‘Deplatforming’ is a form of political activism whose purpose is to deny the opportunity to speak or write, to those with views the activists find unacceptable. It is a form of censorship, and can be official, unofficial or a mixture. At the extreme, as in the former Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, the state apparatus deplatforms any criticism of the ruling regime. Dr Goebbels was the head of the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. He didn’t like the term ‘propaganda’ because of the baggage that came with it, but Hitler did like it, so the name stayed. Press, radio and cinema were taken over or infiltrated. Public criticism of the Nazi regime disappeared. To the east, the state apparatus of the USSR owned everything that had to do with information. Yes, there were two national newspapers, Pravda (Truth) and Izvestia (News). As a Russian quip had it, one paper had no truth and the other no news. Pravda was the newspaper of the Communist Party, while Izvestia was the mouthpiece of the Soviet Government. There was not a lot of difference.
We in ‘Western democracies’ regard (and regarded) such censorship as abhorrent, one of the evil manifestations of totalitarianism we were opposed to. But democratic governments too have deplatformed controversial speakers by refusing them visas. And not just in the recent past, either. The most notorious case in Australia is probably that of Egon Kisch, an anti-Nazi speaker who had an adventurous and highly successful time in Australia in 1934 after having been denied entrance as an undesirable, then jumping on to the wharf in Sydney, then dealing with court case after court case. The outcome was that he became nationally and internationally famous, far more so than would have been the case had the Lyons Government simply let him in at the beginning. That Government used its wide powers to keep out other ‘undesirable’ visitors in the 1930s, and its successors have continued the practice, including the present Coalition Government.
So we have our own practices to consider. My interest in censorship arose from my being a political scientist who was also a writer and public commentator. I have had one or two telephoned death threats arising from what I had written in the public prints — another form of attempted deplatforming: ‘Stop it or else! And we know where you live…’ You have to disregard that kind of pressure or succumb. When I became a vice-chancellor I added another reason to take censorship seriously, and this was in the university context. There had been student protests in the 1970s, when I was at Macquarie University. In one incident students invaded the administration building and the Council room. In the 1990s what was happening in the USA seemed like a precursor to what might happen here. In the US the students were putting pressure on their university to take back an invitation to a notable speaker to speak at a graduation ceremony, on the ground that they didn’t like some of what he or she had said or written somewhere else.
I didn’t want that kind of stuff here, let alone the invasion of a public meeting on the campus where students drowned out the speaker with their own public address system. Australian universities have no campus police forces, unlike their American counterparts, and you couldn’t and shouldn’t use campus police to control student politics anyway. I wrestled with what to do if… and how to do it… I was not going to be weak-kneed about it: I was opposed to censorship and deplatforming, and the students had better know. As it turned out, I was worried about nothing. The University of Canberra was a professional school, catering for virtually all the professions except medicine, dentistry and vet. We did not have a Arts faculty as such, and our courses required systematic hard work from the students. They didn’t have time to organise or disrupt a public speech. If we had speakers, they were from the professions or the employers, who were listened to respectfully. I never had the opportunity to show my mettle in the battle for free speech on campus.
But deplatforming has been alive and well in the media, and even in academic journals. It is abundantly clear that in the area of climate change it is extremely hard to get published, if what you are presenting is evidence and argument that does not accord with the IPCC and climate-concerned world view. I’ve read papers that got away with it by having a couple of sentences at the beginning or end which asserted that none of this meant that AGW is not occurring and not a problem. The CRU emails that were published showed clearly that the climate- scientist activists were prepared to put real pressure on editors to stick to their hymn book. A couple of editors resigned to get away from it. (You need perhaps to know that the vast majority of academic journal editors, maybe even the magic 97 per cent, do not get paid for their labours. Nor do members of their editorial boards. It’s all voluntary.)
In the public arena the BBC sticks very close to the hymn book, as does the ABC here. The Guardian newspaper is amazing, and you can read about what its editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, has said to its readers here.
To summarise, We want to ensure that we arebeing scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue. These are the guidelines provided to our journalists and editors to be used in the production of all environment coverage across the Guardian’s website and paper.
1.) ‘climate emergency’ or ‘climate crisis’ to be used instead of ‘climate change’.
2.) ‘climate science denier’ or ‘climate denier’ to be used instead of ‘climate sceptic’.
3.) Use ‘global heating’, not ‘global warming’.
4.) ‘greenhouse gas emissions’ not ‘carbon emission’ or ‘carbon dioxide emissions’.
5.) ‘wildlife’ not ‘biodiversity’
4.) Use ‘fish populations’ instead of ‘fish stocks’
Strewth! as we used to say (for those interested in etymology, it is a shortening, a ‘minced oath’, of ‘God’s truth’.) Hasn’t the editor-in-chief read Orwell’s 1984? This is Newspeak with a vengeance. Peter Murphy of CFACT (I’m not permitted to provide the link, apparently. Just go to cfact.org and search: October 10th2019) had this to say the other day:
To the extent some alarmists notice a different take, they want them ignored or silenced. This is dangerous, and it goes beyond climate issues. It’s bad enough for global warming activists and groups to attempt to silence opposition. A more problematic trend is when it comes from the media itself.
He is a sceptic, and so is CFACT. He gives many more examples, mostly American, of the same kind of deplatforming. What can one say, let alone do, about a newspaper that is supposed to act as a reliable, credible source of information, but says that those who disagree with it are quite wrong and not to be heard?
Ms Viner probably thinks that glaciers are melting fast, the Arctic will be ice-free very soon, if not tomorrow, and that anyone who disagrees about all that is a ‘climate denier’. What an asinine instruction! Who denies there is a climate? What an example to her reporters of being ‘scientifically precise’! How did she get to be any kind of editor, let alone one ‘in chief’? As for melting snow, she should study the graph beneath, done in Rutgers University (New Jersey, quite reputable) from NOAA and other official stats. Not much change there.
If I were to try to point this out to a Guardian reader, given an appropriate story to hang it on to, would I be treated as a ‘climate denier’? Yet the graph and the evidence on which it is based are part of the official data used by all ‘climate scientists’.
I suppose I could post a ‘trigger warning’ on this website to the effect that The Guardian is not an acceptable source of information about climate, or probably anything else, since I expect there are other forbidden subjects too. But no. That is not my way. All I can do is growl a ‘Grrr’ or two, and wait for some kind of sanity to return.
Join the discussion 96 Comments
“All I can do is growl a ‘Grrr’ or two, and wait for some kind of sanity to return.”
It has been said that humanity goes mad in herds, but recovers individually.
Now that Solar Cycle 25 graces us with longer winters, shorter summers, and, more importantly, fewer degree days, nature is about to9 change some minds.
In the Northern Hemisphere a late Spring delayed planting, and early frosts have curtailed harvest. USDA is forecasting crop yields in the order of 50% of normal. Unrelated to the weather, and African swine flu virus is decimating the population of hogs.
My guess is that as we move into 2020, high prices that result from food shortages will make it abundantly clear to hungry individuals that the entire “warming” meme was nothing but a con, and that it has been gradually cooling sporadically for 9,000 years., When Joe Q. Public becomes aware of the scam, the manure will hit the twirly blades.
One of your best Don. Do you see a way to give this wider exposure? Quadrant, the Spectator, The Oz?
I don’t really have time to revise and edit for publication elsewhere. Some of my stuff is picked up by others anyway. Thanks for the compliment, but sorry for my incapacity to do what you want me todo.
This is a text-book example of some of the tricks of denialism,
For example to deny a statement:
“Ms Viner probably thinks that glaciers are melting fast,”
DO NOT produce evidence on glacier melt… instead switch to “snow”
If claimed articles are sent to august scientific journals with this sort of carry-on, then yes they will not pass serious referees.
This is not deplatforming. It is protecting scientific rigor.
Needless to say snow data is not “… the evidence on which it is based are part of the official data used by all ‘climate scientists’.” underpinning Viner’s statement.
Chris: ‘glaciers’ are not melting fast, though a few are. But then there are around 250,000 glaciers. If glaciers were melting fast, then snow would be receding too, wouldn’t it? But it doesn’t appear to. I could have written that conclusion in, but thought I didn’t need to. Plainly I was wrong.
And this essay was not intended for an academic journal, but for a wide general readership.
For your last sentences, are you really intending to say that climate scientists don’t use NOAA data? Or that they are not aware of this graph and the evidence on which it is based? That would seem very odd to me — both such an intention, and the view that you hold.
Viner’s supposed statement, which you ascribed, was about Arctic glaciers.
Presumably data for Arctic glacier melt justifies your comment? But where is this?
Statements such as “‘glaciers’ are not melting fast, though a few are.” are just subjective views – not based on evidence.
There is no way anyone can say whether available data represents fast or slow melt?
The science of heat and ice indicates that when enough heat is applied to melt ice – that melting will cntinue while ever the same heat is applied.
This means that if present trends continue, all land (and sea) ice will melt.
How many years will it take for all sea and land ice to melt?
No Chris, read the piece again. I (DA) said that ‘Ms Viner probably thinks…’ So far as I know she hasn’t said anything about Arctic glaciers, and I certainly wasn’t quoting her. Glaciers: Wikipedia has a good piece, and there are others as well. You might like to read them.
Using “probably” to load some one up (w.r.t glaciers) – even though;
“…she hasn’t said anything about Arctic glaciers”
I don’t think that you are the arbiter of acceptability on this blog.
If you wish to have such authority, perhaps you should start your own blog?
Chris. I agree. Facts matter.
Take a look at this video. It has Satellite pictures of Greenland (arctic) glacial growth and receding cycles.
There are plenty of official statistics (actual data) in the above video, but this next one has some of the most excellent historical data records (again, all with references).
Greenland holds about 7% of global land ice. On average almost 600 Billion tonnes of snow fall each year on Greenland and some years more snow falls than is lost through water runoff and glacial calving (resulting in net ice gain). Others more is lost than falls. Coming off the little ice age, Greenland is still colder than during the medieval warm period where crops once grew where it is now too cold.
The video was of Jakobshavn and Petermann glaciers which have been featured in the media because they are different,
The reasoning is straightforward as explained here:
You get a better picture of the issue raised by Don by simply Googling “arctic glaciers melting”.
No one claims that all glaciers are melting.
Focusing on two anomalous cases is cherry picking.
A full overview is here:
“The video was of Jakobshavn and Petermann glaciers which have been featured in the media because they are different,”
Translation: the video doesn’t fit the narrative, and must be ignored.
PS, Chris, how long will it take for all sea and land ice to melt. No need to be too precise, to the nearest 100 years will be adequate.
Thanks Don for pointing out this Orwellian stuff that should be blindingly obvious to the most obtuse, confused and contrary alarmist.
And yes, that even includes our blith.
I wonder if it is just a moment Viners seem to have or whether it is permanent:
“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”
“should be blindingly obvious to the most obtuse, confused and contrary alarmist.”
Your faith in the mental flexibility of Chris is touching, but based on his comments above, is quite misguided.
We can only hope, BJ.
Here is another example of what is happening in Academia – another professor fired for not supporting the beliefs of radical environmentalists and their political allies.
View it in your web browser here: https://mailchi.mp/41a9f631a606/gwpf-condemns-suppression-of-academic-freedom-at-canadas-university-of-victoria
Poor ol’ confused blith thinks that deplatforming [which is just another way of denying that essential scientific asset, scepticism] is “protecting scientific rigour”.
Well he would have to say that as he has been doing exactly that for as long as he has been here.
But when our alarmists have been on this path for so long does it ever occur to them that the way they have things may just be slightly off?
Should he deplatform himself?
Strange that Don writes about deplatforming but the comments are about climate change. I guess because Don introduced that but the most deplatforming I have observed has been about social matters.
THe University’s preside over much of the ideologically “sound reasoning” as a means towards setting up graduates in a career. Legislation to control what people do is a tool that promotes bureaucracy
A bit of circulation! http://catallaxyfiles.com/2019/10/22/roundup-22-oct-from-prescott-valley-arizona/
The Bolter checks on some of the facts about Labor’s call for a climate emergency.
That low lying rock on Balmoral beach in Sydney in 1905 appears identical to the photo today in 2019.
How can there be no dangerous SLR over the last 114 years after all the extremist rants from the likes of Labor and the Greens? Check it out for yourselves and the rest of his video.
But I conclude that Labor is indeed both deaf and mad.
Neville, That low lying rock on Balmoral beach in Sydney in 1905 completely agrees with this mean sea level data recorded by the BoM over a similar period showing that MSL today is 12 cm LOWER than it was at their first recording in 1914:
Yet the very same BoM, claim on their website that sea levels at the same place are rising at the rate of 7 cm/decade
I sent them an email 5 days ago asking why they make these two conflicting claims and, while I have received acknowledgement, I’m still waiting for an answer.
Why is it that they can deplatform themselves to the point where they are in blatant denial of the visible evidence.
SD I hope you can get an honest answer from the BOM, but don’t bet on it.
Here’s Bolt’s interview with Daniel Fitzhenry that you’ve mentioned before and he states that SLs at Fort Denison go up and down by about 15cm since 1914, or about 6 inches.
And the 1914 level is higher than the 2019 level at the time of the interview. A few months ago I think?
Yes Neville, the first record in 1914 was 1.11m and in June 2019 it was 1.06m, July was 1.03m, now August is 0.99m. So MSLs are rising and falling as we know they always do and have but there is no better evidence of nothing happening temperature-wise when MSLs revert to a lower position after a century of records.
My own observations and detailed measurements as a builder of sea front infrastructure over a lifetime completely agree with this.
This is why the smart-wealthy are still buying sea frontages for tens, even hundreds, of millions.
It’s just when those smart-wealthy do it and still preach climate-crisis-catastrophe-change that it tends to try one’s patience.
Thanks for the video. If I don’t hear from our BoM soon I will send that to them for their further consideration and comment.
This Bolt video demonstrated the usual cherry-picking you are so famous for.
It also peddled “relative” sea level data without any correction for thermal expansion of land.
Absolute sea levels can rise even when particular relative sea levels fall.
That’s right, blith. When you are convinced that all the glaciers and the polar land ice are melting and we are heading for climate catastrophe, even though the Mean Sea Levels are falling and indicating the situation is cooler than normal, I’m sure the land under the sea is warming up and causing….er….more falling sea levels.
“It also peddled “relative” sea level data without any correction for thermal expansion of land.
Absolute sea levels can rise even when particular relative sea levels fall.”
Indeed, “Absolute sea levels can rise even when particular relative sea levels fall”, but will they? Anything “can” be presented as possible if the appropriate assumptions are made.
What are the relative expansion coefficients of sea water and the various kinds of land? Sand? Sandstone? Granite? Wetlands? Given those (and a few more) and some broad assunptions, virtually any result could be obtained by an appropriately briefed computer modeller.
Best to stick with actual, empirical measurements over time than pursue another strand of dubious computer models.
I recently emailed the CSIRO questioning why they have “recommended further reading”on climate change, links to the alarmist site SkepticalScience, which may even have been funded by Al Gore.
Auto acknowledgement but no response.
I’m probably in a “denier database” now.
It’s the real experts that alarmists and our questionable media are deplatforming.
How to tell the real from the fake:
“Real Experts on a science-related subject have six distinguishing characteristics, which are really no more than the traditional scientific standards:
1 – They have a high degree of competence in the topic at hand.
[For example, out of 1000 people, they would know more than 999.]
2 – They have a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
[They are not one of the blind people examining just a part of the elephant.]
3 – They are objective in their conclusions and recommendations.
[They are not influenced by economic incentives, or undeclared political agendas.]
4 – They are genuinely open-minded regarding their positions.
[They encourage other parties to critique their analyses and conclusions.]
5 – Their research and data are transparent.
[No pertinent information is hidden behind such claims as “work product.”]
6 – Their research and data are based on empirical evidence.
[Real world data always takes priority over computer-generated information.]”
That leaves out most “climate scientists” then.
Why has the ABC misled their viewers for the last 26 years about drought and climate change?
Also this taxpayer funded mob of con merchants have never had a long standing conservative heading any of their major programs over that period of time.
Yet it’s supposed to be unbiased according to its charter. So why haven’t we had many of their reporters regularly telling us that we should be more sceptical about many of the extremist’s CAGW claims?
Yet in the last 26 years we haven’t had one? What a con, what a fra-d.
Never forget we’ve wasted endless billions $ on the idiocy and all for a guaranteed ZERO return by 2050, 2100 and …….
Just check co2 emissions since 1990 and the source of those EXTRA emissions.
Silence that scientist ?
Seems that having a pathetic lefty as PM has led to restrictions on Canadian scientists.
Perhaps even Trudeaupia might have some elements that are less than scientifically honest.
Still, what goes around comes around!
Chris is too dim to understand that a government, even that of Trudeaupia, has a reasonable expectation that it should be able to control the release of official material by its employees.
This is quite different to universities, which in theory at least, are dedicated to the unflinching search for the truth, and the media which, in theory at least, are dedicated to exposing lies, fraud and stupidity, taking the easy path of refusing to allow opinions which do not match a favoured “narrative” from being heard.
The alarmists claim absolutely that they are correct, but lack the confidence to debate their position openly. Gutless, incompetent, prawns the lot of them!
More self-deplatforming from the BoM. The things they learn from the world’s gatekeepers!
Just look what else the BoM has conveniently dropped down the memory hole:
Ah! The virtue! A green numberplate is a platform we can all aspire to:
Addition for Chris: Wikipedia says that there are around 200,000 glaciers, and a list of ‘expanding’ glaciers (look it up) provides a few dozen examples. No one know what is happening to the majority of the 200,000, for obvious reasons.
And we never will know, Don, but if mean sea levels at places like Ft Dennison are lower than they were a century ago then land ice is not net melting.
The climate zealots reckon that if you tell a lie often enough…..:
Psychologists and an historian.
Who better to advise on the finer points of atmospheric physics.
On such unstable foundations does Chris build his fairy tale castles of impending doom!
Chris, how long will it take for all the sea and land ice in the world to melt, to the nearest 100 years? Too difficult a question for you? Consult a psychologist!
On Sky the other night, Nicholas Reece claimed the Melbourne city climate emergency was prompted by sea level rise in the Port of Melbourne.
Turns out this information is pretty hard to find. But I found some reports, and I looked up the references and read those reports too.
And guess what – sea level is all over the place – up in some places, down in others.
It’s affected by water temperature and therefore by ocean currents and wind and clouds, it’s affected by air pressure, orbits and tectonics, and also by land ice melting.
The Dutch know a bit about sea level, their records indicate the same rate of rise since the start of records. Ft Denison is similar.
But Florida and Jakarta have problems because they are sinking. Nothing to do with oceans, it’s the land that’s changing.
The CSIRO ‘state of the climate’ report goes on about ‘global average’ sea level rise, but average sea level is completely irrelevant.
Anyway, back to Melbourne, and the following scientific evaluation of sea level is objective, where BoM and CSIRO are not.
Section 3.5 is interesting:
– Williamstown tide record extends back to 1874, with highest storm tide in 1934 at 1.33m.
– Port Lonsdale and Geelong have records beginning in the 1960’s, with highest storm tides at 1.30m (1981) and 1.13m (2011).
Section 4.5 offers this summary of sea level rise:
In broad terms, sea level has been rising at Williamstown at about 2.3 mm per year over the last 48 years, 2.6 mm per year at St Kilda over the last 37 years and 1.5 mm per year at Geelong over the last 48 years, but there are many other variations which make this signal hard to identify precisely. There also appears to be an issue with the datum at St Kilda in 2012 and 2013.
Remember this is mean level, and the report provides trends of min, max and other levels that show other trends.
Well worth a look.
A more comprehensive look at Australian sea level is the often quoted Church and White:
I quite enjoy the following piece of information, never considered by the ABC:
Altimeter derived SSH data […] has an accuracy of ~2–3cm.
Thanks for that Ben.
As C&W say about Australian sea levels, they are influenced by ENSO [as are all the SLs around the Pacific] with fluctuating wind strengths blowing ocean surface water huge distances, causing humps and hollows over those same huge distances. This applies the whole world over and never so much as in storm conditions.
However, when you work on stilling ponds [bays and harbours at normal barometric pressure] you get the more correct picture and as shown by the data at Ft Denison and Moreton Bay, there is nothing happening with SLR.
Particularly when you realise these two stilling ponds are adjacent to the biggest and broadest ocean in the world.
Over the last several years I have been advising local council engineers when there is a Highest Astronomical Tide to meet me and observe known tide benchmarks built to known past high water datum so they get some real world feedback of those HATs. They are invariably surprised and vow to put in a new benchmark to record the new levels, but it is yet to happen and they seem to prefer the C&W indoctrination.
We will never know the precise state of sea levels until all tide gauges can be measured for their own vertical movements but when Ft Denison is showing a fall in MSL over the last century of 12 cm, there is no sea level rise happening.
This is also confirmed when you look at coral atolls which are increasing in size and our beaches which have never been in better shape.
SD do you get the OZ online and if so how do you find the experience?
I’m thinking of trying their introductory offer for 2 months, so I’d just like the opinion of anyone who would recommend it.
Yes Neville, I do. It’s the only “paper” I subscribe to so I wouldn’t know how it compares.
But at least you get the other side of the story from the “free” rags like Auntie and all the other deplatformers.
Interesting that News Corp are the only ones that seems to make a profit.
Thanks for that SD, I think I’ll take up their introductory offer for two months.
I’ve seen Graham Lloyd on Sky News and he seems to understand things very well and at least checks the data properly.
More denialist tricks:
Poor ol’ Andy Pitman finds he’s is forced to have two bob each way to save his hide from the deplatformers.
And would you believe our blith is too dumb to get it?
Is that from stupidity or just plain denial?
Contrary to claims by donkeys about droughts or floods or cyclones, we know that even their IPCC doesn’t claim any links between so called CAGW and the above.
In fact OVERALL OZ rainfall trend since 1973 is much higher than the trend from 1895 to 1973. And this includes the overall OZ trend 1990 to 2018 as well. In fact the trend from 1900 to 1973 is bloody awful and we know 1895 to 1973 is the same. Just add FED drought.
Just look at the data and evidence AGAIN from the BOM. Importantly southern OZ OVERALL also has a higher trend as do all other regions.
Most states also have a higher trend and only Vic ( slightly) Tassie and SW WA have a recent lower trend today.
This is a combination of the positive + neutral IOD and a failure of the SAM to come as far north ( as often) in recent years.
But NZ rainfall is showing little trend over last 60 years, although it is on a similar latitude to Tassie. IOW this has nothing to do with higher co2 levels in the air, unless you believe in their fantastic pixie dust science?
Cyclones in the OZ region also show a lower trend since 1970, (BOM 50 years at least) including non severe and severe cyclones. AGAIN see BOM data since 1970.
Thanks for that link SD. BTW it’s amazing how liars and con merchants are caught out in the end.
John Kerry is well known for his frequent mistakes and contortions, but Timothy Worth had to admit he was lying when he claimed his “preparation of the room” before Dr Hansen’s infamous speech in Washington in 1988.
And these two warming alarmists are the people we should take notice of on so called CAGW? Give us a break.
It takes a while but eventually the truth emerges.
Another eye opener from Jo and Chris Gillham, or how the BOM hides thousands of HOT days to further distort OZ’s temperature record.
SD I notice Cohenite is still going strong in the comments to this post.
Thanks Neville. As Cohers says, there is no excuse for a taxpayer funded bureau to cheat like this.
I consider that the slight possible increase in global warming could all be due to this sort of fakery. When our gatekeepers have the warmist attitude that they continually demonstrate, it is so easy to fiddle the books ever so slightly over a long period.
Particularly when they don’t get audited.
Why is it that all the gatekeepers, even the IPCC, have a lack of rational scepticism towards the world’s climate.
Roy Spencer shows how it is reasonable to expect our climate to have NAT VAR:
Especially for Chris, and Stu if he is lurking.
No. 2019-40 | October 08, 2019
Erica L. Thompson and Leonard A. Smith
Escape from model-land
(Published in Special Issue Bio-psycho-social foundations of macroeconomics)
Both mathematical modelling and simulation methods in general have contributed greatly to understanding, insight and forecasting in many fields including macroeconomics. Nevertheless, we must remain careful to distinguish model-land and model-land quantities from the real world. Decisions taken in the real world are more robust when informed by estimation of real-world quantities with transparent uncertainty quantification, than when based on “optimal” model-land quantities obtained from simulations of imperfect models optimized, perhaps optimal, in model-land. The authors present a short guide to some of the temptations and pitfalls of model-land, some directions towards the exit, and two ways to escape. Their aim is to improve decision support by providing relevant, adequate information regarding the real-world target of interest, or making it clear why today’s model models are not up to that task for the particular target of interest.”
From the Escape from Model-Land article:
“You may be living in model-land if you…
o try to optimise anything regarding the future;
o believe that decision-relevant probabilities can be extracted from models;
o believe that there are precise parameter values to be found;
o refuse to believe in anything that has not been seen in the model;
o think that learning more will reduce the uncertainty in a forecast;
o explicitly or implicitly set the Probability of a Big Surprise to zero; that there is nothing your model cannot simulate;
o want “one model to rule them all”;
o treat any failure, no matter how large, as a call for further extension to the existing modelling strategy.”
Sometimes seen with a couple of commenters here.
Very true, BJ.
Another discussion here:
Good to see what was commonly known as GIGO brought to peoples’ attention regularly.
What our children need to be taught:
Where would we be without this propaganda-fakery from academics.
University artist posts fake ‘historic’ markers to raise climate awareness.
“It’s a good thing. At least we can say to our grandchildren that we did something,”
“Remembrance of Climate Futures.”:
Whereas the last thing those same academics would be telling people would be the real world facts, like ice growing:
And MSLs falling:
More problems with the BOM data and another thorough summary from Jo and analyst Bill Johnston.
Yes, that’s a classic, Neville. Some of the latest BoM SSs I see around here are even a lot smaller than those.
And the deplatformers that want to claim drought is a result of ACO2 need to study these historic droughts:
You’re right SD and I’ll have to find more of the earlier drought studies again. Both paleo and more recent studies over the last 1 to 200 years.
BTW here’s a summary of maths Guru Nic Lewis’s recent talk in Europe and as always he makes a lot of sense.
He’s correct that EU emissions don’t matter and obviously the same for NET sink OZ or the entire NET Co2 SINK S.Hemisphere.
Here Dr Pielke jnr further explains why the extremist’s so called mitigation idiocy will never work.
Just very simple sums and just adds to his recent talk where he explained that the world would need to build a new nuclear power stn every day until 2050 to make any dent on co2 emissions.
Don’t forget that the RS and NAS report also tells us that even if we stopped all human co2 emissions TODAY it still would make any difference for one thousand years. Or perhaps longer.
And China, India and developing countries couldn’t care less and are building COAL power stns as quickly as they can.
This is exactly what we NET co2 SINK Aussies should be doing ASAP.
There has been rioting and huge crowds protesting ( 1 million people) about the rising energy costs in Chile caused by the idiotic use of S&W energy.
The GWPF is now reporting that the Chilean govt has cancelled the DEC COP 25 fra-d & con and like the French yellow vests these crowds are sick and tired of paying higher and higher costs for electricity, plus all the flow on disaster for their economy.
More data on Chile’s TOTAL energy, just to further inform our silly donkeys. Chile generates over 90% of their TOTAL energy from fossil fuels + bio&waste and only 0.9% from GEO+ S&W. IOW SFA from clueless S&W.
And Chile emits just 0.24% of global co2 emissions and OZ just 1.1%. These are 2017 IEA data and don’t forget both Chile and Australia are net co2 sinks and ditto for the entire S. Hemisphere. See Cape Grim CSIRO.
So far 2019 has been much lower for natural disaster losses and we also know that economic losses from natural disasters have fallen for the last 30 years.
Here is the data for the last 30 years from Prof Roger Pielke jnr. So far 2019 is listed as the year of the kitten, but with 2 months to come.
But most importantly deaths from extreme weather events have fallen by at least 95% since 1920.
This is a modern miracle because the human population of the world has increased by a factor of 4.2 times, while number of deaths from extreme weather events have fallen off a cliff.
Record temperature of -43.6 Farenheit recorded in Utah. This is almost -44 Celsius.
BJ I think -43.6 F is about -42 C. Here’s Mark Morano’s report on that amazing low OCT 2019 temp.
It could be the lowest OCT temp ever recorded in continental USA. Alaska I presume would hold the record.
You are right about the Celsius equivalent. It is a frightening temperature.
Ext Rebs even attack broccoli, probably because it’s a different type of vege than they are?
Watch the video to see these barking mad fools in full flight. But then again they do intend to bring about the downfall of western democracy and our freedom of speech.
And their founder also uses mind altering drugs to help create her vision of the future.
Just watch the video to see the results of our modern education system or more silly religious dogma and junk science.
“The common cliché: an energy tech disruption will echo the digital tech disruption. But information-producing machines and energy-producing machines involve profoundly different physics; the cliché is sillier than comparing apples to bowling balls.”
There’s more nonsense in the media today about our so called climate emergency.
Lomborg recently warned about listening to climate doomsayers and this column has a number of useful links to back up his claims.
Using “Our World in Data” is also a good source to refute the claims of the emergency extremists.
Many more cold temp records have been broken over recent days in the USA.
A number of these very cold forecasts look likely to carry through to the middle of NOV.
Is this what they mean by a climate emergency?
I see that around 11,000 of Chris’ mates are calling for world population to be stabilised or preferably reduced. They discreetly hint at “proven methods” to do this, but avoid details.
The Indian and Chinese experiences make it clear that even authoritarian or totalitarian methods struggle to simply reduce population growth. To reduce population size in any timeframe that matches the demands of their so-called “climate emergency” will take much worse methods.
The 99% under capitalism:
– cell phones
– color TVs
– all you can eat buffets
The 99% under socialism:
Yes Karabar, a picture is worth a thousand words, yet our silly donkeys will always look away.
And Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot+ other despots etc were responsible for the deaths of over a 100 million people during the 20th century.
But don’t expect the leftie extremists to bother with this sort of data and evidence.
African leaders tell the world that their need for fossil fueled energy outweighs concerns about climate. Good for them and they should build new base-load power stations asap.
Just because western countries are too stupid to wake up to the CAGW con merchants, it shouldn’t stop Africans from using their brains. Why shouldn’t they fight for a healthier, wealthier, future and have the same aspirations as wealthy western countries, plus Asians, sth Americans etc?
More good news that people all over the world are waking up to the extremists and their CAGW fra-d and con.
Here’s Benny Peiser’s statement from the GWPF essay and link. Let’s hope the burial of the Paris fra-d is carried out quickly and the sooner the better.
“Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum in London, said the blowback over climate-change policies shows that “the Paris agreement is likely to end in failure, just like the  Kyoto Protocol did before.”
“It is becoming increasingly evident that most governments around the world are prioritizing energy security, affordability and industrial competitiveness over the Paris climate agreement,” Peiser said. “Green lip-service is replacing radical decarbonization targets in most capitals as governments are facing popular revolts over rising energy prices.”
“The Climate Action Tracker noted that, even as the U.S. leaves the Paris agreement, its emissions are projected to come in 2 percent lower than the initial post-Trump projections”.
Jo Nova recently pointed out how common very early fires were in Qld over 60 to 70 years ago. And these early August fires when co2 levels were a little over 300ppm.
Today many of our fires have been caused by arsonists and perhaps we should have much longer sentences for these mongrels?
I bet they don’t replatform Susan Crockford:
Here the Bolter talks to a real expert on bush fires and he tells us the facts and data and the critical lack of proper reduction burns.
Yet we still have donkeys like the Greens yapping about their delusional CAGW fantasies. What a con and fra-d, yet our clueless media and particularly their ABC promote this Green garbage again and again.
David Packham thinks our forests have at least 10 times the load compared to Aboriginal Australian times and this will take many years of controlled burning to fix.
Here’s Andrew’s interview with David Packham yesterday.
Andrew Bolt discusses the barking mad Greens and their delusional nonsense about weather events.
Will these disgusting donkeys ever wake up?
Yes Neville, and this is where it all springs from today:
Geez, will our denialists ever apologise for contributing to this….
Geez will our so-called “environmentalists” ever apologise for making fires worse by obstructing proven methods of reducing bushfire intensity?
Are you a fuel reduction denialist? Do you deny the value of hazard reduction?
Why do denialists spread fake ‘convenient’ lies?
Do you deny that fuel availability influences fire intensity?
Why do alarmists fear and deny reality?
BJ, our silly donkey wouldn’t understand real data and evidence if he tripped over it.
My Dad always told me it was a waste of time trying to argue with stupid religious cranks and he would roll his eyes if he could see these CAGW fra-dsters today.
Dr Finkel knows the truth ( see senate hearing) supported by the CSIRO who tell us that the entire SH is a net co2 sink. Best to leave this silly donkey to play in his cot by himself.
Indeed he is just a waste of space.
More proper data/evidence from Jo Nova about earlier extreme Qld fires that stretched for hundreds of miles in 1946.
Co2 levels then were about 310 ppm and now we know that the SH is a NET co2 sink to further complicate their CAGW delusions.
And thanks for that Quadrant link, SD.
Denialists lie continuously – here is the latest from a Liberal Party fellow, JASON FALINSKI.
“In Australia, we have managed, through good luck, good management, to actually reduce our emissions.”
In fact our emissions are increasing.
So was this a denialist lie? or
a Liberal lie, or
[See last ABC’s Q&A transcript].
So why do denialists lie about their lies???
“So why do denialists lie about their lies???”
Does that make it a double negative and therefore true?
Are you still in denial about the southern hemisphere being a net carbon (dioxide) sink? Still denying what the CSIRO says?
Denialist! Science denier!
PS, other than a very poor correlation, fudged temperature records, and some dodgy computer models, what actual empirical evidence do you have that CO2 levels drive the climate?
Wouldn’t it be nice if the blithering Climate Catastropharian here had some real world experience in anything to do with climate.
If he had been involved with any rural fire service or contributed some effort in that direction during his lifetime he would know that huge bushfires are a part of Australian life and always have been.
But that people in the past always knew that back-burning and cool-burning in moderate weather were the only way to survive in serious fire conditions.
And with much fewer resources in much bigger fires, they managed it quite successfully.
And yet it is only because of the modern climate religious who worship trees to the point of stupidity and have flocked to the bush, that fuel-load has been allowed to rise to alarming levels and when fires start in dry, windy conditions it suddenly dawns on everyone in the area that they are now caught in an impossible situation.
And they have the hubris to blame rational sceptics who have been pointing this stupidity of theirs out to them for years, with the claim that it is all the fault of climate change.
Just who are the real deniers?
Why do denialists cherrypick the southern hemisphere?
Even primary school children know the problem is global warming.
Progress at last.
Your usual reaction to references to the southern hemisphere/Australia as a nett CO2 sink was to screech about lies and denialism. Now you at least implicitly accept that this is true.
Small steps, small steps.
As for the southern hemisphere vs global issue, even one as single minded and obsessed as you should be able to work out that the key to the problem, if there is really a problem, of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is in the northern hemisphere. Nothing done in the southern hemisphere will have any effect.
If you think that there is a problem, demonstrate in Beijing or Delhi. Don’t destroy our economy and living standards out of a fit of misplaced masochism.