions, but they do quite well as individuals. Companies involved in ruinables also do very well on subsidies forced from FF companies. It would be fair to describe some ruinables companies as subsidy farms with a sideline in energy production.

            As I said earlier, neither side is pure of heart, so it is good to see you gradually moving towards a recognition of that reality.

            As for ” one of the great poor quotes of the debate”, I doubt that Viner slipped up. He was regurgitating what the models told him was going to happen. Unfortunately, except for the Russian one, the models, to use a scientific term, are crap.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Perhaps some of you global alarmists would like to explain why the small Pacific island nations are still begging for funds to ameliorate sea level rise, when they have been sitting securely above the waves for at least the last twenty years.

    • Boambee John says:


      Aaaannnnnyyy daaaayyyy nooww they will go under. Just ask any one of the many alarmists who have “researched” the matter, completed “studies” or written “reports”. They’ll tell you, once they complete writing their next grant application.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu’s paper at least admits it does not know if the tide gauges are telling it correctly or not but in fact those sites are actually sinking somewhat so the mean sea levels are, if anything, actually falling more.

    But certainly not rising.

    And as by far the majority of Pacific atolls are gaining area, the rest of the Pacific [which is the biggest ocean in the world] is not doing anything either.

    Moreton Bay and the Gold Coast, with shorter histories, are showing current king tide levels mostly considerably lower [but never higher] than 70 years ago.

    If people like stu ever made personal observations of the world around them on a continual basis they would know that global warming is basically a hoax and all that is happening is natural variability.

    When our continent has such a huge frontage to this huge ocean and there is no observable evidence of any mean sea level increase, we can relax.

    And refrain from wasting those multi-trillions.

    • Stu says:

      Are you claiming all sea level gauges show no rise or just FD? Please provide links to some papers. Oh, and once again, pinning your hopes on king tides “ current king tide levels mostly considerably lower [but never higher] than 70 years ago.” shows you still do not understand sea level, do you. FYI, it is not about king tides.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu, how many time do I have to spell it out for you?

        If the highest annual tides [king tides] are observed at normal barometric pressure [or, if not, adjusted for that] and they occur during good, not windy, weather, they are the best indicator of sea levels to the average person.

        The greatest influence on SLs is possibly wind but there are many others but over long periods there is overwhelming evidence that the biggest piece of ocean in the world is doing nothing, SL wise.

        When the world’s tide gauges have all been “chipped” for at least 20 years we might have a better idea but until then, in a world where the lands are rising and falling, as Morner said, there is nothing happening, even in the world’s hot spots like the Maldives.

        • Stu says:

          Canute, next you will be saying we should use the lowest minimum temperature in the year to establish the temperature trend. I think your SL measure based on king tides does not cut it in hydrography. Try this one “ the level is better defined as mean sea level, the height of the sea surface averaged over all stages of the tide over a long period of time.”

          • spangled drongo says:

            Try this one, clever boy; mean sea level is certainly the best measure but unless you are looking at a full tide range marked out against a tide-stained cliff face and at the lowest possible tide, mean sea level is impossible to ascertain in a single observation. It requires long periods of tide data.

            Whereas HAT level can be seen at a glance and also rising king tide level has much more effect on humans than rising MSL.

            Your complete lack of real world observations, experience and knowledge is, as usual, only too obvious.

          • Stu says:

            Tell that to the experts Canute

          • Stu says:

            I am just heading out for a race on the water, no problem with the HAT today, carry on carrying on without me. Cheers

          • spangled drongo says:

            Good luck, and don’t forget to pay attention, stueyluv.

            If you are trying to win, that is.

            But then I doubt you would be doing any serious ocean racing. But some facts may help you.

            Here are some of Morner’s comments on the “accuracy” of satellite sea level measurements which shows, as we all well know today, they, as with so much of modern climate science, are just computer-generated, statistical stu-pidity:

            “Now back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean, as measured by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

            “Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something, but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original data which they suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor”.

            “So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences meeting in Moscow—I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend! That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modelling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!”

          • Boambee John says:


            “I am just heading out for a race on the water,”

            Recreational boating would have to be one of the most irresponsible activities that could be undertaken by someone who claims to be concerned about rising CO2 emissions and sea levels. What penance, sorry, indulgences, sorry again, offsets are you paying for to offset this selfish activity?

            Gaia weeps when a recreational vessel scars her oceans.

          • Stu says:

            SD, “…satellite sea level measurements which shows, as we all well know today, they, as with so much of modern climate science, are just computer-generated, statistical stu-pidity”. So, your beloved Roy Spencer Huntsville satellite temperature measurements (the earth is not warming) are bogus also, okay.

            BJ, “Gaia weeps when a recreational vessel scars her oceans.” Once again you demonstrate your great ability to jump to conclusions, wrong ones, in order to make some crazy point. Actually my sailing race involved fully two minutes of engine time the rest of the three hours was all using the wind. Oh, hang on, I forgot for a moment your animosity towards wind power.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu, Stu, Stu

            The use of the engine is not the only issue.

            There is your transport to and from the mooring area, the carbon (dioxide) budget for the construction and maintenance of the vessel, and for it’s future disposal.

            You must kearn to think more wholistically if you are to do your bit for Gaia.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, if you don’t know the difference between the temperature and sea level measuring processes of satellites then you should not be commenting.

            And a true-believer like you should at least be doing what I do; when you go sailing, whether it is in races or single-handed solo circs, you don’t use an engine at all.

            My current boat does not even posses one. My previous 37 footer I used to row if I couldn’t sail.

  • Neville says:

    What a joker our Stu is and he even believes sceptics are as well funded as the con merchants and alarmists.
    The 3 people that I’ve linked to all held recent talks at the GWPF and can hold their heads up because they’ve used proper data/evidence from PR sources.
    But all the dopey claims from so many alarmists are just wishful thinking or very inaccurate or just plain wrong. Here are some recent claims by NOAA that are ridiculous, to put it mildly.
    And so called dangerous SLR is just make believe and now more of the data from around the world supports this POV. And of course net zero by 2050 will never happen and would bankrupt every country making the attempt.


  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova reports on more of the alarmist’s unfounded exaggerations and wishful thinking.
    But alas the people don’t seem to be listening and little more observed reaction that the extremists are seeking.
    But just wait when the extra pain starts to bite and you’ll see more of the French yellow vest type reaction all around the world.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Doom is king! You can’t win with cli-sci.

    Now, all the existing and proposed solar farms could unleash unintended consequences on the environment, including global warming:


    • Stu says:

      I am surprised you find this article acceptable to your belief system which seems always ready to dismiss anything relying on modelling. “ we used an advanced Earth system model to closely examine how Saharan solar farms interact with the climate. Our model takes into account the complex feedbacks between the interacting spheres of the world’s climate – the atmosphere, the ocean and the land and its ecosystems.“. Perhaps you have reformed. Do tell.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu still doesn’t grasp the theory of sarcasm.

        If you like one set of models, then you are stuck with the conclusions of other models.

        Or you could get smart, and look at empirical reality? Nah, that would destroy your whole belief system.

        • Stu says:


          • Boambee John says:


            What makes you think that I agree with the models to which SD referred sarcastically? If it ain’t empirical, it ain’t science.

            PS, perhaps that bunch should have taken a few measurements rather than waste time with models?

      • spangled drongo says:

        You really are that obtuse, stu?

        You obviously don’t do sarcasm, eh?

  • Neville says:

    Meanwhile our idiot Climate Council is busily yapping about possible 50 c days in Melb and Syd by 2040. And their ABC has been promoting this garbage this morning and granting interviews etc.
    But this is a pack of lies and if Aussies closed down right now and didn’t emit a molecule of extra co2 until 2040 it wouldn’t make ZIP difference to climate temp or anything else.
    But this is the level of the CCs and ABC’s climate science/ stu-pidity and real scientists , Journos etc should be condemning this until these con merchants clean up their act.
    Just unbelievable that this goes on and on and nobody condemns these fools at all and on it goes month after month and year after year.
    I’m sure their sports stars truly believe these lies and unscientific junk, but other honest Aussies should tell the truth using proper data and evidence and at every opportunity.
    And China will keep building more coal generators until 2060 and ditto India, Africa, the rest of Asia etc for a very long time. So why don’t we ever call out the liars and BS artists?


  • Neville says:

    Biden and Kerry would have to be gold medal con merchants and hypocrites when compared to other fra-dsters lecturing us on so called CAGW.
    They lecture the world yet both have a monster personal co2 footprint like their mate Gore and a myriad other giant HIPPOS in the USA and around the globe.
    But they also have giant egos that equip them on their ignorant quest and interesting to see that China, India and Russia at least understand the real situation.
    But garrrwwwd help the rest of the donkeys who can’t think or add up simple sums or understand very basic data and evidence about the REAL WORLD over the last 100 years or 50 years or 30 years.


    • Stu says:

      Standard denialist tactic to try and bring the whole debate down to the level of personal responsibility in face of a global problem, typical. Particularly ridiculous when criticising the carbon footprint of a person with the role and responsibilities of the president of the USA. On the scale of relevance/importance to the world you probably outshine him many times over. It just makes your silliness more starkly apparent. Try some of the other worn out tropes, just for a change.

      • spangled drongo says:

        The penny refuses to drop for obtuse stu.

        He doesn’t seem to recall that the similar Dem Doomers like Gore and Obama also purchased the essential seafront mansion by that ever rising ocean?

        Is that also part of their “responsibility”?

        Or is it just possible that they really don’t believe in what they preach?

        • Stu says:

          “ Gore and Obama also purchased the essential seafront mansion by that ever rising ocean? Or is it just possible that they really don’t believe in what they preach?“.

          No mate, it is just that unlike you they are concerned about things beyond their own life horizon and their own self interest. What is your excuse?

          • spangled drongo says:

            So the world champion hypocrites now have their own stu-pid champion.

            Who happens to be so thick he thinks these people live a lie out of concern for others.

            Who happens to be so thick he thinks people like me who know, and can show, a little extra CO2 is a good thing in so many ways, need an excuse for exhaling.

            Who happens to be so thick he makes these statements based on a complete absence of any supporting, measurable evidence.

      • Boambee John says:

        Poor old Stu uses an old trope to defend hypocrisy.

        But, he also owns a big kids toy to sail around laps, and call it a race. He is just like those he defends.

        • Stu says:

          “ he also owns a big kids toy to sail around laps, and call it a race.” Ouch, and what do you do, play the pokies or just sit around bitching on the internet?

          • Boambee John says:


            A bit sensitive are you? Afraid that you might be held to having to “try and bring the whole debate down to the level of personal responsibility in face of a global problem”.

            It is interesting that you both enjoy a pastime that emits large scale CO2, and decry the concept of personal responsibility for an issue, climate change, which seems to be a personal obsession with you.

            Perhaps if you really are concerned, rather than just political point scoring, you might take some personal responsibility. What is that phrase? “Think global, act local”?

            Ditto for Gore, Obama and the rest.

            Those who wish to turn the lives of others upside down should lead by example. The rest of us might start to believe there is a crisis when those who tell us there is a crisis act as if they actually believe that there is a crisis, as the Instapundit says.

            PS, I walk with my wife, enjoy the company of our children and grandchildren, read a lot of books, enjoy the company of others, since you ask. You might try the same, and get a warm inner glow for saving the planet at the same time.

  • Stu says:

    “ A bit sensitive are you? Afraid that you might be held to having to “try and bring the whole debate down to the level of personal responsibility in face of a global problem”.

    Not at all I am accusing you of doing that with your ref to Gore and Biden, wake up and pay attention.

    “It is interesting that you both enjoy a pastime that emits large scale CO2, and decry the concept of personal responsibility for an issue, climate change, which seems to be a personal obsession with you.”

    See my previous point. And how do you derive a figure for the CO2 emissions of my particular pastime which you know nothing about?

    “Perhaps if you really are concerned, rather than just political point scoring, you might take some personal responsibility. What is that phrase? “Think global, act local”?
    Ditto for Gore, Obama and the rest.”

    See above comments. Are you a slow learner with poor cognitive ability?

    “Those who wish to turn the lives of others upside down should lead by example. The rest of us might start to believe there is a crisis when those who tell us there is a crisis act as if they actually believe that there is a crisis, as the Instapundit says.”

    Once again classic denialist rubbish “turn the lives of others upside down”, how exactly and on what time scale, oh please try harder you poor thing.

    “PS, I walk with my wife, enjoy the company of our children and grandchildren, read a lot of books, enjoy the company of others, since you ask. You might try the same, and get a warm inner glow for saving the planet at the same time.”

    So sorry I had no idea you were infirm and reduced to only reading and talking with family. But please don’t rubbish others still able to lead an active life, even at greater years than your yours. It almost smacks of envy. BTW, I also do the things you describe (don’t most people) but also have a wide range of physical pursuits to keep fit and engaged with society. Tapping on a keyboard to debate with a SOB is a mere fraction of my time, wasted though that effort is with people unable to even concede the benefits of the slightest risk management.

    • Boambee John says:

      Poor old Stu, didn’t even notice that I didn’t bring Gore and Biden into the conversation, I just picked up on his inane response.

      Forgot that he has previously mentioned his sailing boat, big enough to have an auxiliary engine. (But it does have solar cells – do you have an electric engine, with batteries charged by the cells?)

      Wants to save the world, but not if it involves personal sacrifice.

      Silly Stu thinks that switching to ruinables will have no effect on anyone’s lifestyle, head full of cotton wool where there should be brains.

      Thinks that people who read are infirm. Sorry, I didn’t tell you everything I do, only enough to tempt you into your usual sneering response. So pig ignorant he thinks he can tell someone’s age by their pastimes.

      Silly Stu touts risk management, as long as it doesn’t affect him personally. Responsibility is for lesser beings, not for the Stus of this world.

      Ignorant, stupid, irresponsible, selfish, and those are his good points.

      • Stu says:

        Give up. I admit you are an excellent exponent of the art of drawing false conclusions from little information and making silly statements. As for your age and activity I did say sorry and did make similar assumptions based on the information you provided. As for boats you are nowhere near the mark. The “auxiliary engine” is all of a few horsepower, and is used as backup for safety. The solar panels support a small fridge, VHF radio and LED lights both navigation and internal. Oh and she is more than 30 years old and all of 21 feet long. I am sure you will find all that disgusting and wasteful. How are your cars going?

        As for risk management there you go again, clearly I referred to collective action by society, which you have indicated is anathema.

        I give up it is like talking to a wall, a wailing wall.

        • Boambee John says:


          “As for your age and activity I did say sorry”

          Indeed you did, but not for the insult, only to be contemptuous and patronising. Give the false regrets up.

          “How are your cars going?”

          Only got one car.

          “As for risk management there you go again, clearly I referred to collective action by society, which you have indicated is anathema.”

          Still as thick as two short planks. I don’t necessarily see collective action as anathema, just collective action to solve a non problem. All pain and no gain is anathema.

          But you are the one who babbles on about climate change, demanding collective action, which you are markedly reluctant to join at the individual level. When told Australia can have no practical effect in the (non) problem at a global level, you fall back on examples of our contribution to the world wars, and urge that we should do our bit for the climate.

          But you reject any analogous suggestions that you should “do your bit” at an individual level by taking some personal responsibility.

          Practice what you preach, or shut up.

      • Stu says:

        And BTW, if you stopped using emotive terminology like “switching to ruinables” you might seem smarter and your message may be more acceptable. At least unlike some of your fellow travellers you don’t resort to insulting diminutive forms of name for participants here, thank you.

        • Boambee John says:

          “stopped using emotive terminology like “switching to ruinables”

          Says the regular user of the emotive terminology “denialist”. Physician, heal thyself.

          • Stu says:

            Hardly the same is it. You clearly deny the findings of the worlds top climate scientists. Renewable energy is cheap, cost effective and reliable yet you choose to demonise it all by calling it ruinables. One is a statement of fact, the other a wild unsupported opinion. So I won’t concede that to you. If we started calling you guys “destroyers” and fossil fuel burning assets as “evil machines” you might have a case

          • spangled drongo says:

            “You clearly deny the findings of the worlds top climate scientists.”

            Only because those “findings” are not supported by any evidence.

            Which makes those “findings” fakery.

            But you deny this.

            So what does that make you?

            BTW, did you check those sea levels when you went sailing?

          • Boambee John says:


            “Renewable energy is cheap, cost effective and reliable”

            Except when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine and the batteries are flat. Events which happen frequently.

            Do you deny that wind, solar and batteries, in their prrsent state of development, cannot provide the reliable, continuous, power necessary to maintain a modern civilisation, regardless of what the “worlds top climate scientists” might say? Or do you continue, Micawber like, to expect something to turn up?

            You remain irredeemably naive or stupid, you decide.

          • Boambee John says:


            So you concede that ruinables are inadequate in “their present state of development”, but claim that “Renewable energy is cheap, cost effective and reliable”

            Perhaps I am missing something, but something that is “inadequate” doesn’t seem to merit the description “cheap, cost effective and reliable”, particularly the description “reliable”.

            But you keep your head buried in the sand!

        • Stu says:

          “Do you deny that wind, solar and batteries, in their prrsent state of development, cannot provide the reliable, continuous, power necessary to maintain a modern civilisation”

          Of course not, that would be stupid. The key words are “in their current state” and that includes the current state of backup storage, hydro, pumped hydro, grid batteries etc.

          And for SD yes I did check the “tides” before sailing, so what?

          • spangled drongo says:

            “yes I did check the “tides” before sailing, so what?”

            That’s not what I asked, stu.

          • Boambee John says:


            My reply ended up.out of order, look above your comment for it.

          • Stu says:

            SD, your question was just silly, so I responded in the only sensible way. Your confusion regarding tides and sea level is on par with your misunderstandings about weather and climate.

          • Boambee John says:


            Almost as silly as you conceding that ruinables are inadequate in “their present state of development”, but claiming that “Renewable energy is cheap, cost effective and reliable”

            If tbeir present state of development is inadequate, they can’t be cost-effective and reliable.

          • Stu says:

            BJ please do try and keep up. We are not in a position to replace all fossil power TODAY, but we can move towards that point. No one is suggesting we do it overnight. This is typical of the negative sensationalism from your side. It is similar to the doom mongers (often denialists in disguise arguing there is no point doing anything) overlooking the actual position of needing to begin change now. It is a bit like smokers and lung cancer (strangely enough this links back to the people supporting the tobacco lobby), the sooner you stop the better your prospects of remaining healthy.

            And yes the only fossil power cheaper than grid scale renewable power now is that coming from legacy generators where the plant has long been written off financially. There is no sign of players keen to build new coal plants here except for our National Party friends (taking money from the big players) and of course the isolated Joel Fitzgibbon. If there is a need for medium term new fossil power it most likely come via gas, and lots of government subsidy.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Your confusion regarding tides and sea level is on par with your misunderstandings about weather and climate.”

            Stu, Australia is arguably the most tectonically stable continent in the world and our best tide gauge tells us that mean sea levels are LOWER today than the first measurement made over a century ago.

            When that data is supported by the increasing size of Pacific coral atolls it is telling us that sea levels for the largest piece of ocean in the world are not increasing.

            The person here that is clearly confused “regarding tides and sea level, weather and climate” is very obviously you.

          • Stu says:

            So Mr Drongo what has any of that got to do with me going sailing? The only relevant factors on any day are the weather and the state of the tide. If you can find me daily advice on the state of the SL on this part of the east coast that is relevant to the activity of sailing please show me where. And based on your clear pronouncement that SL is not rising why on earth would I want to check it before sailing anyway. And don’t try and cover your silly reply with claim of sarcasm.

            I look forward to the briefing for the next Sydney Hobart yacht race and the opportunity to ask about the state of the sea level. LOL. (That is sarcasm).

          • Boambee John says:


            I think you misunderstand the phrase “present state of development”. It does not relate to the scale of development, but to the technical capabilities of solar, wind and batteries. Still, you might learn in a couple of years when Liddell and another major plant in VIctoria close down.

            “If there is a need for medium term new fossil power it most likely come via gas, and lots of government subsidy.”

            So, pretty much like ruinables now?

          • spangled drongo says:

            Don’t look now, stueyluv, but your ignorance is showing.

            If your interest is yacht racing [and you said you were heading out for a race] as a designer, builder and skipper of international racing yachts, I can advise that one of the most important factors to be aware of in order to achieve success in ocean racing is climate shifts that involve every aspect of weather including tides, sea levels, currents etc.

            I have had great success over half the global oceans by doing this and as I keep telling you, you have to pay attention. You can’t live a life of denial and non-observance as you do.

            To give you some idea, after the last big Pacific climate shift I optimised my designs and subsequently their handicaps to take advantage of the changes [some of the world’s leading designers said I was mad] but in the following international series I just happened to win every race both on line honours and handicap.


            Following that, in another international Trans Pacific series, my designs won every racing yacht category.

            So don’t get too obtusely sarcastic about it, ignore your silly climate-religionists and instead try to find out what is really happening by making acute observations.

            There are great rewards waiting for those who get it right.

  • Neville says:

    This is the first time I agree with Putin/Russians but it’s great to see them check the data/evidence on Kerry’s/Mann’s so called climate crisis and then use their veto in the UN Security council.
    The liars and con merchants won’t be pleased but they should never succeed when they only resort to fantasies about their fantasy planet like Kerry, Biden, Johnson, EU, USA and so many of the countries around the globe trying to latch on to all their fra-dulent nonsense in the belief it will lead to further $ down the track.

    So far China’s chosen the 2 bob each way bet but this will change as they absorb the big guy+ Hunter Biden scandal and whether it starts to emerge as a more serious problem ( for Biden) in the US over the coming months.

    And India also knows that their so called CAGW is just more BS and fra-d and is not a security threat. Just check the REAL WORLD data from Lomborg, Shellenberger, Goklany, Humlum, Christy, Spencer, Curry, Ridley etc. OH and anyone else who is interested in the data and not the mixed up fictional nonsense coming from the crazy religious fanatics.

    See the highlights below and the link.

    “Tuesday saw the highest profile discussion of climate change in the U.N.’s central body for promoting global peace. But Russia, which holds a veto as a permanent member of the Council, warned against any move to recognize warming as a threat to global security.

    Moscow’s stance left the Security Council’s U.K. presidency stabbing at a broken panic button.

    “It is absolutely clear that climate change is a threat to our collective security and the security of our nations,” said British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who presided over the meeting.

    Leaders from many of the Council’s 15 members spoke of the droughts, floods, deserts, storms and rising seas eating away at the foundations of peace. They conjured up a future of regional collapse and millions of climate refugees looking for safe harbor.

    Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda Gaston Browne challenged the world to imagine if 2017’s Hurricane Irma had not only forced the near abandonment of Barbuda, but hit Antigua too.

    “What would have happened to the entire population of my country?” he said.

    In 2020, the U.S. under then President Donald Trump blocked a German effort to draft a sweeping Security Council resolution naming climate change as a threat to global security. Last week, the U.S. officially rejoined the Paris Agreement and on Monday, climate envoy John Kerry said “the climate crisis is indisputably a Security Council issue.”

    “The climate threat is so massive, so multifaceted,” said Kerry, “we bury our heads in the sand at our own peril.”

    But Russia’s representative to the U.N. Vasily Nebenzya said the Council should not take on the work of other U.N. agencies that specialize in climate, “where this is dealt with by professionals.”

    The Security Council has recognized climate change’s role in instability in the Central African Republic, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Somalia and throughout West Africa.

    But Nebenzya said the link between climate change and conflicts was specific to certain countries and there was “no justification” for making that connection globally.

    That “would even be dangerous,” he said, because “considering the climate the root cause of security issues is a distraction from the true root causes.”

    As an example, Nebenzya blamed the destabilization of Africa’s Sahel region on NATO’s “willful” regime change campaign in Libya in 2011.

    China, which has been Russia’s ally on this issue in past meetings, voiced narrower concerns. “Any role the Security Council plays on climate change needs to fall within the Council’s purview,” said climate envoy Xie Zhenhua.

    But Xie supported the core sentiment raised by Johnson, Kerry and others, leaving Russia isolated among the five permanent members of the Council. “Climate change has become a pressing and serious threat to the survival, development and security of humankind,” Xie said.

    More aggressive pushback came from India’s Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar. He said there was no “accepted methodology” to show climate change was a cause of conflicts”.

    Full story

  • Neville says:

    China has turned to the USA and coal imports have increased in the 4th quarter by 748% because of their dispute with Australia.
    We forget that the USA is a big producer and exporter of coal around the world and it’ll be interesting to see what happens over the next 4 years.
    Will the left wing con merchants and extremists bring further real change or will there just be tiny adjustments at the margins?


  • Neville says:

    Zoe Phin checks out our planet’s fast changing global greening, using DATA from NASA over the last 10 years.

    Not that the religious fanatics will readily accept the data and I’ve enjoyed talking about this fact to some silly youngsters a while ago and they seemed to behave like poor Greta at the UN and got very upset that co2 could be responsible for any useful purpose.
    But even a poor old bloke like me is entitled to get some fun out of life.


  • Neville says:

    Gotta love the so called predictions about the climate and human well-being etc over the last 50 years and amazing that they’re almost had a perfect zero score.
    From the first Earth day through to all the climate/weather disaster predictions and 4.1 mil more humans now live much wealthier and healthier lives all around the world and huge jump in life expectancy since 1970 and also for the 1 billion extra Africans over that very short period of time.
    This coverage from a leading University tells the truth about all their silly forecasts over the last half century. Yet Biden, Kerry and the DEMS etc still fall for this religious fanaticism hook line and sinker.


  • Neville says:

    Just a quick look at more of the world’s pop data. Today – 7.8 bn and UN projections to 2050- 9.8 bn and 2100- 11.2 bn.
    Today’s co2 levels of 414 ppm and an increase since Paris COP 21 of about 2.8 ppm per year.
    If by some miracle we could hold co2 level increases to just 2.8 ppm per year until 2050 co2 levels that would be about 498 ppm.
    And if by some monster miracle that 2.8 ppm per year held until 2100 that would still mean co2 levels would climb to about 638 ppm by the end of this century.
    If our pop was 9.8 bn by 2050 and 11.2 bn by 2100 the levels would be much higher than 498 ppm and 638 ppm ppm, unless we stopped all FF generation now and changed to Nuclear today.
    But with the crazy push for dirty, toxic, unreliable and dilute S&W we will have no chance and must face an extreme future lack of reliable energy and an environmental disaster over the entire planet.
    But as long as we have normal electoral cycles these crazy ideas should have a very short time to run and hopefully more sane people will be voted in, although we’ll have an incredible toxic/environmental mess to clean up for a long time into the future.
    Here’s the UN pop link.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu’s complete and determined ignorance of sea levels is like climate science’s complete and determined ignorance of corals and climate. Facts are of no assistance and they must suppress discussion and obscure any evidence that contradicts their tenuous claims:


    • Stu says:

      I notice you refer to an old paper (5 years). There have been multiple bleaching events since then.

      And I note that your diatribe is always about “climate scientists”. Have you not noted that most of the work in fields like glaciology, sea levels, polar bears is not done by “climate scientists” but by highly trained specialists in those areas, whose interest lies in studying changes in those things. The climate bit and the “models” you hate so much are managed by a different set of people who work to explain the macro changes. And the latter have in fact been spectacularly successful in developing models that fit the historical changes and therefore are accepted as very useful predictors of the future. On the smaller scale did you notice that the BoM were very close in their forecasts for our summer this year, another plus for good modelling.

      On the SLR front can you explain to me what has happened to the accumulating heat in the oceans (which physics says causes the water to expand) if there is no SLR as you contend? Ditto the ice mass loss which is well documented. Don’t pull up your usual nonsense about “way back when” just explain why all the data (now very accurately measured) says there is significant mass loss, which is going into the seas.

      • Boambee John says:


        “And the latter have in fact been spectacularly successful in developing models that fit the historical changes and therefore are accepted as very useful predictors of the future”

        Having to revise the models multiple times and use “tunable parameters” to make the models match the historical record does not increase confidence in them.

      • Boambee John says:


        “I notice you refer to an old paper (5 years). There have been multiple bleaching events since then”

        From which, as is its habit, the reef quickly recovers.

  • spangled drongo says:

    And Susan Crockford actually dares to tell it like it is:

    “In the State of the Polar Bear Report 2020, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) on International Polar Bear Day, zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford explains that while the climate change narrative insists that polar bear populations are declining due to reduced sea ice, the scientific literature doesn’t support such a conclusion.”


    • Stu says:

      Ah yes another “academic” publishing in non academic places like GWPF. That is akin to the wondrous stuff put out here by mobs such ad the IPA. What is interesting though is the implicit conclusion that climate change is happening fast in the Arctic, that sea ice is diminishing, BUT it is all ok because the polar bears are ok, got it?

      And no one has quoted “lord monkton” of late, pity. Here is a bit from his most recent piece. “ Your advocacy of “renewable” energy is fashionable but misplaced. Using 14th-century technology to address a 21st-century non-problem would be silly enough in itself. What is worse, however, is that “renewables” have not only quadrupled the price of electricity but have also added to CO2 emissions. The chief reason for this apparent paradox is that the more windmills and solar panels are connected to the grid the more grossly-inefficient, CO2-emitting spinning reserve must be maintained in the often vain hope of preventing blackouts when the wind stops or the night falls.”

      Can you see the various sleight of hand moves there? At least he admits that CO2 producing generation is “grossly-inefficient” although his conclusions are patently false, as is the silly reference to 14th Century technology, really.

      • spangled drongo says:

        So what’s stu’s response?

        Shoot messengers and ignore facts.

        • Stu says:

          You are not entitled to your own facts. And check the Qld Tide tables, you will find a steadily increasing allowance for SLR now running at 2.5mm p.a. for Qld. Is that a case of even more scientists who don’t know what they are talking about, but you do? As for the messengers, yes that is what the people you keep quoting are, not scientists, certainly not in the fields they “comment” on.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, when the simplest of observations show us that your “scientists” get it wrong most of the time, please have the intelligence to deal with the message.

            Even one of the most brilliant scientists said; “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”.

            And the long term message you are stu-pidly ignoring is this; the latest January 2021 MSL is 124mm LOWER than the the first one in May 1914:


            Not to mention all the other messages I have just pointed out to you that you also stu-pidly ignore.

            You are truly beyond salvation.

          • Stu says:

            Not “my” scientists. Your misinterpretation of the work of real scientists is on a whole new level. Explain how the Qld mob have got it so wrong? And no comment on the 14th century crap by Monkton, I am surprised. After all the wind he seems to be referring to (mistakenly) is the motive force not the technology otherwise we should be referring to coal fired electricity as billion year old technology. Care to comment?

      • Boambee John says:


        ” At least he admits that CO2 producing generation is “grossly-inefficient” although his conclusions are patently false, as is the silly reference to 14th Century technology, really.”

        Silly even by your low standards. The reason that the spinning reserve is “grossly inefficient” is that it has to be kept spinning, and thus emitting CO2, but is not permitted to distribute power until the ruinables fail because of lack of sun or wind. Your comprehension of the system is not just shallow, but also narrow.

        Windmills are an ancient idea updated with modern technology, but they still rely on the wind actually blowing, at a usable speed. This is never guaranteed.

        • Stu says:

          BJ, says “The reason that the spinning reserve is “grossly inefficient” is that it has to be kept spinning, and thus emitting CO2, but is not permitted to distribute power until the ruinables fail because of lack of sun or wind”.

          Oh you are out of date aren’t you. Have you heard of battery storage, designed to stabilise the grid and in some cases to fill in while gas turbine generation fires up, which is not a long period. Hydro has a similar capability, with rapid availability. It is a myth to say as the illustrious viscount of Brenchly and some here do, that you need even more spinning power than without renewables. You need less and over time none. Have a look at some of the figures out of Hawaii and big chunks of Europe. Not all the world is as stupid as Texas to do it in a half baked way.

          Going back to the development issue there are many other approaches being considered like compressed air in old mines, flywheel technology (yes spinning), hydrogen fuel cells and even capacitors. Yes the wind is old, a bit like your copper phone wire (if you are not yet on fibre) designed to deliver POTS (plain old telephone system) now delivering 50mbs of data. Ingenuity! Have faith in the future, don’t be a doomist all your life.

          “ Windmills are an ancient idea updated with modern technology”. Really, who would have thought. How clever mankind is. And we have come a long way. The ancients would be staggered by the latest 13MW turbines, mostly built in the sea where the wind is quite reliable. But I see where you and the denial machine are going, trying to disparage the technology as “old hat”, clever trick but not working.

          • Boambee John says:


            If battery storage is the solution, then we can close all FF stations now? Note that battery storage is always touted in MW, not in MW hours. Even the SA “Big Battery” cannot provide power to the state for more than a very short time. You must be a sucker for door to door salesmen?

            You clearly have no idea of “spinning reserve”. It is needed now, and will be far into the future, because current battery technology is not capable of covering the periods when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow.

            Let me offer you an example. I will keep it pathetically simple so as not to confuse you.

            Let’s assume that as a good global citizen, determined to save the world, you decide to travel everywhere by bicycle. However, because you are so important and must always be on time, you use a car as backup for when the hills are too steep (think no wind) or the tyre is flat (think after sunset). The car is your spinning reserve, and is “grossly inefficient”, but essential because you are so important.

            You could get o battery powered electric motor for your bicycle, and put a little wind generator and a solar cell on your bicycle, but it would not cover long journeys., so until batteries are much improved, you still need that “spinning reserve” in the form of the car.

            Dreaming of what the future might hold might satisty you, but most people want reliable continuous power now.

            Perhaps you might nominate the sites for all those extra hydro plants? As for compressed air in old mines, like all such storage systems, until perpetual motion is perfected, less comes out than goes in. How is your patent for perpetual motion coming along?

            You keep dreaming of a perfect future Stu, but don’t destroy a working system before you have a working replacement. At present that replacement does not exist.

            Or you could go nuclear.

  • Stu says:

    SD you said “ And the long term message you are stu-pidly ignoring is this; the latest January 2021 MSL is 124mm LOWER than the the first one in May 1914”

    Do you understand nothing about trends and statistical analysis ? Pulling two figures out of a time series is not a meaningful method. Try again.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Pulling two figures out of a time series is not a meaningful method.”


      Comparing the first recording with the last recording on long term data isn’t meaningful??

      It’s becoming more evident by the day that you are becoming more stu-pid by the day.

      Do you, as a sailor, by any chance have any record of your own observations of sea levels, long term?

      IOW, have you been concerned about the possibility of this problem all your life or are you only currently bed-wetting because you choose to believe the climate-catastropharian-religious?

  • stu says:

    “ Comparing the first recording with the last recording on long term data isn’t meaningful??” — EXACTLY, especially when comparing data that has such a wide variation day to day due to the effect of the moon, plus atmospheric pressure, wind and other effects including Tsunami. So on your system let us compare October 1914 – 815mm and May 2020 – 1.085mm Ooh 270mm what a difference. Are you just pretending to be simple or is it real? Maybe you have never studied statistical analysis so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

    No I have not observed any change, I have not looked. As with other elements of the climate debate do wake up. It is not about tomorrow but the future, current small changes observed are the canaries in the coal mine. But you will probably be dead and buried so don’t worry, leave it to your grand kids to manage, which is sadly typical of the baby boom generation.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “So on your system let us compare October 1914 – 815mm and May 2020 – 1.085mm”

      Now that IS cherry-picking! What is it about first and last you can’t understand?

      “No I have not observed any change, I have not looked.”

      Why am I not surprised.

      I was involved in building a sea wall and jetty at our place in 1946 and between 1946 and 1953 normal BP king tides came over that jetty and wall by about 25mm and trickled into our well if we didn’t keep a levy bank around it.

      That jetty and wall are still there and guess where the current [last 10 years] king tides of same normal BP come to?

      How about 200 to 300mm LOWER.

      This is supported by that MSL data I gave you.

      It is also supported by the latest data on Pacific coral atolls.

      There is nothing happening with SLR other than natural variability.

      There is nothing happening today, climate wise, that hasn’t happened in spades in the not to distant past.

      Woke, future catastrophe scenarios are not for sensible people and have all come to nothing in the past.

      If only you had paid attention.

      • Stu says:

        “So on your system let us compare October 1914 – 815mm and May 2020 – 1.085mm”
        Now that IS cherry-picking! What is it about first and last you can’t understand?

        Are you being deliberately obtuse? You write like a complete troll. Of course it was cherry -icking, just like your dates. There is nothing magical about they day they started and today. As you say “variability”.

        The dates of your sea wall work indicate my supposition of your age are correct, which explains a lot.

        And if you built a wall in 1946 why did you not build it high enough to keep out the king tides of that time? Was it poor planning or poor information? Seems pretty silly. Oh but I guess you just new the SL would fall so all would be ok.

        I don’t know where you are talking of but hazard a guess it might be Moreton Bay’ish in which case there could be all sorts of explanations for changes in levels.

        In any event I find your story hard to believe in light of other evidence to the contrary. Perhaps given your advanced age your memory is playing tricks on you and things were not as you recall.

        Why do so few people support your “natural variability” story?

        • Boambee John says:


          “Why do so few people support your “natural variability” story?”

          Perhaps if one of your vast stable of “true” scientists had been able to provide an experimental result or empirical measurement to falsify that Null Hypothesis that you keep avoiding, we might get on board. But until then, we leave the computer model idolisers and the simply ignorant to wallow in their swamp.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu sez, “Of course it was cherry -icking, just like your dates.”

          My dates were the longest possible record available. You are the one being deliberately obtuse. That is the complete opposite of cherry -icking.

          And how has wall height got any bearing on this discussion? It is simply a benchmark. But it was built to the regulation level of AHD100, king tide height, as was/is required for all jetties and walls.

          It’s just that sea levels were higher then.

          I have built a lot of sea front infrastructure and houses around Moreton Bay and the Gold Coast and while some areas have possibly been influenced by hydrology changes there are many areas completely unaffected.

          The family home where we built in 1946 is close to shipping channels and is completely unaffected.

          Interestingly though, they all show a similar fall in sea levels over the last 50 to 70 years.

          And if you are in denial of natural climate variability you might be able to list just one thing that is happening today, climate-wise, that hasn’t happened much more extremely in recent history.

          And I’m talking about genuine evidence of sea levels at least 2 metres higher than currently, tree stumps under melting glaciers, tree lines much closer to the poles etc.

          You really need to pay more attention to the real world.

          • Stu says:

            “ My dates were the longest possible record available.”. Oh please do try and be intelligent. Just because that was day one of recordings of a notoriously variable measure does not make it meaningful in terms of a long term trend. Go and study some trend line analysis. It looks at all the data not the end points.

            “ The family home where we built in 1946 is close to shipping channels and is completely unaffected. Interestingly though, they all show a similar fall in sea levels over the last 50 to 70 years.”

            Would you care to share the shipping data, usually based on chart datum and LAT, for that period, not the HAT that you seem fond of quoting. Remember ships need to float so minimum depth is very important.

          • Stu says:

            Oh and I should have added the obvious point that the shipping channels in Moreton bay need to be constantly dredged due to siltation and in places do shift. Go and look at the charts. I no longer have them but last time I was there, that was the substance of the warnings on the charts. Why else do you imagine they are so well indicated by channel markers. Or do you suggest all the silt from the river goes straight out to sea. I think your claims of falls in sea level are simply wrong. But I do acknowledge your advanced age so expect it is more likely poor memory than mischief at work.

          • spangled drongo says:

            But you’re happy to accept Nat Var?

            You failed to list anything to disprove it.


            What does that remind me of?

            Ah, yes, your evidence!

          • spangled drongo says:

            Poor silly stu is now desperately claiming that dredging affects sea levels.

            Depths aren’t sea levels. And dredging has no affect on them.

            Are you now saying we don’t need to raise the bridge, just lower the river.

            Have you worked out how many Mt Everests we’d have to dredge to lower sea levels 100 mm?

            In Moreton Bay when they dredge they dump the spoil back in another part of the bay, anyway.

            Time to give up, stu and try to find the answer to my nat var question which you always dodge.

          • Stu says:

            Geez mate you really are stupid, you cannot even follow the printed word. Your bias is showing. How the hell do you draw those conclusions from what I wrote. You made simplistic statements about sea level in Moreton Bay and references to shipping channels as though proximity to one indicated SL. “ The family home where we built in 1946 is close to shipping channels and is completely unaffected. Interestingly though, they all show a similar fall in sea levels over the last 50 to 70 years.” You made the connection.

            Moreton Bay is a shallow bay which is tricky to navigate for small vessels and large ones have to keep to the constantly dredged shipping channels. Only you come to ridiculous suggestions regarding dredges affecting sea level. But dredging has a big effect on ships. The implication is that it is a very complex estuarine system and not open to simplistic conclusions including SL.

            Perhaps I should have put these words into a new paragraph to help you keep up. “ I think your claims of falls in sea level are simply wrong. But I do acknowledge your advanced age so expect it is more likely poor memory than mischief at work.” I did not suggest that dredging had any impact on sea level. It is a bit like floating ice, eh!

            As I wrote before SD, I will cut you some slack for cognitive decline. Cheers and it is game over, getting boring for everyone including me.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, all your blither has no relation to the fact that king tide levels at this wall and jetty are lower now than in 1946.

            It is the same wall and jetty.

            At the next king tide get in touch and I will demonstrate.

          • Boambee John says:


            “As I wrote before SD, I will cut you some slack for cognitive decline. Cheers and it is game over, getting boring for everyone including me”

            Ageist! Definitely non-PC.

            Re the final sentence, are you doing another Dame Stuey Melba flounce off the stage?

    • Boambee John says:

      “so don’t worry, leave it to your grand kids to manage, which is sadly typical of the baby boom generation”

      It is always easy to see when Stu has run out of logical arguments, he faols back on the “you don’t care about your grandchildren” weasel words.

      Hey Stu, does that letter to your grandchildren include an apology for your refusal to take personal responsibility for reducing your carbon (dioxide) footprint?

      • Stu says:

        SD has not explained his poor memory and failure to build his wall high enough for the time except to imply prescience regarding lower sea levels in the years thereafter. The grand kid reasoning is a metaphor for people (probably including yourself) who are close enough to the grave to not really give a toss about the future. I will try a different approach, the “I am all right jack” approach is well established, does it fit you also?

        As for the personal responsibility argument we have flogged that. It is a tired cliche of the denialist mob, try something else.

        • Boambee John says:


          ” The grand kid reasoning is a metaphor for people (probably including yourself) who are close enough to the grave to not really give a toss about the future.”

          We have been through this before. It is grossly offensive for you to claim that people who do not agree with you on a complex and contested political/ scientific matter do not care about their children and grandchildren. If that is the standard of argument you have to offer, then you have nothing of value to say. In future responses to you, I will repay you in your own coin.

          On that note, given your apparent comfort with the forthcoming closure of Liddell, what steps have you taken to ensure that your grandchildren will have a reliable continuous source of power? Are you going to buy them a diesel generator?

          • Neville says:

            BJ please try to keep up, don’t you know that stu-pid wants to wreck our environment forever and waste trillions $ on the most toxic energy known to Man?
            And of course ZERO change for thousands of years and his grand kiddies wouldn’t see the difference or they might even see a lowering of temps because of NATURAL variation. Who knows?
            Anyway if he BELIEVES his idiocy he should be over in China, India, Africa etc and extolling the virtues of dilute, dirty, toxic, unreliable S&W alongside Tesla’s dilute,dirty, toxic, unreliable batteries.
            Of course no change possible for a thousand years, but silly stu just ignores the studies from EVEN his own side of the argument.
            And the ice core data also provides evidence of temps falling for 6,000 years at the end of the warmer Eemian IG and yet co2 levels remaining high over that long period of time.
            See Petit et al study. But don’t worry silly stu-pid doesn’t care about the REAL planet earth but prefers his fantasy planet that exists between his ears.

        • Boambee John says:

          “As for the personal responsibility argument we have flogged that. It is a tired cliche of the denialist mob, try something else.”

          Almost missed this! No need to take any personal responsibility people, Stu sez it’s just a “tired cliche”.

          But then, if people do not take responsibility for their own actions, who will?

          Sorry, I forgot, like all alarmists, Stu wants the gummint to force others to change their lifestyle, but leave his alone. Hypocrisy on steroids.

          Stu, if not you, who? If not now, when? Do you take saving Gaia seriously, or is it just a political hobby for you?

          And don’t ask why I am not acting. Remember, I am one of those eeevviillll denialists, who look for empirical evidence before deciding civilisation must be upended.

  • NH says:

    SD – what is AHD100? Seeing Australian Height Datum started in 1971 I guess you were not using that one when you were building in 1946. Is it some other datum?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Long before 1971, sea-front councils had construction levels marked on power poles so the correct building levels could be achieved.

      Floor heights for habitable rooms, sea wall and jetty heights etc were obtained from this.

      However, with sea walls, if you had a neighbour on either side with an established wall, you simply continued that level.

      The tops of all the early storm water drains were also built with reference to this level.

      AHD100 was derived from this data.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the Petit 1999 study I referenced above and the fact that co2 always follows temp in the Antarctic Vostok ice cores.

    Here’s the quote for co2 at the end of the warmer Eemian and the link to Petit 1999. Note that this lag time is 6,000 years for co2 AFTER temp drop into the last full glaciation. Here’s the quote at FIG 3.

    “The mean resolution of the CO2 (CH4) profile is about 1,500 (950) years. It goes up to about 6,000 years for CO2 in the fractured zones and in the bottom part of the record, whereas the CH4 time resolution ranges between a few tens of years to 4,500 years. The overall accuracy for CH4 and CO2 measurements are 620 p.p.b.v. and 2–3 p.p.m.v., respectively. No gravitational correction has been applied”.

    The top graph at FIG 3 is co2 and the second graph is temp and you can easily see the long LAG of co2 after the fall of temp comparing the 2 graphs.


  • Neville says:

    I see sleepy Joe Biden is still attracted to their so called bio-fuels. He should remember Obama’s idiotic BF’s energy quest and the riots and hunger he caused across the globe over 10 years ago.
    Sorry I shouldn’t have said “remember” when referring to Biden.


    • Boambee John says:


      Biofuels are a crime against poor people. Taking food grain and converting it into fuel deprives poor nations of desperately needed food sources.

      Anyone who pushes for biofuels should be on trial in the ICC.

  • Neville says:

    I challenge anyone to watch the “Great Global Warming Swindle” and tell us where this video is substantially wrong?
    Many of the top scientists were prepared to be involved in the video and compared to some of Gore and Mann’s dubious nonsense I still think this video holds up well after ten years.
    Just check out my links to Dr Goklany, Dr Christy, Dr Spencer, Dr Humlum, Shellenberger, Dr Lomborg and his expert team etc.


  • Boambee John says:

    Alarmists simultaneously claim that CAGW/Climate Change will make the weather more variable and that the solution is weather dependent electricity generation.

    Really deeeep thinkers, aren’t they?

  • Boambee John says:

    PS, the above “borrowed” from a US blog.

  • Neville says:

    Here Chris Kenny looks again at Moore’s “Planet of the Humans” and wonders why their ABC didn’t report on it.
    Of course it skewers their so called renewable energy BS and fra-d and therefore so much of the ABC’s left wing agenda.
    This short video highlights some of Moore’s video and exposes some of the leading lights and con merchants around the world.

  • Neville says:

    NASA has found that the “Atlantic Conveyor Belt”has not slowed down over the last 15 years but instead it may have increased slightly.
    If it were to slow it would carry less warm water Nth and so much of the Nth HEM countries should become colder.
    In the movie “The day after Tomorrow” melting glaciers cause the Atlantic Conveyor to slow down and presto we find the planet swiftly moving into a new Ice Age. Another one of Hollywood’s sillier versions of we awful Humans buggering up the climate AGAIN.
    If it has increased slightly more warm water should arrive ( sooner?) and perhaps over a given period add a slight warming effect. Who knows, but so far a win, win against those very cold Nth winters ?


    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, and amidst global warming hysteria, NASA expects global cooling:

      “We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

      “The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.

      “If all of this seems as if NASA is contradicting itself, you’re right — sort of. After all, NASA also reported last week that Arctic sea ice was at its sixth lowest level since measuring began. Isn’t that a sure sign of global warming?

      “All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system.”


    • Stu says:

      Neville are you deliberately falsifying the information or just too lazy to check the dates on things you quote? You wrote “ Atlantic Conveyor Belt”has not slowed down over the last 15 years but instead it may have increased slightly.” That paper was published in 2010. Would you care to quote the latest NASA research for us?

  • Neville says:

    Their ABC has told us this morning that our farmers have just had the best returns on record.
    Yet the number of Aussie farms have dropped by about 50% since 1980, see FIG 6 graph at link, yet across the range of farmer returns this last CV-19 year has been the best yet.
    But don’t forget that 2019 was a terrible low rainfall drought year across so much of Australia and 2020 wasn’t too much above average for rainfall either. And parts of QLD are still in drought, even in this la nina cycle and let us hope that changes for them soon.
    BTW Aussies now export 70% of all farm production and Aussie farmers receive one of the lowest levels of govt support in the world. Certainly only a fraction of USA , Canadian, UK and EU support for their farmers.


  • Neville says:

    Hold the bus , now donkey Kerry tells us it’s global weirding that we should be worried about, see him at the video link. This bloke is certainly a very dumb weirdo, no doubt about it.
    But at least Lomborg looks up the so called claims from the scientist’s models and their claims about warmer winters etc and tries to correct the Kerry donkey.


  • Neville says:

    BTW here’s the latest update on the Atlantic conveyor that I can find and this study was accepted for publication this year.


    If you go to the conclusions you will see at the last paragraph that they find no anthropogenic climate change in their modeling. But then you have to wonder about some earlier modeling etc and some of the various claims made over the years. Here’s that last paragraph.

    “Our model has not revealed an AMOC decline indicative of anthropogenic climate change (Stocker et al., 2013) nor the long-term decline reported in sea-surface-temperature-based reconstructions of the AMOC (Caesar et al., 2018). It has accurately reproduced the variability observed in the RAPID data, showing that the downturn between 2008 and 2012 (McCarthy et al., 2012) marked not only the weakest AMOC of the RAPID era but the weakest AMOC since the mid-1980s. Since this minimum, the strength of the AMOC has recovered in line with observations from the RAPID array (Moat et al., 2020). In fact, according to our model, southward flowing LNADW has regained a vigour not seen since the 1980s. Recent cold and fresh anomalies in the surface of the North Atlantic subpolar gyre seemed to indicate a return to a cool Atlantic phase associated with a weak AMOC (Frajka-Williams et al., 2017). However, a weakened AMOC was not the primary cause of these anomalies (Josey et al., 2018; Holliday et al., 2020). Whether a restrengthened AMOC will ultimately have a strong impact on Atlantic climate such as was believed to have occurred in the 1990s (Robson et al., 2012) remains to be seen”.

  • Neville says:

    Paul Driessen looks at the endless thousands of sq miles of decimation to the environment if we were really stupid enough to try and replace FFs with the dirty, toxic, dilute S&W idiocy.
    Yet these left wing fanatics are so dense that they think their environmental wipe out is preferable to the tiny footprint of FF power stns? And we have the extra bonus of a fast greening planet because of the increase of co2 in our atmosphere.
    Of course their dilute ,toxic mess has to be cleaned up and replaced every 20 years and ongoing forever.


    • Stu says:

      “ the tiny footprint of FF power stns”. Really! What about the big holes in the ground to feed them and the hundreds of acres of toxic ash ponds for the residue. Check out the stories about the ash dams around Lake Macquarie and the Hunter Valley. Meanwhile the last time I looked there were sheep and cattle grazing under the wind turbines I passed. Oh, of course a few birds fly into the blades from time to time, but nothing like the number killed by domestic cats every night. And check the closure of the Myuna Bay Sport and Recreation facility due to “ an independent review found the centre not safe to re-open due to the serious potential risk to clients and staff arising from the potential failure of Eraring power station’s ash dam wall”.

      “Coal ash is one of Australia’s biggest waste problems and accounts for nearly one-fifth of the entire nation’s waste stream. Coal ash accounts for 18 per cent of Australia’s entire waste stream
      44 per cent of coal ash is saved from dumps, and only half of that is used for beneficial purposes
      Some people believe the concrete industry is intentionally limiting the use of coal ash as a substitute for cement
      Every year Australian coal-fired power stations produce 12 million tonnes of ash from burning coal.
      The ash is captured in the power station smoke stacks, and most of it is mixed with water to create a sludge which is pumped into large containment dams that continue to grow each day.”

      But yeah, a tiny footprint.

      • Boambee John says:


        “Oh, of course a few birds fly into the blades from time to time, but nothing like the number killed by domestic cats every night”

        Standard alarmist boilerplate. Have you done any actual research, or are you just typing propaganda?

        • Stu says:

          Haha, you have to be joking. I was getting ahead of your standard “do nothing” boilerplate of birds and wind turbines. Please try and keep up.

      • Boambee John says:


        How are you going with calculations on the negative externalities of ruinables? Don’t forget the massive land areas they occcupy, and the additional transmission lines needed for a distributed network.

        • Stu says:

          I just answered that, can’t you read?

          • Boambee John says:


            No you haven’t. Go back to my original question. You have avoided responding to virtually all of the points.

            If you are going to attempt to deceive, try to be at least a little credible.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the trailer for The Day After Tomorrow and boy these jokers can really lay it on thick and fast.
    New York destroyed by the sea and even the Statue of Liberty and it all was the fault of we rotten HUMANS. Yet we can fix this disaster by wrecking the environment in every country around the world and repeating that toxic mess every 20 years.
    Anyway it’s all good for a giggle.

    • Stu says:

      Dick, you do realise that is a fictional film, made for entertainment? Maybe not, I realise you are easily influenced by false information.

      • Boambee John says:


        Unlike Michael Moore’ s work on the environmental disaster that ruinables are bringing. A film that you seemed uninterested in?

        • Stu says:

          Uninterested in becsuse it has been totally debunked. But whatever amuses you.

          • Boambee John says:


            “Totally debunked”, rough translation, “not liked by alarmists”.

            But perhaps you could give some details of the “debunking”?

          • Stu says:

            I recall I already did in another thread way back. You are the one who keeps dragging this rubbish to the front. There are many pieces that shoot the film down, here is one


            And this “ But the film’s attacks on solar and wind power rely on a series of blatant falsehoods. It claims that, in producing electricity from renewables, “You use more fossil fuels to do this than you’re getting benefit from it. You would have been better off just burning fossil fuels in the first place”. This is flat wrong. On average, a solar panel generates 26 units of solar energy for every unit of fossil energy required to build and install it. For wind turbines the ratio is 44 to one.

            Planet of the Humans also claims that you can’t reduce fossil fuel use through renewable energy: coal is instead being replaced by gas. Well, in the third quarter of 2019, renewables in the UK generated more electricity than coal, oil and gas plants put together. As a result of the switch to renewables in this country, the amount of fossil fuel used for power generation has halved since 2010. By 2025, the government forecasts, roughly half our electricity will come from renewables, while gas burning will drop by a further 40%. To hammer home its point, the film shows footage of a “large terminal to import natural gas from the United States” that “Germany just built”. Germany has no such terminal. The footage was shot in Turkey.”

            Etc, etc.

            And it is wrong to refer to it as Moore’s film, that is too strong a claim for Executive producer, because the Director lacked clout. He lent his name and money to it.

          • Boambee John says:


            So, you deny that children mine cobalt in Congo, you deny the existence of that polluted lake in the Chinese city where rare earths ade mined for ruinables, you deny the massive use of concrete and steel for windmills, you deny that windmill blades and solar cells are not able to be economally recycled, just for a start?

            Stu is a denialist!

          • Stu says:

            “ So, you deny that children mine cobalt in Congo”. Oh do grow up. There are many commodities that are produced using child labour, usually illegally, around the third world, but they are not condoned and are not the significant portion of that trade. By all means work to eliminate that curse. Using your “personal responsibility” argument, what are you doing about it. BTW the whole rare earth rant is standard denialist methodology.

          • Boambee John says:


            “BTW the whole rare earth rant is standard denialist methodology.”

            The whole “thoroughly debunked” rant is standard alarmist methodology.

            You are still in denial.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s another end of the world movie and this disaster is caused by a naughty Icelandic volcano that sends a glacier towards Nth America and blah, blah and on it goes.
    But I’m sure the Biden and Kerry donkeys + AOC + Greta etc could spin this to be the fault of we terrible humans and our use of FFs.

  • Neville says:

    The global warming extremists are now telling us we must decrease co2 emissions ten fold to fight their so called climate crisis/ emergency etc.
    And of course no difference to co2 levels for at least 1,000 years, but they ignore that conclusion from other PR studies like Zickfeld et al.

    OH and their answer is more dirty, toxic, dilute and environment destroying S&W . And this needs replacing every 20 years and also the toxic mess as well.
    This will never outlast the electoral cycle, because voters will see no benefit at all and there will be regular power failures all around the world + lower std of living + loss of industries and jobs. And it will cost a fortune for a guaranteed ZERO return on the so called investment.


  • Neville says:

    Meanwhile most countries ignore the FR-UDULENT Paris agreement and hopefully Scotland COP 26 will be as big a disaster as Paris in 2015.


  • Neville says:

    The Steyn versus Mann case drags on, but it’s always interesting to remember what other scientists have written about Michael ( “A disgrace to the profession” ) Mann and why this science junk donkey should be ignored.
    Thanks to Mark Steyn for telling and compiling the truth about him and we can only hope we see a judgement in Steyn’s favour sometime this decade.


  • Neville says:

    Here’s Australia’s energy update 2020 from the govt site and this is the %s for TOTAL energy. NOT just electricity.

    Oil 39%
    Coal 29%
    Gas 26%

    TOTAL for FFs =94%

    Renewables TOTAL energy= just 6%
    Wind&Solar 33% of the 6%
    Biomass 23% of the 6%
    Hydro ? 13% of the 6%
    Other ? 31% of the 6% ?

    Hydro may be a little more and other is what’s left of the 6% of the TOTAL energy.
    But 94% of our TOTAL energy is sourced from fossil fuels= oil, coal and gas.


  • Neville says:

    World TOTAL energy is 84.2% from FFs

    S & W = 3.2% of WORLD TOTAL energy.

    Hydro = 6.4% ” ”

    Nuclear = 4.2 % ” ”

    Other renewables = 1.8% ” ”


  • Neville says:

    Now compare the World Total Energy percentages above to that Wiki GRAPH AGAIN and then start to wake up.
    This is 63.5% (see the data at top of list) increase in co2 emissions from 1990 to 2017 and nearly all from China, India and other developing countries.
    And co2 levels have increased by about 64 ppm from 1990 to 2020 or about 2.1 ppm a year for 30 years and THEN about 2.8 ppm since 2015 Paris COP 21. And COP 21 isn’t compulsory for any country and certainly NOT for so called developing countries.


    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville,

      As GM and other automakers spend billions to bring electrics to market, prominent auto and climate experts say they are a solution in search of a problem.

      Physicist Frank Jamerson, one of the architects of GM’s EV program, wrote in a 2020 Society of Automotive Engineers paper there is no evidence that gas-fired transportation is changing the climate. An advocate of nuclear power and hydrogen fuel cell development, GM’s ex-chief of electrochemistry said in an interview that “fossil fuels can be used until they run out, in hundreds of years.”

      Center for Automotive Research Chairman David Cole, a leading Michigan research firm, concurs: “The climate data has been pushed aside by the politicians. This (climate crisis) idea is being pushed to save the world, and it’s a mistake.” Cole, Jamerson, and Weather Channel founder and meteorologist Joe D’Aleo plan an SAE warming conference in April.

      Cole says the enormous investment in EVs, which make up less than 2 percent of U.S. sales today, is creating a two-tiered industry of haves and have nots. Big players like GM, Toyota, and Volkswagen have the resources to invest in a battery-mandated future whereas other companies do not.

      “The haves can play that game, and the have-nots cannot. The big boys are investing so that if government is pushing autos towards electrification, they will be the winners.”

      Veteran climatologists like John Christy, who oversees satellites that monitor global temperature data, says the EV push is disconnected from scientific evidence.

      “There is no climate crisis. If you apply the proposed government regulations to the auto industry, they will have no climate impact,” said Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, in an interview. “Indeed, if you eliminate the U.S. economy from the face of the earth, it will have no impact on global temperature.”


  • Neville says:

    Fires were massive in Nth Australia and for thousands of years according to this recent study. Today’s fires not so much.
    See the graphs and the data at the link.


    • spangled drongo says:

      Beautiful, Neville. And how about the way we were not quite so long ago:


      • Neville says:

        SD those old newspaper articles are always thought provoking yet I wouldn’t want to swap our easy life today compared to way back when.
        But I’d love more of the common sense and reason of those harder times and not the endless frolicking with the fairies so often used today to provoke so much disharmony and waste of both time and money.
        BTW it seems to me that their so called net zero BS & fra-d by 2050 has been underestimated big time and every $ to be wasted and a much more unreliable and toxic mess to clean up forever. Plus ZERO change for temp + climate and certainly NOT a changeover to CLEAN energy, by any stretch of their imagination.
        Here’s the latest revelation from the UK and the Tories hidden guesstimates. And they have about the same % emissions as OZ to contend with by 2050. UK about 1% and OZ about 1.1% and China+ India about 36% must definitely be chortling all the way to their banks.


  • Neville says:

    A new study links African droughts and floods etc to ocean cycles and the Sun etc and we know that when OZ has higher rainfall from the NEG IOD African east coast is often in drought.
    And a POS IOD means lower rainfall for OZ and higher rainfall for African east coast.
    OH and African pop has increased by about 1 thousand million people since 1970 and that TOTAL pop of 1.35 bn people today are healthier, wealthier + more urban residents and an increase from 47 in 1970 to about 64 today in life expectancy.
    Yes that’s about 20 years behind wealthy OECD countries but in another 20 years they will be edging closer all the time.


  • Neville says:

    Willis pulls apart another “fantastic Mann study” about the AMO and finds it’s volcanoes and models from who to go.


  • Neville says:

    Paul Homewood posts another excellent article for the GWPF covering a short history of their climate alarm.
    Just a pity that only a small percentage of people will bother to read and understand this subject properly and so their lies and exaggerations continue at a pace. And all funded by the poor taxpayer and all of their solutions will wreck the environment, with more dirty, toxic, unreliable S&W that has to be replaced every 20 years.
    And of course no change to temp or climate for a thousand years, even if we stopped all human co2 emissions today.


  • Neville says:

    Andrew Montford has another look at the UK’s so called net ZERO BS and con trick.


  • Neville says:

    More on the so called net ZERO BS and fra-d and these con merchants carry on regardless and the Kerry donkey is a strong supporter.
    And the stench of money is in their nostrils and they couldn’t care less about the world’s environment or the crippling cost and unreliability of their so called clean S&W energy etc.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Ocean warming as measured by actual thermometers in the ocean.

    Moored ocean buoys don’t show any warming for the last 40 years:


  • Neville says:

    More on Energy from the CAT files. China, India etc are powering ahead, while the EU, UK, US and the OECD countries do their very best to wreck their economies ASAP.
    And they choose the dirtiest, most toxic and anti- green energy known to exist, while they could choose more co2 and help the planet become greener even faster.


    • Chris Warren says:

      Looks like our zealot was suffering withdrawal symptoms and needed to get a rush by spewing forth the usual tripe.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Sez our blith with his usual “incontrovertible evidence” in conclusive support.

      • Boambee John says:


        When are you going to inform us which branch of climate science you specialise in? Atmospheric physics? Oceanography? Mathematical modelling?

  • spangled drongo says:

    And Neville, we’re destroying ourselves all based on the “incontrovertible evidence” of these computer models:


    Let’s hope stu [and all the other true-believers] wake up before it’s too late.

    There sure isn’t much time left.

    • Stu says:

      Ha, never mind what I think, even Corman our new OECD head has seen the light and turned the corner, once free of the LNP straightjacket of fossil funded climate denial. As said before, you must be starting to feel really isolated. Sad.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu sez: “Corman [sic] our new OECD head has seen the light and turned the corner”

        Yes stueyluv, that’s why climate and environmental groups had written to the OECD voicing their concerns about Mr Cormann’s candidacy in a March 4 letter arguing “the public record of Mathias Cormann should preclude him from being selected”.

        Kelly O’Shanassy, chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation; Matt Brennan, chief executive of the Wilderness Society Australia; Julie-Anne Richards, the executive director of the Climate Action Network Australia and David Ritter, the chief executive of Greenpeace Australia Pacific, among others.

        Greens leader Adam Bandt was also opposed to Mr Cormann taking the OECD top job, writing to member nations urging them to support alternative candidates.

        Do you really ever know what you are talking about, stu?

      • spangled drongo says:

        And stu, your fav climate religious media don’t seem to think he has “seen the light and turned the corner”:


        Could it be that it’s you alarmists who are feeling a little isolated today?

  • Neville says:

    More from Andrew Bolt and Alan Moran about the dirty, toxic and unreliable S&W fantasies and the closing of reliable base-load coal plants in the recent past and near future.
    And overseas con merchants and fra-dsters are promising big time and losing billions $ of so called investors money trying to cover their backsides. See the video at link.


    • Stu says:

      “ overseas con merchants and fra-dsters ”. Who needs them when we have the likes of Bolt et al here already?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Have you found any of that “incontrovertible evidence” to justify the squandering of trillions yet, stu?

        If you check that link of mine you will see that if you think CO2 is the secret control knob for the global temperature, the output of any model you create will reflect and verify that assumption.

        This is the sum total of your “incontrovertible evidence”.

        That’s socialism, not science.

        • Boambee John says:


          Sto don’t need no steenking “evidence”. If a glacier was grinding over his house he would call it gerbil worming.

  • spangled drongo says:

    What’s the difference between a green conservative and a climate alarmist:


    I think Mathias Cormann is smart enough to be neither.

    • Stu says:

      FYI here is the WA climate policy statement. Seems pretty much anti everything you propose.

      “The policy underscores our commitment to adapting to climate change and to working with all sectors of the economy to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

      This policy looks beyond business-as-usual measures to highlight the significant actions that we are taking in collaboration with industry and the community to boost our economy, prepare for climate change and achieve our aspiration of net zero emissions by 2050.

      The Western Australian Climate Policy outlines the priority themes (below) and practical actions the State Government is taking to enhance climate resilience and support the low carbon transition.

      Clean manufacturing and future industries
      Transforming energy generation and use
      Storing carbon and caring for our landscapes
      Lower-carbon transport
      Resilient cities and regions
      Government leadership”

      • Stu says:

        Here is a bit more on that policy that the people of WA just overwhelmingly voted for. Note it includes a big battery.

        “The McGowan Labor Government has released the Western Australian Climate Policy, outlining actions to create a low carbon future and create jobs in clean industries to support WA’s economic recovery.

        The policy will ensure our environment, economy and the community are more resilient and better prepared for the unavoidable impacts of climate change. It includes actions to drive our transition to net zero emissions by 2050.

        It focuses on six key areas – clean manufacturing and future industries; transforming energy generation and use; storing carbon and caring for our landscapes; lower carbon transport;
        resilient cities and regions; and government leadership.

        The policy includes a significant investment in low carbon initiatives, including:
        $21 million for an Electric Vehicle Strategy;
        more than $100 million towards the 100 megawatt big battery;
        $15 million for the WA Carbon Farming Strategy and Land Restoration Program;
        $3.1 million for the Climate Science Program for improved climate change projections;
        Plan for a net zero transition across WA’s public sector;
        $15 million Renewable Hydrogen Fund, plus $13 million funding to support the fledgling industry;
        $60 million Green Jobs Plan;
        $9.2 million Clean Energy Future Fund;
        Renewable Hydrogen Strategy; and
        The Future Battery Industry Strategy.

        • Boambee John says:


          Wow! A 100 megawatt “big battery”. Nirvana is upon us!

          Now, tell us: How many megawatt hours can it deliver? How is it to be kept fully charged? What happens after a series of windless, cloudy days?

          • Stu says:

            Don’t cherry pick (as usual), respond to the whole policy, which WA just voted for. Your view is diminishing in stature.

          • Boambee John says:


            So, you don’t know. Thanks for confirming.

            When is the perpetual motion machine being delivered?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu, here’s something specific and fundamental for you to address.

    You, like the people who voted for the Mc Gowan govt, have been brainwashed by evidence-free climate computer science.

    Please tell us how these “low carbon initiatives” are necessary and what factual, measurable evidence that is based on.

    Simple question.

    Please don’t do your usual hand wave duck, dodge and depart.

    Just simply answer the question.

    • Stu says:

      I did not comment on the plausibility of the policy foundations, merely that a huge percentage of voters in WA have gone for it and once again you are looking like the proverbial shag. Or as inferred above your diminishing stature is looking a little limp.

      • spangled drongo says:

        As usual, stu, you equate and verify your idea of science with votes, opinions and assumptions.

        So now, what about it?

        Stop ducking, dodging and reducing your cred any further and answer the question.

        • Stu says:

          I am doing no such thing, stop being so annoying. I am simply saying that right or wrong your side of the argument is losing the debate. Meantime I did not write the WA policy so have no idea what “measurable evidence” they based it on. Give us your opposing view, if you must. But concede that bit by bit the world is ignoring the position you promote so boringly. You are like the cartoon character sitting at his home computer saying “honey, look I just disproved the work of all those thousands of scientists, aren’t I clever and I am not even a scientist”. Please explain how you think your point of view is gaining traction in the world of government and science?

          • spangled drongo says:

            “I am simply saying that right or wrong your side of the argument is losing the debate.”

            Well, waddaya know! Stu comes clean at long last!

            At least that’s an admission that you [and “all those thousands of scientists”] could be wrong about future climate.

            How many years has that taken? You haven’t admitted that before. Did it hurt?

            But you are still stu-pid enough to think that in spite of the inconclusive science and evidence, we should proceed to bankrupt ourselves based on votes, opinions and assumptions.

            When we are incapable of solving this possible non-problem with green solutions I thought you would be smart enough to at least wait until we had the technology to do so.

          • Stu says:

            “ At least that’s an admission that you [and “all those thousands of scientists”] could be wrong about future climate.” There you go again jumping at shadows. I admit no such thing. Read again. I simply said “right or wrong” your argument is losing. Why are you so obtuse? You simply cannot accept the suggestion that your argument is failing. I admit that I think that your argument has no credibility, but that is not what we are (I am) proposing which is that “right or wrong” your argument is failing. If not please explain how you are winning. Surely your comprehension and cognitive function is not so bad that you cannot grasp what I am saying. But maybe it is, I am sorry for you if so.

          • Boambee John says:


            You have said earlier words to the effect that “right or wrong your side is losing”.

            You seem strangely relaxed about the words “right or wrong”. Surely there is some importance in getting the correct answer, rather than just the politically popular one? Or is that concept too complex for your binary mind?

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, admitting my argument could be either “right or wrong” is admitting [finally] my argument is as good as yours.

            And that “measurable evidence” as well you know, applies to all your so called science which you simply have never been able to produce.

            You are the obtuse one here.

            “please explain how you are winning.”

            Stueyluv, just because votes, beliefs, assumptions etc happen to go in one direction for a period certainly does not verify them. I’m sure even you agree.

            Scientific facts aren’t decided by majorities.

            Even if you are forced to claim they are because you are so desperately short of the necessary evidence.

      • Boambee John says:


        “I did not comment on the plausibility of the policy foundations, merely that a huge percentage of voters in WA have gone for it and once again you are looking like the proverbial shag”

        You really were a target rich environment yesterday. I almost missed this silly comment.

        Apart from the minor detail that the Lieborals took a stronger “environment” policy to the election, and lost massively (a point which you need to explain) , you lack the courage to endorse a policy that even you seem to have doubts about.

        Answer this simple question: Do you think the policy will do anything of value for the environment?

  • Neville says:

    Meanwhile China has another 5 year plan and it’s more coal AGAIN, just like the last one.
    And the LIberal’s so called plan for their much earlier NET ZERO garbage actually lost them votes in WA.
    But everyone and his dog knows that the big swing to Labor this time was the lock downs and most voters essentially rewarded them for keeping the people safe.


    • Stu says:

      Yes it is a bit like saying “my neighbour has not done any hazard reduction burning so why should I bother”, sad really. But the medium term China energy policy is much more encouraging.

      • Boambee John says:


        As I have said before, if you seriously believe that China will do anything to damage its economy in pursuit of “nett zero”, then you are dangerously delusional.

        And if you believe their economic statistics, then you are more stupid than even I thought.

        PS, it is good to see your belated conversion to the benefits of hazard reduction burning. Small steps, small steps!

    • Stu says:

      Oh please, what a poor piece of absolute propaganda. It is summed up beautifully by the last image of a quote from the late and not much lamented Rush Limbaugh. Notice the pace of slide presentation designed to minimise fact checking or in fact any cerebral function. The video is a total joke, you should be ashamed to promote it.

      BTW, much of your posting content and style fits exactly with the standard denialist approaches as per;

      “ It is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics in order to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy:

      Conspiracy theories – Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in “a conspiracy to suppress the truth”.
      Cherry picking – Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look as though they base their ideas on weak research. Diethelm and McKee (2009) note, “Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as an indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness.”
      False experts – Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility. This goes hand-in-hand with the marginalization of real experts and researchers.
      Moving the goalposts – Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence.
      Other logical fallacies – Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.”

      And include diversion and distraction in that mix.

      But there you go, yes?

      Note that the above words do not (just) relate to climate denialism but to all such action, including all the areas where vested interests work to oppose the correct outcome including tobacco/cancer, acid rain, DDT, flammable furniture, ozone hole, bottle litter, climate change etc etc.

      • spangled drongo says:

        And stu simply shoots the messenger [using all the hackneyed alarmist put-downs] without once dealing with any of the specific messages.

        No wonder he doesn’t get science and evidence.

        • Stu says:

          Another standard denialist trope, accuse of “shoot the messenger”. If you put up worthless messengers who have no credibility that is what you get back. Oh hang on he got the Congressional Medal of Freeddom. From whom I ask? You do incite mirth. Suck it up.

          As you say “ without once dealing with any of the specific messages.”. So please respond to what I wrote, do not divert and dissemble again, it is tiresome and revealing, but common practice for your group.

          • spangled drongo says:

            It is interesting how, when presented with a history of their catastrophe lies, the alarmists become the real deniers and have to shoot messengers with machine guns by the hundred.

            But that’s the only way you can cancel history, culture etc.

            Dealing with facts, evidence and your own recent history is far too embarrassing.

    • Stu says:

      Here we go again. Do grow up and stick with the science. I know you find that difficult, you are so far down the rabbit hole. This is in line with the standard denial trick of employing the “personal responsibility” case versus collective and industry based action, all out of the denial playbook. Old, repetitive and boring. Here is a challenge for you. Try and find some original approach for your position.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu sez, “stick with the science.”

        Are you finally admitting that the real science is showing no change in sea level movement than what has always occurred?

        Here are your leading climate hypocrites who demonstrate that they understand this very well yet they preach the complete opposite.

        The old “do what I say, not do what I do”.

        You undermine your argument so completely, it just has to be pointed out how stu-pid you all are.

        • Stu says:

          Enough already, you are no more than a common Troll. Prattle on by yourself.

          • Boambee John says:


            “Enough already, you are no more than a common Troll. Prattle on by yourself.”

            Do you ever look in the mirror? Do you have absolutely no self awareness?

      • Boambee John says:


        I see you again resorting to the standard alarmist tactic of “it’s nothing to do with me personally, the world is doomed, someone else must do something”.

        If you seriously believe any of what you post here, you would be rushing to do everything you could, and encouraging everyone who shares your beliefs to do the same. Remember the slogan, “Think global, act local”.

        As for Kerry and the rest of his hypocritical ilk, I’ll believe that there is a crisis when those who tell me there is a crisis act as if they really believe there is a crisis.

  • Neville says:

    After reading the fictional yapping from our fairy tale lovers I think it’s time we look at some more historic data from Shellenberger’s latest video about Nuclear energy.
    So why are we too stu-pid to even discuss this when we are supposed to be heading towards a climate crisis or even the end of the Human race? Of course even Shellenberger used to yap like a clueless,useful idiot, but he at least confessed his stu-pidity and now tells the truth about their so called Apocalypse BS & fra-d.

    • spangled drongo says:

      But-but-but Neville, you’re producing clear cut logic and rationality supported by endless evidence.

      That’s trolling!!!

      Just ask stu.

      Green, alarmist politics can’t possibly deal in such honesty.

      For instance, they never admit it was the tsunami, not radiation, that claimed all those lives in Fukushima.

      As a result, safe and productive nuclear plants are being closed across the rich world.

      When closure is political, the onus is on Green politicians, in particular, to change their tune. To hasten the decline of nuclear power is willfully to hobble the world in the greatest environmental struggle of all.

      “If you want to save the planet and you don’t want to go nuclear, you’re just full of hot air.”


      • Stu says:

        “ For instance, they never admit it was the tsunami, not radiation, that claimed all those lives in Fukushima.” perhaps so but remember a large area of land is still contaminated and 37,000 people still cannot return to their homes in the area. Safe? Not.

        And it is amazing how much power the relatively small number of Green proponents are claimed by you to possess. All the nuclear closures are due to them. Astounding.

        • spangled drongo says:

          I can’t believe that you deny that Australia is probably the most tectonically stable place in the world c/w the most nuclear fuel.

          The most natural place for nuclear power.

          Whereas the shaky isles of Japan are probably the most risky as evidenced by that tsunami.

          But even so, with modular nuclear similar to warships, could still cope.

          And just look at France, carrying the hypocritical Euro deficit.

          But why don’t you simply admit that this “debate” has nothing to do with the science, climate, environment or safety.

          It’s all about Green politics, socialism and the destruction of the free market.

          And you are simply obtuse enough to be a big supporter of that evidence-free garbage.

          • Stu says:

            “ I can’t believe that you deny that Australia is probably the most tectonically stable place in the world”. When did I deny that? News to me.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Serious energy production for a modern world:

    German energy expert Dr. Lars Schernikau comments on hydrogen, and what’s really the best energy carrier for the next 50 years.

    “Considering the 100-year investment civilization has already made in liquid hydrocarbon infrastructure,
    ‘fission/fusion plus hydrocarbons’ is the only realistic energy transition over the next 50 years.”


  • Boambee John says:


    You asked me to respond to the complete WA energy policy, not just the “Big Battery” aka Perpetual Motion Machine which you highlighted.

    Here is the policy:

    “The policy includes a significant investment in low carbon initiatives, including:
    $21 million for an Electric Vehicle Strategy;
    more than $100 million towards the 100 megawatt big battery;
    $15 million for the WA Carbon Farming Strategy and Land Restoration Program;
    $3.1 million for the Climate Science Program for improved climate change projections;
    Plan for a net zero transition across WA’s public sector;
    $15 million Renewable Hydrogen Fund, plus $13 million funding to support the fledgling industry;
    $60 million Green Jobs Plan;
    $9.2 million Clean Energy Future Fund;
    Renewable Hydrogen Strategy; and
    The Future Battery Industry Strategy.”

    The $21 million for the EV strategy isn’t even a down payment on the total likely cost. Send more Other People’s Money.

    The “Big Battery” item fails to discuss how long it could support the state on a still night, how it is to be charged (Perpetual Motion Machine?), or disposal at end of life.

    Carbon farming and land restoration doesn’t mention detail, but will probably mean taking land from actual farmers for revegetation.

    Good to see recognition of the need for “improved climate change projections”.

    Net zero transition across the public sector equals money for maaaates as “consultants”.

    A total of $28 million for the renewable hydrogen industry. How does “renewable hydrogen” differ from normal hydrogen? Have they any idea of the energy requirements to separate, compress, store and transport hydrogen? Need another Perpetual Motion Machine.
    The Green Jobs Plan ignores overseas experience that each “green” job usually costs between 2 and 3 other jobs. Make work for “consultants”.

    Clean Energy Future fund duplicates the existing Commonwealth fund, but at least it only gets (in relatuve terms) petty cash.

    I would like to get the contract to do the EIS for the Hydrogen Industry and Battery Industry strategy dreams. It would give my children and grandchildren resources to get through the new Dark Age that will result from this wankfest.

  • Boambee John says:


    Further on the WA election.

    “So un-progressively neutrally-woke that when the (ahem, right wing) Liberals recklessly talked about removing all coal power in… f.o.u.r… (4!) years, McGowan said it was too fast, renewables were too unreliable and electricity bills would rise.”

    It seems that WA Labor might not be quite as unconvinced by reality as you are!

    • Neville says:

      Yes BJ and I quoted the same McGowan claims to the silly Stu donkey a couple of weeks ago. But rest assured ,he never wakes up and his stu-pidity knows no bounds.

    • Stu says:

      “ removing all coal power in… f.o.u.r… (4!) years, McGowan said it was too fast”. Too “fast” not too silly.

      On a different topic, is it you or one of your fellow travellers here that thinks the increase in food production is all about more CO2 in the atmosphere? Whichever, it is worth noting these words from a eulogy for Dr Sanjaya Rajaram who died recently.

      “ In 2014 Rajaram was recognised with one of the highest honours in agriculture, the World Food Prize in recognition for benefiting the lives of hundreds of millions of people with the development of highyielding and disease-resistant wheat varieties grown on more than 58 million hectares throughout the world. His achievement increased global wheat production by more than 200 million tonnes during his lifetime. ”. From SMH today.

      Just one such case of increased yields through varieties and technology etc.

      • Boambee John says:


        “Too “fast” not too silly.”

        Since a couple of major coal plants, one in NSW and one in Victoria, are likely to close in the next four years, perhaps you should make sure you have your “Big Battery” for your home? Or will you go for a diesel generator?

        You will need to be able to keep your power on in the gap between “too fast” and “just right”, for the sake of your grandchildren.

        No response on the WA labor policy?

  • Neville says:

    Energy expert Jonathon Tennenbaum checks out the DEM’s Californian disaster and the fact that Biden wants to inflict this misery on the entire US economy.

    The now widespread poverty and homelessness is just a taste of what the Biden donkey will inflict on the rest of his country and is an example of the stu-pidity and ignorance allied to their S&W BS and fra-d that has now infected the Left throughout the country.

    There are many more links to Tennenbaum’s other articles here and this Californian energy horror scenario is number 6.

    Here’s his bio.

    “Jonathan Tennenbaum received his PhD in mathematics from the University of California in 1973 at age 22. Also a physicist, linguist and pianist, he is a former editor of FUSION magazine. He lives in Berlin and travels frequently to Asia and elsewhere, consulting on economics, science and technology”.


  • Neville says:

    Here’s Tennenbaum’s first article about Biden’s/DEM’s so called green energy intentions and some of his concerns.


    “Following this introductory article no. 1, further installments in the series will take up the following concerns”:

    “Green imperialism: Is the Biden Administration turning the climate issue into a vehicle for great-power geopolitics?
    Will Biden’s climate policy serve, defacto, as a vehicle for financial interests that are positioning themselves to profit from the tectonic shifts in global financial flows, arising from a forced move away from fossil fuels? Is this a “BlackRock Administration”?
    Will overheated climate measures set the stage for a financial crisis? Major bets are being placed on the future of the world energy system, and market stability faces the dual menaces of a “green bubble” of climate-linked financial assets and a “carbon bubble” of potentially worthless fossil fuel assets.
    Consider the risk of a California-like horror scenario: economically ruinous over-expansion of so-called renewable energy sources and ideologically-driven environmentalist measures, leading to exploding energy prices, blackouts, economic austerity, productivity losses and growing poverty. Will ill-conceived climate measures generate a political backlash and a resurgence of the Republicans, at latest by the 2024 Presidential elections?
    Will the United States descend into economic and social crisis when the temporary, government money injections-induced “high” begins to wear off?
    What’s the danger that ill-conceived measures by the Biden Administration, in the name of saving the planet, will undermine the capability of the United States and other nations to cope with climate changes in the future?
    At the end I shall make some remarks concerning what a rational approach to the climate issue would look like”.

  • Neville says:

    Meanwhile India powers ahead with 24 updated coal mines and another 8 new mines for this financial year.
    This should be no surprise when India has such an aggressive neighbour who has been the world’s largest co2 emitter for some time and seems to be threatening India’s border on a regular basis.
    They have to keep up against China’s threatening behavior and using clueless, unreliable S&W would be the joke of the century. Unless India has suddenly acquired a death wish lately and I’m sure that isn’t the case.


  • Neville says:

    I’m sure our LW loonies think the Chinese President and generals will behave like gentlemen on the battlefield in future wars?
    By 2050 the USA intends to be operating at net zero and we’re told that 100% of their energy will come from renewables, but here’s a few problems to think about.
    By then a much stronger, aggressive China will have a military + infrastructure that is more reliant on FFs + Nuclear and an industrial base that will be much stronger as well.
    So what does the USA + allies rely on? Is it clueless, unreliable S&W + electric tanks and electric fighter jets and no hope when the wind/weather turns STILL and very CLOUDY for a few days or off and on for weeks at a time? And obviously no fighting allowed at night and hopefully some more windy sunny weather to help out at some critical periods of the war? Has anyone even tried to imagine such a scenario? I have to include a SARC here, but then again…..

    • Stu says:

      You do talk a lot of crap don’t you. Have you got any reds under your bed yet? “Electric jets”, “electric tanks”, pull the other one Marvin. And if you want to know what the real world does about backup check this out


  • spangled drongo says:

    I just received this email from a friend:

    “Some of you might recall that on July 8, 1947, 74 years ago, numerous witnesses claim that an Unidentified Flying Object, (UFO), with five aliens aboard, crashed onto a sheep and mule ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico.
    This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered-up by the U.S. Air Force, as well as other Federal Agencies and Organizations.

    However, what you may NOT know is that during the month of April, year 1948,
    nine months after the historic day, the following people were born:

    Barrack Obama
    Albert A. Gore
    Hillary Rodham
    William J. Clinton
    John F. Kerry
    Howard Dean
    Nancy Pelosi
    Dianne Feinstein
    Charles E. Schumer
    Barbara Boxer
    Joe Biden

    Could this be the consequence of aliens breeding with sheep and jack-asses?”

    • Neville says:

      Very funny SD and I almost believe it to be true, certainly some very strange people among that crowd.

      • Stu says:

        Oh come on guys, I “believe” both you guys think that is 100% true. It would be in line with the other mistruths you follow. As with climate, logic and real science plays no part in your thought stream. LOL.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “As with climate, logic and real science plays no part in your thought stream.”

          Please show us how your “logic and real science” deals with clouds as feedback awa climatic nat var on the Greenland ice sheet, stueyluv.

  • spangled drongo says:

    It’s hard to believe that mainstrean cli-sci and the IPCC have convinced themselves that clouds will increase the warming, viz:

    “All global models continue to produce a near-zero to moderately strong positive net cloud feedback.”

    When it is obvious to any rational observer that the reverse is true.

    And consequently we are bankrupting ourselves on this complete lack of scientific evidence that the woke world is swallowing.

    Willis does a Joni Mitchell on clouds:


  • spangled drongo says:

    When natural climate variability has melted the whole Greenland ice sheet in the not-too-distant-past, why are we now blaming ACO2 and destroying ourselves over a possible one or two degrees?

    “At least once within the last million-year period, and multiple times in the few million years prior, Greenland’s ice sheet melted long enough during warm periods for significant vegetation – perhaps even a forest – to take root and thrive”:


  • Neville says:

    Here Alan Jones quotes so many rational scientists about so called net zero and other extremist’s claims about their so called dangerous climate crisis.
    He then interviews Matt Canavan about the burden placed on Aussie farmers etc to ease the perceived guilt of the inner city elites.

  • Neville says:

    Alan Jones recently talked to Bjorn Lomborg about the extremists’ so called climate crisis and Biden’s stupid ideas and the impact of his so called net zero by 2050 nonsense.
    Plenty of data and evidence from Jones and Lomborg and all of it very carefully researched from his new book “False Alarm-
    How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet”.
    By: Bjorn Lomborg

Leave a Reply