Elections, Australian and American

By September 16, 2020Other

I was asked some months ago to write something about the US Presidential elections, coming in just a few weeks. This is the first instalment. For those who have lived in both countries, it is pretty basic stuff. But just as there are millions of Americans who simply don’t know that Australia exists, or think it is Austria, there are hundreds of thousands of Australians who think we are just like America. We’re not, and this essay gives some context. Yes, we have a common language, we borrowed their federal system from the US, and a few other things as well, but there are some pretty important differences. What follows is a rough clearing of the undergrowth.

We need to start with history. The USA begins in 1783, seven years after the start of the War of Independence from King George III, and five years before Arthur Phillip’s First Fleet arrived in Botany Bay. But there had been many English settlements before 1783, starting with the Puritan settlements in 1620. Each of these was privately financed and self-governed. The land was good arable, for the most part, and there was plenty of water. I’ll leave fighting with the Red Indians out. As time went on settlers pushed further west and discovered the wonderful Missouri/Mississippi river system, with its deep soil and abundant water. When the American colonies federated there was no doubt that local self-government would be key. The new federal government was to do those things that couldn’t be done locally, and to sort out differences between states. Education, police, municipal services, justice, transport, you name it, were either wholly locally administered or substantially so. In 1845 and thereafter a single election day was set for just about everything, the President, the House of Representatives, half the Senate, state governors and representatives and all local positions down to dog-catcher. It is a huge electoral endeavour.

When the colonial representatives met to decide on their Constitution the only model widely available to them was a form of monarchy, though Switzerland was a republic. So they opted for an elected king, with two houses of parliament, with the upper house representing the former colonies, now states, the lower house representing the citizens. It was an adaptation of what they were used to, and it has worked tolerably well for nearly 240 years.

The Australian experience was quite different. The settlement of New South Wales was from the beginning a piece of government action. There were no independent attempts at settlement for quite some time. Moreover, the environment around Port Jackson and Botany Bay was not encouraging for crops or pastures, and the new settlement nearly ran out of food on a couple of occasions. Just about everything was done or run by the military government, and democratic institutions took some time to arrive. When the settlers moved west they discovered no great river system that could sustain thousands of farmers, but a land of dry plains whose rivers could disappear or flood. The government owned all the land, and sold it or handed it out to suit whatever initiative was the go. It was not until the discovery of gold in the middle 19thcentury that elected assemblies and governments became the standard.

More, when the colonial representatives met to argue about the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia that would come into being, with the approval of the British Government — no war of independence was necessary — a monarch who really ruled was something of the past. The new model was of an elected government with a Prime Minister, as was now the case in Great Britain. So the Australians opted for that, borrowing the federal system and its names from the USA, which they had studied most carefully. Elections were held whenever the jurisdiction thought it to be appropriate, so we have a plethora of elections, federal, state and local. Local government is a creature of state government; no great feeling applies to local government in Australia, because it was never generated by settlement itself. The Colony of New South Wales did quite a lot of mapping of where they thought new towns might be. Some of them remain on maps but nowhere else.

More still, Australians became highly regulated in comparison to the Americans, and notably ‘national’ as well. In Australia government did a great deal, at every level, and Australians became used to saying ‘when will they fix this or do that?’ “They” was the government. In my experience, in an American college town of 100,000 people, Americans never looked to government, but to themselves. ‘Isn’t it about time we did this or fixed that?’ they would say to each other. And they would fix it or do it, too. I was deeply impressed. We Australians like to talk about how diverse a society we are, but we pale into insignificance against the USA. We have very largely a single Australian accent; the USA has dozens of accents. Local cultures and loyalties can be profound in the USA, but I can think of no comparable examples here. Even regionally, the North, the South, the Midwest and California present contrasts that have no real counterparts in Australia. ‘Come on, Australia!’ we yell at sporting events or are urged on television ads. There is no equivalent in the USA. And so on.

Finally, the USA is the most powerful nation on our planet, and about thirteen times bigger in most respects, than Australia, which is a middle power that may indeed punch above its weight. But Australia does not broker deals between Israel and Arab nations, and it has no nuclear armoury. So the issues in an American election are multitudinous, and range from strategic issues in world politics to the work of the local dog-catcher. Our issues are confined to the jurisdiction in question. Even when the election is national or federal, state and local issues rarely become truly important. They might in a single constituency, but as I showed sixty years ago in an article, state and local issues, even the work and standing of the local MP, were of minor importance most of the time. We vote nationally, most of us, most often.

And we are compelled to vote, well at least compelled to turn up and accept a voting slip. What we do with it then is indeed up to us. Turnout in Australia is above 90 per cent, while in the USA it does well to exceed 50 per cent. That is not just a legal difference. There is good evidence to support the view that Australians think we should turn out to vote, because we are then responsible in part for the outcome. We’re slack if we don’t. And, until the pandemic, voting day had its share of enjoyment, meeting friends, a sausage sizzle, seeing the local school again, a day off.

We are sophisticated users of voting technology, and the Americans are not. They have to actually go to the polling station and complete the forms . We can vote postally, and in the ACT even electronically (some American states do allow postal voting). Our electoral commission keeps everything squeaky clean. The Americans have nothing like that, and they really need it. But that gets me into the detail of an election, and that can wait until another of these essays before we get down to the nitty gritty, Trump or Biden, and how much does it matter?

And my apologies to any offended dog-catchers.

Join the discussion 227 Comments

  • Stu says:

    Don, “Come on, Australia!’ we yell at sporting events or are urged on television ads. There is no equivalent in the USA.“ I think you will find they chant “USA, USA, USA” in such circumstances.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Maybe. I’ve not been physically present at an international match, but I’ve seen two on television, and in neither case was there such a chant. The Americans seem to me to be obsessed with their own national sports, like baseball, American football and basketball, where international competition against the USA is slight. But you may be right. I don’t know what happens at Olympic Games.

      • Stu says:

        Don, apparently the chant existed for much of the 20th century, mainly in a national sporting team context. It had a major revival following the 9/11 episode. It has been used recently by Trump supporters but is not actually aligned with either side of politics there, although Republicans seem to try and claim the high ground of nationalist fervor .

        On a different tack is the very common display on homes and vehicles of the US flag. We do not seem to have that same affectation but I would argue are as supportive of our national identity and interests as the US, if not more so. Our war record speaks to that as does support of national sports teams.

        November 3 is shaping as a very interesting event, with perhaps global consequences.

        I hope you are now over your medical skirmishes, feeling better and enjoying life. All the best.

  • Neville says:

    Thanks for your differences summary Don and I’ll be interested all the way to NOV 3rd.
    I’m sure you’re still about right, but I’m shocked by the further shift to the left by the DEMS in the US over the last 20 years and even more so since the election of Trump.
    I’m biased towards a conservative point of view, but how people could vote for Pelosi or Biden or Harris or Cuomo or Di Blasio,etc is way beyond my comprehension.
    But people vote (d) for fools like Brown, Di Natale, Bandt, Andrews, Qld premier, Dastayari etc now and in the past.
    Some of the comments about so called CAGW or climate crisis from our fools above and those listed DEMS, are a complete mystery to me.
    That they could yap such nonsense over and over and people actually believe this garbage and vote for them is beyond belief.
    Biden has problems and he doesn’t seem to be up to the mark to put it kindly. He often seems to lose his train of thought mid sentence and the coming debates could be very interesting.
    But Trump is his own worst enemy and should say a lot less at times or clearly think before he speaks. I can well understand some conservative voters who would never vote DEM , but deciding not to vote for Trump either. I’ll continue to follow the polling and so far it looks like a Biden win. But perhaps Trump will close the gap? Who knows?

  • JMO says:

    As once a near rusted on Labor voter, 4 years ago I accepted and resigned myself to a Hillary victory, thank goodness I was wrong. Now I think Trump will win. I hope I am not wrong again.
    Biden has no hope beating Trump by himself. Biden needs help, and lots of it, to win. The more the Dems help Biden, the more help he needs! To the average working class american, the now far left greenhorn Dems are just a never ending comedy (if it was not so sad) – just like our own greenhorns. Our Labor is fast approaching a reflection of the Dems, I have given up voting them for quite some time.
    The only way Biden will win is Trump to defeat himself; and that is my concern and quite plausible.

    • MARGARITA B FRIEDMAN says:

      You obviously feed your information with Fox News. I lived in NYC, I met Trump, and attended to his “University” He owes me for the classes he never gave and was unwilling to return subscription payments. He, before running for president, was already known as Donald Risk. No bank would lend him because he bankrupts so often leaving investors and banks hanging. He uses other’s people’s money, as he taught in his courses. In this way, if things go wrong, it is not his money. He was known as a clown, a true “wannabe” as he calls anybody who is trying to be a millionaire. He was never accepted in the high society circles because he was a low, vulgar person and that hurt him very much. NYC is a big city, but Commercial Real Estate is a little town, where everybody knows each other.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Yes, “And we are compelled to vote, well at least compelled to turn up and accept a voting slip. What we do with it then is indeed up to us.”

    This, plus preferential voting, is the real strength of the Australian system. It is arguably, the greatest difference between the UK and USA which in comparison struggle to earn the banner “Democracy”.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    The prospect that should genuinely terrify Americans is an early Biden ‘retirement’, and Harris as President. Not even the Democrats want her. Biden may be corrupt, but Harris is completely amoral.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Thanks Don.

    The US elections will be a bell-wether for free enterprise in the rest of the world. The US has always managed to combat the tyranny, waste, and economic devastation of the Green Agenda with strong free enterprise. But if the Dems win, with the lunacy and groupthink that is taking over the western world today, it will take a generation of mindless and financially disastrous mistakes for the West to wake up to its Wokism.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The more that scientific facts like this are disclosed, the more people will wake up to the Green Agenda of the left:

    “It was revealed by Paul Hardisty, boss of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, that only 3 per cent of the reef, the “inshore reefs”, is affected by farm pesticides and sediment. He also stated that pesticides, are a “low to negligible risk”, even for that 3 per cent.”

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/senate-inquiry-is-bringing-evidence-about-state-of-great-barrier-reef-to-the-surface/news-story/5e12533a9593e7fd93579cd9b68ee0aa

  • Karabar says:

    Donald J. Trump is the only thing between us and the World Economic Forum, the Great Reset, and the New World Order. Until the virus scam, the global warm,ing scam was the most heinous crime foisted on humanity, but it pales in comparison with mandatory vaccinations, mass execution, and one world government.

  • Thanks Don, I’m ignorant of USA politics. Your observations Are a great help. A lot can be explained by our different beginnings. They were a religious utopia while we were a convict settlement Proved that’s why the Victorian Government is so authoritarian over Covid 19.
    I’d also note the whole aspect of keeping dogs has become a bureaucratic picnic in Australia

  • Ian MacCulloch says:

    The interesting thing about the current USA election is the reports that the Republicans have already knocked on some the doors of millions of citizens and the Democrats nil. Now that’s enthusiasm. It may well be the true indicator of the way the elections will pan out.

    Recently, David Lipson, ABC journalist reported that after going through three states about two months ago was the large number of Republican flags in the front yards and no Democrats.

  • Neville says:

    I think this should belong here because it will be an interesting addition to the debate between Trump and Biden as they approach Nov 3rd.
    Newsom and others challenged Trump 2 days ago and with these two new studies we now know that Trump was correct.
    Fires around the world have declined over the last 30+ years and as Dr Christy told us there has been a big reduction in fires both in the USA and the world compared to previous centuries.
    The Royal Society discussion link is worth a read and Trump’s team should follow up his stand in California against Newsom and others and hound them mercilessly until election day.
    A link to both studies is available at this GWPF link.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/satellite-observations-reveal-decreasing-trend-in-global-wildfires/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=e948f36358-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_09_16_02_11_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-e948f36358-36463321&mc_cid=e948f36358&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

    • Chris Warren says:

      More garbage from Neville. As usual Neville does not read or understand the nonsense he posts.

      If he bothered to real the material he would find that the decrease in fires was explained.

      “As populations have increased in fire-prone regions of Africa, South America, and Central Asia, grasslands and savannas have become more developed and converted into farmland. As a result, long-standing habits of burning grasslands (to clear shrubs and land for cattle or other reasons) have decreased, explained NASA Goddard Space Flight scientist Niels Andela. And instead of using fire, people increasingly use machines to clear crops.”

  • Karabar says:

    Simultaneously, the long awaited subpoenas are being issued for Comey, Brennan, Claper, Halper, with many more to come. Perhaps even Billary and Old Bummer himself.
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/subpoenas-authorized-comey-brennan-clapper-halper-and-other-spygate-figures

    • Stu says:

      Yes, setting a nice precedent to follow in February with Barr and others. And of course the Republicans in the Senate will then complain bitterly. Some folk speculating that they may come to wish they had not issued the subpoenas as they cannot be at all sure what might come out that could damage the Trump outfit.

      Did you see the opinion by the retired judge in the Flynn case? He actually said that Barr’s actions were corrupt. Fun times.

  • Karabar says:

    Here are the thoughts of one committed voter, for what it’s worth.

    Could somebody explain to me rationally why they support Donald Trump? I want to understand this.
    I’m not interested in further gun control. Not a bit. Full stop.
    Biden won’t commit to a universal single-payer national healthcare plan, and neither will about half of the Dems in office.
    Only Gabbard was pushing for military drawbacks, and they ran her out.
    Black Lives Matter. Police overreach is a problem. However, in almost all of these cases that resulted in rioting, after the smoke cleared and evidence rolled in, it turns out the cops were right.
    The first “victim” of the Kenosha shooter had spent 15 years in prison for molesting a child; he should’ve been shot a long time ago. The second victim was a career criminal, a violent drug dealer. The third was a drunk felon in unlawful possession of a firearm, which he brandished at a kid who’d tripped and fallen. There is no way I’m willing to show an ounce of sympathy for any of those three.
    Trump bungled coronavirus? What’s the Democratic plan? More masks and shutdowns that haven’t worked for six months, but will suddenly work now if a Democrat gives the order?
    In Biden’s acceptance speech, he spoke for nearly 13 minutes before giving a concrete policy idea (manufacturing medical supplies domestically). Lots and lots of useless platitudes.
    Affirmative action is an okay policy to hire postal service clerks, but not the Vice President of the United States. Joe should’ve picked Harris because he believes in Harris, not because she can check off the right boxes.
    The 2016 predictions of Trump leading us to war turned out to be wrong, as did those about him crashing the economy. The economy was fine until Democratic Governors shut down businesses because of a virus with a .5% fatality rate.
    I really, really hate gun control. The Parkland shooter is in custody; blame him for his actions, not me. Collectivist blame against gun owners is absolutely no different from collectivist blame against Jews in Europe several decades ago.

    • Stu says:

      Regarding the Coronavirus part of your piece. The previous administration (Biden in fact) left a play book, a plan and a team in place in case of a pandemic arising. They even had a team in place in China as forward scouts and to assist in early control. Trump through the whole lot away “I don’t like paying people to do nothing” – or words to that effect. Oh what might have been.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “They even had a team in place in China as forward scouts and to assist in early control.”

        Obama and Biden had a team in place in China to assist in early control at least tgree years before the Kung Flu became an issue? Please provide more detail of this early knowledge of something well into the future!

        PS, don’t forget that Obama and Biden ran down contingency stocks during the 2009 pandemic, and didn’t rebuild them over the next seven years. Not much foresight there!

        • Stu says:

          “ to assist in early control at least tgree years before….”. Before a possible future pandemic as had happened before, not specifically this virus, surely even you can grasp that.

          As for the stock run down, that is not the real story. Some stocks, like N95 masks turned out to be deficient for the high demand placed on them in 2020. But remember, by that time Trump had been in office himself for three years so it is a bit rich to then whinge about the shortage, if he had done nothing to correct the situation. It is akin to him also complaining that Obama did not leave him any test kits FOR A DISEASE THAT DID NOT YET EXIST. And that is exactly what he did.

          Come on man, get real, just for once.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Two points.

            First, interesting that Obama/Biden recognised China as a key risk for new pandemics. Makes a nonsense of suggestions that blaming China as the origin of the Kung Flu is racist.

            Second, Obama/Biden had seven years to re-stock, but you criticise Trump for not doing so in three. Bias maybe?

            I would suggest that you remove the log from Obama/Biden’s eyes before commenting on the mote in Trump’s, but you don’t like religious references, do you?

          • Stu says:

            “Second, Obama/Biden had seven years to re-stock, but you criticise Trump for not doing so in three. Bias maybe?”

            No, not at all, it was you that brought up the issue of stocks.

            You wrote “PS, don’t forget that Obama and Biden ran down contingency stocks during the 2009 pandemic, and didn’t rebuild them over the next seven years. Not much foresight there!”

          • Boambee John says:

            No Stu, I mentioned that Obama/Bislden did not re-stock in seven years, you defended them by saying yeah, but Trump did not do so in three.

            Come on man, get real, just for once.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      Because he is possibly the first politician in history to do publicly what most people do in private. Which horrifies almost everybody.

  • Neville says:

    Lomborg tries to school the Newsom and Biden donkeys about Californian fire history and also supports the new studies via the GWPF.
    Following the DEMs stupid ideas would be a disaster for the US and of course have little impact on fires EVEN IF THEY MOVED TO NET ZERO emissions.
    But they would have a very fragile, super expensive and intermittent power supply and regular ongoing blackouts to add to the misery of its citizens.
    He also backs up Dr Christy’s main points about USA and world fire history at the GWPF lecture in 2019.

    https://nypost.com/2020/09/14/sorry-solar-panels-wont-stop-californias-fires/

  • Neville says:

    Another fact filled column from Michael Shellenberger about their so called CAGW nonsense and a good coverage about Californian fires.
    He agrees with Lomborg’s data and has a good summary about the recent Aussie fires. We must do more hazard reduction burning every year until we clean up the very high fuel loads in the bush.

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/lies-damn-lies-and-climate-statistics/news-story/68c3784cf7ecca04ca776b4dbea1cf5c

  • Neville says:

    Here’s an expert analysis of 113,000 Aussie fires that proves that 87% are started by humans ( accidental 47%, deliberate 40%) and only 13% are started by lightning strikes. Here’s the quote and the link.

    “A 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997-2009 confirmed what we had known for some time – 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit, another 47 per cent accidental. This generally matches previous data published a decade earlier that about half of all fires were suspected or deliberate arson, and 37 per cent accidental. Combined, they reach the same conclusion: 87 per cent are man-man made”.

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/arson-mischief-and-recklessness-87-per-cent-of-fires-are-man-made-20191117-p53bcl.html

  • spangled drongo says:

    Surely the US voter is smart enough to see what’s happening:

    “California’s dream of becoming a world leader in virtue has collided with the laws of physics.

    On some days, the state generates so much solar power it has to pay other states to take it. When the sun sinks over the Pacific on a hot summer evening, however, the “greenouts” begin.

    On these days, the Californian Energy Commission pays top dollar for fossil fuel-generated power from other states to meet a shortfall of up to 15,000 megawatts a day — roughly twice Australia’s average daily consumption.”

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/californians-first-to-catch-woke-wave-but-its-a-dumper/news-story/0b8518831764362befcb29f65ebb7a0f

    • Neville says:

      SD you would hope that all voters in every country would be smart enough to check all the data about so called CAGW, but alas that isn’t the case.
      I mean look at the nonsense we see from so called educated people about so much of their fantasies and then a refusal to accept the facts, even if we box them around ears with it on regular basis.
      But then we have stupid people like Biden and Newsom who’ll believe any BS and fra-d from the lefty con merchants and other so called scientists.

  • Chris Warren says:

    The rubbish being posted by Neville claiming that 87% of fires are deliberately lit cannot be left to befuddle the rest.

    The results of a authoritative inquiry are now available here:

    https://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/assets/dpc-nsw-gov-au/publications/NSW-Bushfire-Inquiry-1630/Final-Report-of-the-NSW-Bushfire-Inquiry.pdf

    The facts are that over the 2019-20 fire season in NSW, there were 11,774 fires [pg23]

    Only 11 were deliberately lit with the intention of causing a bush fire [pg29]

    This is the index of Neville’s veracity with facts and truth – 11 out of 11774 ie less than 0.1%. Only Donald Trump performs at this abysmal level.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Still eith the reading comprehension problems.

      The 87% figure was for all human caused fires, more than half (47 of the 87%) being accidental.

      Interesting that you reject the evidence of 113,000 fires in favour of a much more limited sample. Cherry picking?

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the latest data from NASA satellites and interesting graphs that show a 25% decline since 1998.
    African fires are the real problem, but as more people move from earlier lifestyles to urban living fires have started to drop. Dr Christy noted this as a reason why fires have declined in western countries since 1900 as well.
    I correctly noted that the SMH story said that 87% of fires were started by humans and 47% were accidental and 40% were deliberate.
    I can’t be blamed for donkey 1 not reading properly or misunderstanding proper data/evidence.
    Don’t forget this fool actually believes we can reduce fires around the world by reducing our co2 emissions in OECD countries, just like stupid left wing parties here and the EU and USA, Canada etc.
    I’ve repeatedly linked to co2 emission graphs since 1990 like Wiki and NOAA co2 level trends/decade since 1960 and yet it still doesn’t sink in.
    And even our CSIRO tell us that the SH is already a NET co2 SINK and I’ve linked to that Cape Grim site many times.
    Here’s that NASA link and I hope people have the time to read this info.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/90493/researchers-detect-a-global-drop-in-fires

  • Neville says:

    I should have noted that Africa has increased its pop by about 950 + million people since 1970 and yet they are wealthier, have better nutrition, education etc and fires now show a declining trend. Note the blue dots on the NASA map of parts of Africa and the world. Not everywhere yet but the trend since 1998 is down.
    Note the Amazon red and even central Australia near the Alice.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the US govt National Park Service site and they have this to say about wildfires across the US. See my further comment below.

    https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildfire-causes-and-evaluation.htm
    Humans and Wildfire

    “Nearly 85 percent* of wildland fires in the United States are caused by humans. Human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, equipment use and malfunctions, negligently discarded cigarettes, and intentional acts of arson”.

    *Source: 2000-2017 data based on Wildland Fire Management Information (WFMI) and U.S. Forest Service Research Data Archive

    The SMH story claims 87% of fires for OZ ( 47% deliberate 40% accidental) and the US NPS says a total of 85%, are started by humans but doesn’t list the % deliberate and accidental. Note just 2% of difference between the two countries.

  • Neville says:

    Sorry, above should be 47% accidental and 40% deliberate for OZ.

  • Karabar says:

    It is a strange psychosis indeed when and individual, confronted by well researched and factual information, declares it “rubbish” simply because it falls contrary to his deeply engrained leftist viewpoint.

    • Boambee John says:

      Karabar

      Chris will tie himself in knots cherry picking data and research to find something, anything, that supports his pre-conceptions and prejudices.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Yes BJ, here is blith’s story to a T:

        “It was strange. It was almost as if the left did not want good news about the climate! It was as if the left hated the idea that their services to cure this non-problem were not necessary. But how could this be? They loved Science! Yet when science said “Calm yourselves”, that love evaporated.

        It’s true. The left became science deniers. A sad thing to see.”

        https://wmbriggs.com/post/32598/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Chris Kenny in the Australian:

    “Examples of fear and ignorance abound. This week Joe Biden stood in a park near his home in Delaware — while people were still battling devastating wildfires in California and Oregon, and battening down for hurricanes and flooding in Florida and neighbouring states — and read words from a teleprompter, with feeling, into the camera.

    “If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised if we have more of America ablaze?” he shouted. “If we give a climate denier four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised when more of America is underwater?

    “The core case presented here, that re-electing Trump will lead to more bushfires and flooding in the US, is so unscientific, irrational and blatantly false that it would not and could not be supported by any scientist. It calls into question the intellectual capacity of the man delivering the words.”

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/rabid-doomsayers-revel-in-fear-ignorance-and-deceit/news-story/43a508d7010c5d0f406d07bea9bcc8ef

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a new Californian wildfire study that has a bit of everything for everyone and shows again that many so called leaders, scientists etc haven’t got a clue.
    Most people agree that there has to be a lot more fuel reduction burning every year until they have cleaned up the forests.
    Even Newsom knows this must be done, but they never seem to really step up to the levels required to make a difference. And that’s because they think that everything will be better if they can somehow entice the world to change to more of the S&W idiocy.
    Evidently these morons have never looked up all the countries’ co2 emissions data since 1990 and admit that so called renewables are a disaster.
    Then it always gets worse as fuel loads keep increasing every year, because they are too stupid to clean up to 20 million acres every year in California, instead of wasting billions $ on the delusional renewables disaster.
    Here’s their easy answer, just build more nuclear power stns and step up fuel reduction burning at the same time. That way they have reliable base-load power and don’t have to worry about ongoing blackouts and super expensive electricity for the poor and elderly.

    https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/09/03/wildfires-in-california-will-continue-to-get-worse-climate-change-experts-explore-why/

  • Neville says:

    So what will happen if more people work from home in OZ this summer?
    There will certainly be more strain on the grid and blackouts cannot be ruled out.
    And of course if more people did work from home there would be a saving in emissions from the normal ( 1 hour?) drive to work and home again.
    Jo Nova has looked at the problems and some of the warnings about blackouts because of our increasingly fragile grid. Thanks to the S&W idiocy.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/09/thanks-to-wind-and-solar-power-australians-have-to-drive-to-work-to-save-the-planet/#comments

  • Neville says:

    More on the dirty S&W industry and the future costs will be horrendous for humans, the environment, wildlife etc.
    These toxic components will have to be properly disposed of and by 2050 there will be a blowout by many millions of tonnes of leftovers from this fra-dulent, ruinables mess.
    And of course ZERO change to temp or climate or cyclones, or SLR or the hot spot or Tornadoes or wildfires or sea ice or rainfall, snowfall or etc.
    Yet we know that the SH or 50% of the Earth’s surface area is already a NET co2 SINK. See CSIRO Cape Grim site.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/19/solar-panels-generate-mountains-of-waste/

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a very accurate visual portrayal of the super toxic S&W disaster.
    This short video should be shown to school students at every level and then ask them whether we should be wasting billions $ on this idiocy.
    Just look at the cesspit mining conditions that poor Congo miners and their kids have to endure to make a few $ a week.
    But don’t worry as long as billionaires can flog clueless EVs to silly, delusional donkeys who somehow think they are saving the planet. Unbelievable but true.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/21/climate-or-environment/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Yes Neville, imagine the US [and the ROW] if the silly Dems win:

    “Mr Shellenberger said it’s ironic how climate activists level blame upon President Donald Trump for climate change when emissions are “lower now than when he took office”.

    “They declined two per cent last year”.

    He said it’s a crazy notion to suggest Donald Trump is responsible for the current Californian wildfires given it takes “30 years or more for the carbon dioxide to translate to warming”.

    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/blaming-trump-for-climate-change-is-ironic-given-two-per-cent-emissions-reduction/ar-BB19dvnn?ocid=msedgdhp

    • Neville says:

      Yes SD and I watched that Shellenberger interview on the Outsiders on Sunday morning and full marks to Michael for telling us the truth.
      But all around the world this stunt has been pulled on decent Pollies who’ve tried to argue honestly about their CAGW fra-d.
      Howard was the reason for our droughts or cyclones or floods or SLR or bush-fires or heatwaves etc. Ditto for Abbott and now Morrison today and any number of delusional Labor + Greens fra-dsters have raved about our terrible so called climate crisis.
      Their arguments are so infantile and ignorant, that even now the DEMS so called GND garbage gets a free pass by so much of the left wing media.

    • Stu says:

      “ He said it’s a crazy notion to suggest Donald Trump is responsible for the current Californian wildfires given it takes “30 years or more for the carbon dioxide to translate to warming”.

      Yes, good to see you agree that there is a link between CO2 and warming. Wonderful.

      Meantime, for Neville, just look at the relative frequency of posts by contributors. Maybe stop and think, perhaps you are little obsessive and you have lost the plot. Chill for a while mate, or you might explode. But then again you may well have an intellect on the same level as Donald J Trump, so we should definitely tune out eh.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu sez:

        “Yes, good to see you agree that there is a link between CO2 and warming.”

        When have we ever denied this possibility, stu?

        We have only claimed that when it is impossible for you to provide the cloud [awa other] feedback, this possibility can never be quantified.

        But when are you ever going to be honest enough to either put up or shut up?

      • Boambee John says:

        Silly Stu sez “good to see you agree that there is a link between CO2 and warming. Wonderful.”

        Silly Stu again demonstrates his memory loss problem. The issues have always been the extent of the anthropogenic contribution and whether the impact has been harmful

        Silly Stu relies on computer models for “evidence”. How well did computer models perform in predicting the course of Kung Flu Stu? There’s a lesson there, for those with the intelligence to learn it!

        • Stu says:

          Good to see the team spring into action. Much like “World Tag Team Wrestling” and with just as much credibility.

          • Boambee John says:

            Speaking of tag teams, whatever happened to Chris W?

            Has brave Sir Chris scarpered, and left poor Stu abandoned in the field?

          • spangled drongo says:

            At least we deal with any points you raise, stueyluv.

            But when are you ever going to deal with my points?

            Or at least admit it’s quite beyond you.

  • Neville says:

    Stop it stu, your wet lettuce assault on me has hurt me to the core and I’m not sure if I’ll ever recover. SARC.
    Please tell me where I’m denying climate change or a possible link to an increase in co2 since 1950?
    I think clouds are also a big problem and of course a history of the world since 1800, 1900, 1950, 1990 , tells us that everything today is so much healthier, easier, with an average human life exp today of 72 compared to less than 40 just 200 years ago.
    And the numbers are staggering with Africa able to increase to 1340 million people today and the average person now lives to 64 has better nutrition, better education, more urban living etc.
    How is this possible to increase their population by 950+ million people in only 50 years and yet be much better off? Don’t forget these much higher numbers of people have to be housed, educated, receive proper health care, clothed, have enough to eat and all the extra provisions for nearly 1 billion MORE people in just 50 years.
    IOW WHERE IS THIS CLIMATE CRISIS THEY KEEP YAPPING ABOUT? Remember Africa is the world’s poorest continent and yet this is the result in the last half century. Please explain?

    Here’s a population timeline for Africa since 1900. !900 – 140 mil, 1950 -177 mil, 1970 – 363 mil, 2020 – 1,340 mil. Please wake up.

    • Stu says:

      Yada, yada, yada. “ IOW WHERE IS THIS CLIMATE CRISIS THEY KEEP YAPPING ABOUT? Remember Africa is the world’s poorest continent and yet this is the result in the last half century. Please explain?”.

      The way I see it the issue is quite simple. Current unusual weather events around the world, particularly in the NH are indicative of the changes that climate scientists predict will continue to worsen with ever rising CO2. The “CRISIS” lies in the future. The wheels will not fall off in 2030 but the options for change will decrease if it has not started before them. That is why it is an image that energises the younger generations more than the fat, dumb and happy baby boomers complacently tracking their investments, while becoming ever more reactionary. Why do you think Sky so called news prattle on the way they do? It is aimed squarely at the Sky demographic. But like with their Covid coverage they risk killing off their audience.

      And as for SD’s points, why should I bother. All I can do is quote the researchers in the field which he simply refuses to accept, so no point in my trying.

      • Boambee John says:

        “All I can do is quote the researchers in the field which he simply refuses to accept, so no point in my trying.”

        Stu very carefully cherry picks his researchers to meet his pre-conceptions and biases. These researchers “predict” doom and gloom in the rather more distant future than the formerly used, having had their fingers burnt in the past by multiple failed “predictions”.

        All of these “predictions” are based on computer models. Despite the recent gross failures of computer models if Kung Flu, Stu retains a touching faith in computer modelling. There are slow learners, then there are computer modellers, and then there is Stu!

  • spangled drongo says:

    “And as for SD’s points, why should I bother.”

    Well, stueyluv, if you have no regard for your own cred, how do you expect anyone else to?

    Are you really so foolish as to think that your continual hand-waving cuts it?

    Just imagine you are in a court case.

    And you fail every time to come up with the evidence yet you keep telling the judge, “it’s out there, you just have to find it. But I can’t be bothered.”

    Oh dear!

    • Boambee John says:

      SD

      As long as Stu retains his faith in false prophets whose record of failed predictions goes back decades, and continues to believe that computer modellers whose models need continual adjustment just to reproduce the past, he will blindly follow his dreams. I wouldn’t mind so much, but that he expects others lemming-like to follow him over the cliff.

      That anyone can still have blind faith in modelinafter the spectacular failures of the Kung Flu models is incomprehensible.

  • Neville says:

    I’ve given Stu all the data about the real planet Earth but alas he prefers his fantasy planet where he can dance with the fairies.
    Even the CSIRO tells us that our 50% of the planet is a co2 NET SINK with OZ now 1.1% and NZ about 0.1% of global emissions. SH total is about 7% and 93% of co2 emissions are sourced from the NH.
    BTW Cape Grim Tassie now has August co2 levels at 410.5 ppm and Mauna Loa would be about 414 ppm.
    Jo Nova has a good summary of the Coalition’s Energy roadmap and disappointing but will be better than Labor’s fantasy as we head to the 2022 election.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/09/energy-roadmap-18-billion-wasted-pandering-to-pagan-climate-religion/#comment-2367006

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, that’s a realistic summary of the stupidity we are being forced into to appease the true believers.

      It’s not as if we haven’t had experience in stuff like hydrogen and demonstrated how useless and dangerous it is, yet we have to do the dance again.

      When we should be concentrating on what really works.

      At least until mod tech shows us a truly better solution.

      • Boambee John says:

        SD

        “It’s not as if we haven’t had experience in stuff like hydrogen and demonstrated how useless and dangerous it is”

        It should be called the Hindenberg Project. “Oh, the humanity!”

  • Neville says:

    Yes I fully agree SD, but history and proper data/evidence about the real world counts for zip these days.
    BTW here’s an interesting article from Rafe Champion about clueless S&W and where the real energy is sourced over a couple of HOT days.
    In a short while we will be turning off more of our reliable coal fired plants and many Aussies still believe that the super expensive unreliables like S&W will save us.
    This dancing and frolicking with the fairies seems to be catching.

    https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/09/24/david-bidstrup-guest-post-energy-crisis-or-stupidity/

  • Neville says:

    Sorry above article is from David Bidstrup.

  • Neville says:

    Has Willis Eschenbach further explained how the global temp is governed by thunderstorms etc in the tropics?
    He actually follows the data and finds that the linear trend in watts sq/metre suddenly takes a right angle turn after about 27 c is measured in ocean SST.
    Dr Lindzen and his Iris effect study also seemed to find the same result. Certainly this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with extra co2 in the atmosphere.
    Willis has been banging on about this phenomena for years and now more data actually further supports his theory. Who knows?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/23/watts-available/

  • Stu says:

    Like I wrote earlier, it is Neville, Neville, Neville, Neville. Boring, boring, boring, give it a rest mate. You sound like you are seriously trying to convince yourself of your whacky arguments. We already know that BJ and SD think you are bloody hero, so just take some time out.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Inconvenient evidence is always boring to an evidence-free, groupthink true believer, hey stueyluv?

      Have you gone outside and checked those sea levels yet?

      You know, that big Pacific Ocean that covers half the world, just outside your door, that is 87 mm lower today than the first measurement over a century ago?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “You sound like you are seriously trying to convince yourself of your whacky arguments.”

      You mean just like you sound when you keep telling us that the alarmists have the numbers, and the young are fully on board, and your side will win regardless of any actual empirical evidence?

      You’re not big on self awareness, are you?

  • Neville says:

    I think I’ll take my own advice and stop arguing with clueless fools. Best to just keep plodding on and providing links to the latest data and evidence.

    BTW Paul Homewood checks the USA data since 1895 to 2019 and finds little evidence for their CAGW extremism.
    In fact the 1930s had the highest temps and extremes were more evident in the earlier 20th century.
    He uses and links to NOAA and other govt data and has a list of sources at the end.
    Check it out and of course most of this has been covered by Dr Christy and Dr Spencer, Dr Lindzen, McIntyre, Prof McKitrick etc for a very long time.

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/09/US-Climate-2019.pdf?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4c6226b7d3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_09_18_09_56_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-4c6226b7d3-36463321&mc_cid=4c6226b7d3&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

  • Neville says:

    Interesting that the 2014 Leclercq world glacier study found that glacier retreat was strongest during the earlier 20th century. See abstract at link.
    And Dr Humlum’s global SLR data has shown about 1 to 1.5 mm a year or about 4 to 6 inches per century. This is from his latest climate report to the GWPF.

    https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/8/659/2014/

  • Neville says:

    The latest study on SLR and the impact on coral atoll islands, just supports Dr Kench’s studies over the last 30 years.
    As the young Charles Darwin explained 160+ years ago, these islands are dynamic + growing and staying ahead of SLR.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/11/study-coral-reef-islands-grow-with-rising-sea-level/

    • Stu says:

      Oh, so now you agree that SLR is happening, great.

      • Boambee John says:

        Getting a bit desperate Stu? Clinging to every casual remark that might convince you that you are correct?

        PS, what model SUV did Charles Darwin drive to cause gerbil worming in his time?

        • Stu says:

          “ Getting a bit desperate Stu? Clinging to every casual remark that might convince you that you are correct?”
          No, not at all, surely you know by now I don’t have to convince myself. So I was just pointing out your self contradiction. You guys have repeatedly argued there is no SLR yet you seize on an article pointing out that atolls are adapting to SLR. Make up your mind. And get a life.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu sez:

            “surely you know by now I don’t have to convince myself.”

            Not when you are a true believer, hey?

            When sea levels rose 120 metres not so long ago and during the Holocene they have varied up and down by at least 3 metres but for the last century they have been going nowhere and possibly falling as verified by the evidence, you make the brainwashed groupthink statement:

            “Oh, so now you agree that SLR is happening, great.”

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “No, not at all, surely you know by now I don’t have to convince myself.”

            Is that why you regularly post bits telling everyone (including yourself) that lots and lots of failed prophets say gerbil worming is well under way (just ignore their many failed predictions), and the yoof of the world is on side (just wait until they can’t charge their mobile devices), and it is only a few holdouts who don’t agree with you?

            Sure Stu, you keep whistling in the dark, doom will soon be upon us. Just ask those failed prophets, they’ll tell you.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “dismissing the conclusions of recognised experts who continually examine the totality of the evidence.”

      If you really believe that the alarmists “continually examine the totality of the evidence”, then your knowledge of science and the scientific method is even more dismal than I thought.

      “high correlation between the players in that “belief” space, both individual and organisational, and fossil fuel money. It certainly looks sufficiently high to warrant a conclusion of conspiracy.”

      Aaand, right on cue, Stu reverts to the standard alarmist meme that “all denialists (sic) are in the pay of Big Fossil Fuel!”

      Let me fix that for you.

      “high correlation between the players in that “alarmist” space, both individual and organisational, and taxpayer funded grants, together with the occasional task for ruinable energy subsidy harvesters.”

      PS, I assume that you have the data (names of scientists, payment amounts, fossil fuel companies) to support your allegation of a conspiracy?

      PPS, my payments have not been received, from your list, could you let me know when and where they were made.

      PPPS, is this when you scrape the bottom of the barrel, by regurgitating your smear that sceptics don’t care about their grandchildren?

  • Neville says:

    Gosh I think we need some more co2 in the air in Vic, SA and NSW and heaps more blankets. SARC.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/09/global-warming-causes-snow-in-sa-and-victoria-and-coldest-day-for-50-years/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Let’s just hope election results improve this craziness.

    When you are educated post mod, facts, truth, evidence, have no bearing. Only PC counts:

    https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2020/09/too-male-or-too-white-selecting-texts-for-schools/

  • Neville says:

    Here’s an interesting exercise using the York UNI temp tool,comparing RSS V4 TLT and UAH V6 TLT.
    First start at about the top of the 1997.75 el nino and check the trends to the present day.
    For RSS v 4 we have a trend of 0.198 c/ decade and UAH 0.111 c/ per decade. Or nearly twice the trend if you believe RSS 4.
    Next check the trend from the 1997.75 el nino to the 2017.1 el nino. The start and ending are about as accurate as I can make it. See graph for trend.
    The trend for RSS V 4 TLT is 0.164 c / decade and the trend for UAH V 6 TLT is 0.053 c / decade. This trend is over 3 times the trend if you believe RSS V 6 over that period of 19 years.
    Little wonder that Dr Christy and Dr Spencer don’t accept the RSS V 4 TLT data. Yet the true believers STILL BELIEVE.

    http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

  • Neville says:

    Just for silly stu. I’ve been consistent and I’ve linked over the years to a number of PR studies that show SLR now is about the same as the 20th century.
    But Dr Kench has shown that about 87% of the island groups have increased in size or are stable. And he has been studying this for about 30 years.
    Also the Dutch scientist’s study has shown an increase in coastlines around the world . They’ve used Sat imagery for their study over many years and even the BBC reported on their study.
    So called SLR is nothing to be alarmed about if you follow the proper measurements and studies.
    And I’ve linked to their ABC Catalyst mention of SLs that were about 1.5 metres higher just 4,000 years ago down our east coast. At the end of the HOL optimum.
    So yes I think the climate changes, but I’m very sceptical about so called CAGW or a so called climate crisis. In fact I’ve shown you by linking to our poorest continent that everything has improved for Africans over the last 50 years. Also an extra 950+ mil people since 1970.
    But please tell us what climate we should aim for and how would we achieve your dream climate. And don’t forget that the SH is already a co2 NET SINK, so you must have a plan for the NH co2 source continents?
    BTW could you also tell us when was that wonderful period that you would choose to live in and why? Was it the LIA or Med WP or Dark ages or Roman WP or Minoan WP or the warmer Holocene climate optimum or…..?

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Dr Rosling’s 200 countries over 200 years ( just 4 mins ) just to help stu in case he thinks that 1800 or 1900 or 1950 or ……. might be the ideal climate?
    Oh and he was partly financed then by the US State dept under the Obama Presidency. Don’t forget life expect was under 40 in 1800 and today the average human life expect is about 72 but some sites have now updated this to 73. And just 1 bill in 1800 and 7.8 bill today. Please explain?

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that 2016 Dutch study and the quote about coasts and SLs.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100

    “Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).

    “We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.

    “We’re were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.”

  • Neville says:

    Recently the port used for Claudius’s invasion of Britain was found about 2 miles INLAND from today’s Kent coastline.
    Certainly not much SLR to be observed there over the last 2,000 years.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html

  • Neville says:

    It seems like relative humidity may have been reducing in the atmosphere since 1970.
    I must look up Dr Ole Humlum’s data to check this out.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/29/total-precipitable-water-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

  • Neville says:

    Dr Humlum has a link to NOAA’s relative humidity and specific humidity graphs down page at this link. I’m not sure how this is supposed to be linked with increased levels of co2 and more W Vapor and higher temps?
    And at different levels in the atmosphere.
    Not all the graphs show increasing W V at all levels over time and certainly lower levels since 1948 in some instances.

    http://climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm#Atmospheric%20water%20vapor

  • Neville says:

    So does clueless Biden support AOC’s GND or NOT?
    Look at 1Hr. 20min at the video link and check out what he said.
    First he seems to endorse the GND then he says he supports the Biden plan and he also yaps a load of BS about extreme weather events in the USA that are wrong as in COMPLETELY WRONG.
    BTW he also seems to want to abolish fossil fuels by 2035. If so Trump is correct that this will cost 100 trillion $.
    Check it out.

  • Neville says:

    Here Lomborg explains why the USA and China would need to spend 100s of trillions of $ to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
    For NZ the cost would be 5 trillion $ and for the USA the cost would be 700 trillion $ and for China it would cost at least 1450 trillion $.
    NZ is 0.1% of global co2 emissions, the USA about 14% and China about 29%. And don’t forget the 5 trillion $ estimate is from the NZ govt calculation.
    This just proves how clueless Biden and the DEMs are and why people should avoid these morons like the plague.
    Here’s the link to Lomborg’s article in the NY Post.

    https://nypost.com/2019/12/08/reality-check-drive-for-rapid-net-zero-emissions-a-guaranteed-loser/

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the link to Catalyst ABC showing SLs were 1.5 metres higher at Sydney just 4,000 years ago.

    https://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/narrabeen-man/11010512

    Dr Macdonald: A find exactly like this has never been found before in Australia.

    Narration: The first thing that Jo needed to do was to establish the time of death. A small sample was sent to the Lawrence Livermore National laboratory in California for Carbon dating. And the result was astounding.

    Dr Macdonald: The date came back at about 4000 years ago, which was quite spectacular we were very surprised.

    Narration: 4000 years ago when Narrabeen Man was wondering around this area the sea levels were up to 1.5 metres higher than they are today.

  • Neville says:

    We are now in a La Nina phase according to the BOM and NOAA etc. It should last until Feb 2021 and is classed so far as a moderate to strong event. Who knows, but time will tell.
    Also the IOD has now turned negative and this can mean more rain below a line drawn from Broome to Wollongong on the OZ map. But sometimes above this line as well.
    If the la nina produces more rain + the IOD we could expect much higher rainfall over the summer. Of course nothing is guaranteed and the next 4 to 5 months will tell the story. Here’s the BOM link.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a link to an open debate on EVs by two opposing experts and a full PDF is available at the link.
    BTW even the Monbiot loony is starting to have doubts about their EVs. Perhaps he looked at the cesspit working conditions for kids in the Congo etc? And obviously no change to climate and temp by 2100 and beyond.

    https://www.thegwpf.org/how-green-are-electric-cars/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=832c5594bc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_09_29_09_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-832c5594bc-36463321&mc_cid=832c5594bc&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the latest garbage from the DEM’s “upside down Mann” and he now predicts metres of SLR because of Greenland melting.
    He also tells us that California has had record fires this season and ditto for US hurricanes etc. OH and he says you can actually see the SLR with the human eye.
    Of course he also tells us that his guesstimates are all supported by climate modeling and things are so bad that there is now a SLR hockey stick effect, just like his other study that has now been taken apart by McIntyre, Dr McKitrick etc.
    BTW even SAT data finds that SLs are rising by just 3 mm a year and that is much higher than the 1 to 1.5 mm per year SLR by Dr Ole Humlum. AT THE TIDE GAUGES.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/02/friday-funny-will-the-world-drown-as-greenland-ice-melts-w-dr-michael-mann/

  • Neville says:

    BTW here’s the Uni Colorado’s SAT data, now showing trend of just 3.1 mm / year SLR after their GIA adjustment.
    And that’s about 12 inches by 2120. Note this is NOT the SLR you would see at the gauges in 100 years.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

  • Neville says:

    HERE AGAIN is the 2019 Ashcroft study of Melb, Syd and Adel rainfall from 1839 to 2017.
    Extreme rainfall events occurred over the entire period and very severe droughts as well.
    Melb seems to have had more impact from the millennium drought than the other 2 cities, but Melb has had very heavy rainfall so far this year.
    Graphs are available for the 3 cities at the link. But certainly no correlation with co2 levels that I can find over that period of 178 years.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209471930009X

  • Stu says:

    That must be a record, fourteen Neville posts in a row, with no one else commenting. Mate, time to get a life.

    • spangled drongo says:

      And let’s hope you read them all, stueyluv.

      You sure need the education.

      Thanks Neville.

      • Stu says:

        The act of Neville searching out all those sources bears a striking resemblance to a tramp sifting through rubbish bins looking for scraps of food. He finds the occasional morsel but it is ultimately a futile exercise offset by the reality of the situation in which the tramp barely clings to survival. The complete situation of denial of reality.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          So, a bit like your regular posts of alarmist triumphalism?

        • spangled drongo says:

          Poor old groupthink stu can’t ever allow solid EVIDENCE to influence his thinking otherwise he would be letting his consensual cli-sci side down.

          Why don’t you ever try shooting evidence instead of shooting people?

          Oh, I forgot. You really don’t understand what evidence or reality is, hey stu?

  • spangled drongo says:

    More facts, evidence and reality for you to study, stu:

    Abstract
    The purported consensus that human greenhouse gas emissions have causally dominated the recent climate warming depends decisively upon three lines of evidence: climate model projections, reconstructed paleo-temperatures, and the instrumental surface air temperature record. However, CMIP5 climate model simulations of global cloud fraction reveal theory-bias error. Propagation of this cloud forcing error uncovers a r.s.s.e. uncertainty 1? ? ±15 C in centennially projected air temperature. Causal attribution of warming is therefore impossible. Climate models also fail to reproduce targeted climate observables. For their part, consensus paleo-temperature reconstructions deploy an improper ‘correlation = causation’ logic, suborn physical theory, and represent a descent into pseudo-science. Finally, the published global averaged surface air temperature record completely neglects systematic instrumental error. The average annual systematic measurement uncertainty, 1? = ±0.5 C, completely vitiates centennial climate warming at the 95% confidence interval. The entire consensus position fails critical examination and evidences pervasive analytical negligence.
    The purported consensus that human greenhouse gas emissions have causally dominated the recent climate warming depends decisively upon three lines of evidence: climate model projections, reconstructed paleo-temperatures, and the instrumental surface air temperature record. However, CMIP5 climate model simulations of global cloud fraction reveal theory-bias error. Propagation of this cloud forcing error uncovers a r.s.s.e. uncertainty 1? ? ±15 C in centennially projected air temperature. Causal attribution of warming is therefore impossible. Climate models also fail to reproduce targeted climate observables. For their part, consensus paleo-temperature reconstructions deploy an improper ‘correlation = causation’ logic, suborn physical theory, and represent a descent into pseudo-science. Finally, the published global averaged surface air temperature record completely neglects systematic instrumental error. The average annual systematic measurement uncertainty, 1? = ±0.5 C, completely vitiates centennial climate warming at the 95% confidence interval. The entire consensus position fails critical examination and evidences pervasive analytical negligence.

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.391

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu, you are convinced the science is settled…and you’re right…but only to a certain extent:

    All sides do agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and concentrations have increased. All sides agree the climate is changing. That science is indeed settled.

    Jim Steele explains the limit of your belief very concisely:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/03/restoring-scientific-debate-on-climate/

    Please advise where he is wrong.

  • Stu says:

    Since you asked. “ There’s an old saying that “the proof is in the pudding,” meaning that you can only truly gauge the quality of something once it’s been put to a test. Such is the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various factors that interact to affect Earth’s climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean, ice, land surface and the Sun.

    For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels, and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?

    Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate.

    Models that were used in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report can be evaluated by comparing their approximately 20-year predictions with what actually happened. In this figure, the multi-model ensemble and the average of all the models are plotted alongside the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Index (GISTEMP). Climate drivers were known for the ‘hindcast’ period (before 2000) and forecast for the period beyond. The temperatures are plotted with respect to a 1980-1999 baseline. Credit: Gavin Schmidt
    In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.

    The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

    “The results of this study of past climate models bolster scientists’ confidence that both they as well as today’s more advanced climate models are skillfully projecting global warming,” said study co-author Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York. “This research could help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts.”

    Scientists use climate models to better understand how Earth’s climate changed in the past, how it is changing now and to predict future climate trends. Global temperature trends are among the most significant predictions, since global warming has widespread effects, is tied directly to international target agreements for mitigating future climate warming, and have the longest, most accurate observational records. Other climate variables are forecast in the newer, more complex models, and those predictions too will need to be assessed.

    To successfully match new observational data, climate model projections have to encapsulate the physics of the climate and also make accurate predictions about future carbon dioxide emission levels and other factors that affect climate, such as solar variability, volcanoes, other human-produced and natural emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. This study’s accounting for differences between the projected and actual emissions and other factors allowed a more focused evaluation of the models’ representation of Earth’s climate system.

    Schmidt says climate models have come a long way from the simple energy balance and general circulation models of the 1960s and early ‘70s to today’s increasingly high-resolution and comprehensive general circulation models. “The fact that many of the older climate models we reviewed accurately projected subsequent global temperatures is particularly impressive given the limited observational evidence of warming that scientists had in the 1970s, when Earth had been cooling for a few decades,” he said.

    The authors say that while the relative simplicity of the models analyzed makes their climate projections functionally obsolete, they can still be useful for verifying methods used to evaluate current state-of-the-art climate models, such as those to be used in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report, to be released in 2022.

    “As climate model projections have matured, more signals have emerged from the noise of natural variability that allow for retrospective evaluation of other aspects of climate models — for instance, in Arctic sea ice and ocean heat content,” Schmidt said. “But it’s the temperature trends that people still tend to focus on.”

    Other participating institutions included the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

    For more information on GISS and GISTEMP, visit:

    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “The authors say that while the relative simplicity of the models analyzed makes their climate projections functionally obsolete”

      This is not exactly a resounding endorsement of the models.

      Yet what else do alarmists use to make their “predictions”? Chicken entrails? Crystal balls?

      “retrospective evaluation of other aspects of climate models — for instance, in Arctic sea ice and ocean heat content,”

      Translation: explaining previous erroneous predictions.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu, at least supply one tiny piece of empirical evidence to support these GIGO climate models.

      That you can honestly separate from natural climate variability, that is.

  • Neville says:

    Here AGAIN is Dr Christy’s talk at the GWPF last year and he finds that the average of the models are showing about 3 times the warming of the observations.
    The Russian model is the closest to the average of the satellites, balloons and reanalysis data.
    Some of the models are showing 5 times the warming of the observations.
    He also tells us that in response to this data from the observations “they just yell louder”.
    He has a number of different graphs to support the observations. OH and then we have the problems of their so called HOT SPOT.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/

  • Neville says:

    Here’s an important quote from Dr Christy about the models versus observations. This is from the link to his recent talk in London at the GWPF.

    “There is one model that’s not too bad, it’s the Russian model. You don’t go to the Whitehouse today and say, “the Russian model works best”. You don’t say that at all! But the fact is they have a very low sensitivity to their climate model. When you look at the Russian model integrated out to 2100, you don’t see anything to get worried about. When you look at 120 years out from 1980, we already have 1/3 of the period done – if you’re looking out to 2100. These models are already falsified, you can’t trust them out to 2100, no way in the world would a legitimate scientist do that. If an engineer built an aeroplane and said it could fly 600 miles and the thing ran out of fuel at 200 and crashed, he might say: “I was only off by a factor of three”. No, we don’t do that in engineering and real science! A factor of three is huge in the energy balance system. Yet that’s what we see in the climate models.

    This is the [time series of the] satellite layer, so it’s pretty much the same kind of picture, even though it’s a deeper layer we see the models warming way too rapidly. Some, up here, one of them is the US model, the GFDL model, is just off the charts. I don’t know what they’re doing with that model but it just cannot release heat to space from the atmosphere. Whereas the observational data; satellite observations, balloon observations, reanalysis observations, all show the same thing that these models are not showing”.

  • Stu says:

    It would appear to be the case that (paraphrasing someone) you guys see yourselves as representing Galileo where in fact you actually look more like the church. And as was said elsewhere yesterday, there is as much consensus on AGW as there is for gravity.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu sez, “….there is as much consensus on AGW as there is for gravity.”

      Yes stu, and there is even EVIDENCE for AGW [a pity you are not aware of it].

      It’s called UHIE.

      But that doesn’t affect true global temperatures.

      Only most of the thermometers used by the warmista luvvies who control and adjust the “science”.

      Otherwise known as “Fakery at the Bakery”.

      But there is no evidence for CAGW as predicted by your GIGO models.

      It is very easy to see who supports the “church of true believers” in this debate.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “you guys see yourselves as representing Galileo where in fact you actually look more like the church.”

      We are not the ones burning climate heretics at the stake. That would be the acolytes of the Church of Alarmism, using no-platforming and cancel culture.

      You alarmists are not really into self-awareness are you?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu sez; “…in fact you actually look more like the church.”

    Here’s your church, stueyluv:

    • Neville says:

      SD that’s a very good video and packed full with plenty of data + issues that most people wouldn’t know about or understand.
      It’s appalling that left wing loonies like Gore, Mann, Nye, McKibben etc have used the past decades to frighten foolish people and kids until they believe we are heading for the apocalypse.
      Of course a percentage do eventually wake up but there will always be a fresh group of kids to brainwash and plenty of vile con merchants making a fortune into the bargain.
      These mongrels are the scum of the earth.

  • Stu says:

    Try and a find a source that does not laughingly refer to itself as a university when it clearly is not and you might have a little more cred. Prager-U is a joke as well as being a front for fossil fuel funded interests. But you know that, it is in line with your mantra.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Not shooting the messenger again, stu?

      How about dealing with the messages here, using your “science” and “evidence” instead?

      But then you never have managed to produce any of that, hey?

      • Boambee John says:

        SD

        Stu cannot deal with the messages, because he does not understand them. This is because they do not accord with his belief system.

        • Stu says:

          Mate, I don’t “believe” in science, I accept it. You on the other hand are most definitely a “believer” in non science, grasping at a range of cherry picked reports of small elements of the big picture while dismissing the conclusions of recognised experts who continually examine the totality of the evidence. So please explain the high correlation between the players in that “belief” space, both individual and organisational, and fossil fuel money. It certainly looks sufficiently high to warrant a conclusion of conspiracy.

          • spangled drongo says:

            IOW, stu, you admit you can’t refute the message.

            Hand-waving and name-calling is the best “evidence” your cli-sci can come up with.

            Why are we so unsurprised?

            But we would love you to prove us wrong for a change.

            With some facts and specific details to support your argument.

            Go on, give it a go!

          • Boambee John says:

            Here Stu goes again, thrashing around in ignorance.

            “dismissing the conclusions of recognised experts who continually examine the totality of the evidence.”

            If you really believe that the alarmists “continually examine the totality of the evidence”, then your knowledge of science and the scientific method is even more dismal than I thought.

            “high correlation between the players in that “belief” space, both individual and organisational, and fossil fuel money. It certainly looks sufficiently high to warrant a conclusion of conspiracy.”

            Aaand, right on cue, Stu reverts to the standard alarmist meme that “all denialists (sic) are in the pay of Big Fossil Fuel!”

            Let me fix that for you.

            “high correlation between the players in that “alarmist” space, both individual and organisational, and taxpayer funded grants, together with the occasional task for ruinable energy subsidy harvesters.”

            PS, I assume that you have the data (names of scientists, payment amounts, fossil fuel companies) to support your allegation of a conspiracy?

            PPS, my payments have not been received, from your list, could you let me know when and where they were made.

            PPPS, is this when you scrape the bottom of the barrel, by regurgitating your smear that sceptics don’t care about their grandchildren?

          • Stu says:

            In case you have not noticed, this is not a science class, so I will not regurgitate the mass of scientific work that you can easily find in myriad places including all national scientific institutions and establishments around the world . Look it up yourself. Meantime stop clawing at the morsels of narrow field papers that individually may be interesting but do not constitute a counter to the mainstream consensus.

            Same goes for the list of names and dollars. Just do some searching on the organisations you quote from. And I did not say “all”, I said high correlation.

            And BJ, I never figured you as a high profile science researcher or even commentator so I assume no one would ever seek to buy you off, sorry no cheque for you.

            As for the grandchildren I challenge you to do what I have done for my eldest one (I assume she will share the information with her siblings) and written a time capsule letter to open at age 25. In it I have apologised for the total mess our generation and previous ones have made of the environment but with an escape clause that hopefully human ingenuity will have offset some of the problems by then. Of course your version would have to say you sat on your hands because the scientists are wrong and that there will be no bad climate change effects over that period. Make sure your position is recorded for posterity.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu sez; “…..the mass of scientific work that you can easily find in myriad places including all national scientific institutions and establishments around the world .”

            If you are right, stu, then you shouldn’t have any trouble producing just ONE PIECE of that “mass of scientific work” that provides fundamental evidence to support your claims.

            It’s an interesting coincidence that, to date, I have never been able to find it, and you have never been able to quote it.

            Could it be that you are simply brainwashed by “science” that is initially assumption based and then all further development of your “mass of scientific work” is based on those original assumptions.

            If you still can’t produce anything, we will have to accept that you, like the CAGW scientists you worship, don’t know what you are talking about.

            Time to stop blithering and start delivering.

            Or, if you can’t deliver, at least man up.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “And BJ, I never figured you as a high profile science researcher or even commentator so I assume no one would ever seek to buy you off, sorry no cheque for you.”

            Strange, you have alleged in the past that I might be a beneficiary of such loot. Going soft in your old age?

            As for your cringeworthy latter to your grandchild, no, I prefer to educate mine in empiricism.

            The rest of your post was the standard drivel I have come to expect from you, including your weasel words about the “conspiracy” allegation.

          • Boambee John says:

            PS, on the “conspiracy” allegation, you made the allegation, you provide the evidence. If you do not, it is a reasonable assumption that it is non-existent or trivial.

  • Neville says:

    At long last Venice has protection from severe flooding. Once again this proves that adaptation works and but for the Green imbeciles, ongoing corruption etc this would’ve happened years ago.
    And of course this is the cheapest way of guaranteeing protection for their ratepayers, while the Green imbeciles prefer to waste trillions $ on the S&W idiocy and ZERO change for temp to 2100 and way beyond.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/03/world/europe/venice-floodgates-flooding.html?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=66f6ee34b3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_10_05_11_10_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-66f6ee34b3-36463321&mc_cid=66f6ee34b3&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

  • Neville says:

    A new addition of the IPA’s “Climate Change the Facts” is now available and this will hopefully make more people aware of some alternative points of view. Here’s a quick summary and the link.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/what-if-nature-itself-has-the-means-to-moderate-climate-change/
    What If Nature Itself Has The Means To Moderate Climate Change?

    Date: 03/10/20
    Graham Lloyd, The Australian

    There is a big “what if” buried at the heart of Climate Change: The Facts 2020. What if nature has a special way of using the sun, cosmic rays, water vapour and clouds to regulate the temperature of the planet? What if these processes have already been explored but too hastily dismissed? Do they deserve a closer look?
    CLimate Change The Facts 2020
    Climate Change The Facts 2020

    When Jennifer Marohasy sat down to conceive the latest in a series of climate change publications for the Institute of Public Affairs she was determined to remain faithful to the scientific method and be guided by past experience.

    In her view, the history of science suggests you don’t actually replace a theory until you come up with another possible explanation.

    “Rebuttals don’t cut it unless you have an alternative,” Maro­hasy says.

    The result is Climate Change: The Facts 2020 which can be alternatively described as a thinking sceptic’s guide to climate.
    Peter Ridd and Jennifer Marohasy, who edited Climate Change: The Facts 2020.

    The fourth in a high selling series by the IPA and the second edited by Marohasy, the book deals with a wide range of hot topics from bushfires to sea levels, polar bears, volcanoes and temperature records.

    It brings together a wide range of Australian and international voices including polar bear specialist Susan Crockford, investigative journalist Donna Laframboise and satellite temperature measurement pioneer Roy Spencer. The book’s true ambition, however, is captured in the contributions of atmospheric physicists Richard Lindzen and Henrik Svensmark and well known Australian contrarian Peter Ridd.

    Lindzen, Svensmark and Ridd each deal with some of the most contentious issues in climate change science, the role of clouds and the sun.

    Rather than break new ground each presents a fresh view of established work that has proved difficult for the climate change establishment to accept.

    Together, Marohasy argues, the contributions go to the core of anthropogenic climate change theory and “give the book longer term currency”.

    According to Svensmark, since low clouds are very important for the radiative energy balance of the Earth — by reflecting incoming radiation back to space and in this way casting a shadow — they can cool the Earth’s atmosphere.

    He argues it is changes in cosmic-ray flux modulated by the sun and the position of our solar system relative to exploding stars in other galaxies that will drive this. There is no role for carbon dioxide in Svensmark’s theory of climate change.

    His leads to the conclusion that a microphysical mechanism involving cosmic rays and clouds is operating in the Earth’s atmosphere, and that this mechanism has the potential to explain a significant part of the observed climate variability over the history of the Earth.

    Ridd revisits the pioneering work of Joanne Simpson, who studied cloud formation and tropical thunderstorms, and how they could result in tremendous amounts of energy transfer from the Earth’s surface to the top of the troposphere — where it can be radiated into space.

    Simpson is a legend in the meteorological community of the US. She was awarded the American Meteorological Society’s 1983 Carl-Gustav Rossby Research Medal — the highest award in atmospheric sciences. But her climate change theory is not included in the dominant view or models. Ridd builds on the mathematics laid out by Simpson and Herbert Riehl back in 1958 and likens the process to the pistons in a car engine. His punchline is that this huge atmospheric engine helps cool the surface atmosphere.

    Applying some mathematics, Ridd shows that more greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere can make the heat engine more powerful. In short, Ridd demonstrates that with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the lower atmosphere, air temperatures can increase and thus raise the water vapour content of the air if this occurs over tropical oceans.

    Ridd calculates that for every 1C rise in tropical temperature, the heat transfer by the convection pathway will increase by 10 per cent.

    Lindzen, meanwhile, has focused his research on high altitude cirrus clouds and their heating effect on the environment because they reflect infra-red radiation back to Earth. Lindzen makes the analogy with the pupils in our eyes changing size relative to how bright or dim the light is.

    Specifically, Lindzen has hypothesised that as the atmosphere warms from increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, the area of cirrus cloud decreases, providing a negative feedback as more infra-red radiation is able to escape into space.

    Both Lindzen and Ridd hypothesise that there are cloud-related negative feedback loops in place that will mitigate the potential effects of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases on Earth’s temperature.

    Neither of them deny the potential for greenhouse gases, especially water vapour and CO2, to warm the Earth. Rather they explain that because of the complexity of the physical processes at work, in particular, and the role clouds play in facilitating negative (cooling) feedbacks, the Earth is unlikely to overheat.

    The ideas presented in the book are complex and counter intuitive to the dominant narrative of a world hurtling towards climate catastrophe because of carbon dioxide. And for this Marohasy is unapologetic.
    Full story ($)

  • Neville says:

    It now looks like “upside down Mann” is way out on a limb by himself.
    And this is the DEMS “go to guy” that they drag into Congress to yap a load of BS at every opportunity about his so called consensus?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/05/michael-mann-appeals-to-then-ignores-scientific-consensus-on-60-minutes/

  • Neville says:

    We know that the Eemian interglacial ( 130 k to 115 k ago) was much warmer than our Holocene and SLs were also much higher.
    But another interglacial was much warmer than the Eemian and this occurred about 400,000 to 410,000 years ago. Also SLs were about 5 to 12 metres higher again in this earlier interglacial.
    And don’t forget that co2 levels were about 280 ppm at that time.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13456

  • spangled drongo says:

    Antarctic Penguin Remains Show Present Temperatures Are Normal:

    Scientists report they have discovered perfectly preserved, 800-year-old penguin remains exposed by a patch of melting ice along the Antarctic coast. The news media and climate activists are touting this as proof of an unprecedented climate crisis. In reality, the discovery reveals that temperatures in the not-too-distant past were as warm or warmer than present temperatures.

    Reporting in the peer-reviewed journal Geology, scientists encountered what appeared to be the fresh remains of Adelie penguins in a region where penguins are not known to live. Carbon dating showed the penguin remains were approximately 800 years old, implying the remains had very recently been exposed by thawing ice. Further examination and testing of the site showed that penguins had colonized and abandoned the site multiple times between 800 and 5,000 years ago.

    The scientists noted that the most recent period of penguin colonization began at the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period (approximately 900 A.D.) and ended at the beginning of the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D.). The scientists noted that penguins currently cannot live in the region because “fast ice” (ice that extends from the Antarctic shore many miles out into the ocean) prevents penguins from accessing the ocean from shore. During the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period, the absence of fast ice allowed penguins to colonize the area.

    https://climaterealism.com/2020/10/antarctic-penguin-remains-show-present-temperatures-are-normal/

  • Neville says:

    More delusional nonsense from the so called Conservative govt in the UK.
    They will step up installation of more unreliable wind power and most to be installed offshore. The GWPF estimates that this will increase electricity prices by an extra 200% for UK citizens including the poor and elderly.
    Who needs the Labour and Greens idiots when you have this so called Conservative party that has lost its ability to comprehend data and think clearly?

    https://www.thegwpf.com/boris-johnson-announces-200-rise-in-electricity-prices/

  • Stu says:

    The US election (where this thread started) is at an interesting stage. One fact that is clear is that Covid-19 is a fact whether you believe it or not, much like climate change. On the latter the situation is a record number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and Gulf and they are intensifying faster than previously recorded as well as slower moving and wetter. And the season is not over. Will they have enough letters in the Greek alphabet?

    Back to the election, anyone care to lay a bet on the activation of the 25th amendment?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “Back to the election, anyone care to lay a bet on the activation of the 25th amendment?”

      Well, Biden is certainly displaying signs of senility.

      Add that to his strange behaviour around women and girls, and it would be a certainty were he to genuinely win.

      • Stu says:

        I see you missed the point completely about the Donald’s strange behaviour both before ingesting steroids and after. Remember it is not just the keypad on his phone but also the nuclear launch codes. Not surprising given your repeated apparent obsession with finding weirdness in the behaviour of people in circumstances you do not have full knowledge of. And please don’t respond that my suggestion about Trump is in any way in the same ballpark as your apparent fetish with sexual misconduct. There is no comparison.

        And tell us how you think your man is going in the electoral context over there? Care to pick a winner?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “Not surprising given your repeated apparent obsession with finding weirdness in the behaviour of people in circumstances you do not have full knowledge of. And please don’t respond that my suggestion about Trump is in any way in the same ballpark as your apparent fetish with sexual misconduct.”

          Have you been drinking? What on earth are you on about?

          • Stu says:

            “ Have you been drinking? What on earth are you on about?”

            Simple, I was responding to your weird statement

            “ Well, Biden is certainly displaying signs of senility.
            Add that to his strange behaviour around women and girls, and it would be a certainty were he to genuinely win.”

            Or has that already faded from your short term memory?

            Comment?

            Further, what is your inference regarding “genuinely win”? Are you subscribing to the Trump fake ballot bull shit?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Interesting that you interpret “strange behaviour” as being sexual, does that say something about you?

            As for Biden’s mental state, that is displayed clearly for those who have been watching.

            “Further, what is your inference regarding “genuinely win”? Are you subscribing to the Trump fake ballot bull shit?”

            So, you deny absolutely any possibility of vote fraud in the US? Gutsy call!

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu sez; “….a record number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and Gulf and they are intensifying faster than previously recorded as well as slower moving and wetter.”

      Check the facts, stu:

      “Fifty years of global landfalls of tropical cyclones of hurricane strength, based on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, were analyzed.

      According to the findings published earlier here:

      The analysis does not indicate significant long-period global or individual basin trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling TCs of minor or major hurricane strength. The evidence in this study provides strong support for the conclusion that increasing damage around the world during the past several decades can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to TC landfalls, which adds confidence to the fidelity of economic normalization analyses.”

      “There are a lot of ups and downs in the data, but no obvious trends.”

      But they are speeding up rather than slowing down:

      “An increase in global trends of tropical cyclone translation speed since 1982 and its physical causes”:

      https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9e1f

      • Stu says:

        Perhaps check the figures. That study went as far as 2017. There have been significant changes since then, do you have a study for that?

        • spangled drongo says:

          Only a true-believer could believe that the last couple of years could reverse an established trend.

          But perhaps you have the scientific evidence to support your claim?

          • Boambee John says:

            SD

            Probably not. Stu seems somewhat confused this evening, so understanding statistics, which does not seem to be holis strong point, might be further beyond him just now.

  • Neville says:

    Stu please give us a link for your quotes. BTW here’s a link to Roger Pielke jnr’s well researched study of US hurricanes from 1900 to 2019.
    There had just been a 14 year absence of any major land-falling hurricanes in the USA at the time of his writing. That’s from 2005 to NOV 2019 and that was the lowest on record since 1900.
    He also agrees with the IPCC on hurricanes and believes that AGW could make a difference in the future. Happily deaths from extreme weather events ( like hurricanes) have fallen off a cliff since 1920 although the world population has increased by 6 billion people over the last 100 years.
    Dr Goklany, Lomborg, Shellenberger, Dr Spencer, Dr Christy etc all quote a percentage fall of deaths of about 95% since 1920, although billions more people now inhabit those locations at the greatest risk.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/11/24/just-the-facts-on-hurricanes/#1da589e4551f

    • Stu says:

      NOAA wrote earlier this year “ The combination of several climate factors is driving the strong likelihood for above-normal activity in the Atlantic this year. El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions are expected to either remain neutral or to trend toward La Nina, meaning there will not be an El Nino present to suppress hurricane activity. Also, warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, coupled with reduced vertical wind shear, weaker tropical Atlantic trade winds, and an enhanced west African monsoon all increase the likelihood for an above-normal Atlantic hurricane season. Similar conditions have been producing more active seasons since the current high-activity era began in 1995.

      “NOAA’s analysis of current and seasonal atmospheric conditions reveals a recipe for an active Atlantic hurricane season this year,” said Neil Jacobs, Ph.D., acting NOAA administrator. “Our skilled forecasters, coupled with upgrades to our computer models and observing technologies, will provide accurate and timely forecasts to protect life and property.”

      And it has come to pass. But what would NOAA know, especially in a Trump era when reports are withheld to suppress scientific information contrary to White House dogma. I refer to the currently withheld “climate report”. It almost sounds like Covid data. But November 3 approaches and the dam is about to burst.

      And slightly related what is your response to the latest from Boris regarding his green energy plans? You must be crying yourself to sleep.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “And slightly related what is your response to the latest from Boris regarding his green energy plans? You must be crying yourself to sleep.”

        Only for the people of Britain, whose lives and economy will be destroyed by the insane belief that ruinables (in this case wind), in their current state of development can provide 100% of the reliable, continuous, electric power needed to run a modern nation.

        BTW, haven’t you told us on many occasions that no-one is planning to shut down all fossil fuelled power until ruinable technology develoos further? Yet, here you are, seemingly cheering a plan to do just that.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “NOAA wrote earlier this year “ The combination of several climate factors is driving the strong likelihood for above-normal activity in the Atlantic this year. El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions are expected to either remain neutral or to trend toward La Nina, meaning there will not be an El Nino present to suppress hurricane activity.”

        Sounds like weather rather than climate (using the standard alarmist terminology)!

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu sez; “And it has come to pass.”

        Has it?

        Where’s your evidence?

        I’m sure if you look hard enough you can find some suitable homogenising.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2020/10/magically-correcting-australias-thermometers-from-1500-kilometers-away/

  • Neville says:

    Stu, Dr Pielke jnr is very thorough and he quotes and uses NOAA and IPCC + WMO data. Here in the article he asks the question….

    “Have landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes (those of Category 3 strength or greater) in the United States become more common since 1900”?

    “No.”

    He also tells us that…..

    “The graphs below show the data (updated from this paper, with data from NOAA). The past 14 years have seen the fewest landfalls of major hurricanes (3) of any such period since 1900. The 14 years ending 1928 saw 13 major hurricanes hit the United States”.

    U.S. mainland landfalling major (Category 3+) hurricanes, 1990 to 24 November 2019. R. PIELKE JR.

    “Once past damage is adjusted for the presence of more people, more property and more wealth, has damage increased?

    “No”.

    “Since there is no trend in hurricane landfalls, especially in the strongest storms which cause the overwhelming majority of damage, we should not expect to see any trend in damage after such adjustments”. The graph below shows the data (updated from this paper)”.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/11/24/just-the-facts-on-hurricanes/#474fc99b551f

    He also had to school the Obama and Holdren dummies about drought in the USA over the 20th century etc by using the proper data and evidence, from the best sources. He infuriated the dems donkeys and they tried to have him investigated by his place of work. Just because he called out the con merchants and fra-dsters trying to protect their clueless President and his joke of a scientific adviser ( ?????)

    BTW he also links to other sources like the WMO that also tends to downplay any signs YET of any AGW influence.

    Next I’ll link AGAIN to the BOM data for Aussie cyclones since 1970 and some more interesting data from 1820.

    • Stu says:

      Pielke junior is a climate “policy” commentator not a climate scientist. His expertise is in political science. Which makes him a well qualified cherry picker. While he claims to accept that AGW is happening he is frequently quoted by climate change deniers such as yourself. Not so much a flat earther but a wavy one.

      • Neville says:

        Stu you’re a first class dope who can’t even follow the best data/evidence.
        Dr Pielke is genuine and has been one of the best data miners over the last 20 years.
        I’ve provided you with the best data and yet you haven’t had the common sense to understand it.
        IOW you’re a lost cause.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu the cherry picker non-scientist rejects the writings of another writer who uses the correct sources, but doesn’t come to the “correct” position.

        • Stu says:

          I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject and make profound statements to influence the general public (merely the chat room here), Piekle does, therefore your point has no value.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So, much like your trolling here?

            PS, that’s Pielke. Are you showing your lack of even basic (reading) expertise?

          • Stu says:

            No just big fingers on small keypad. What is your excuse for your multiple cockups?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Cheer up, things could be worse. You might keep touting the failed predictions of alarmism, and be ignored.

  • Neville says:

    The last SUPER cyclone hit the Nth QLD coast about 200 years ago and here’s the transcript from their ABC Catalyst program. Dr Nott was studying cyclone activity over the last 6,000 years.

    https://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/super-cyclone/11006020
    Transcript

    “Narration: North Queenslanders beware – a supercyclone, bigger than anything you’ve seen before, is coming your way. And Cairns may not be able to cope with a cyclone from hell.

    Jonathan Nott: Generally Europeans haven’t been in north Queensland since the last super cyclone but one is definitely going to occur in the future.

    Narration: Cyclones are regular visitors to Cairns. Cyclone Steve hit in 2000 causing extensive damage. It was one of the strongest storms recorded in the area. But this is not the worst that can happen.

    Steve was a pup. If a small cyclone can cause this much damage, imagine what a really big cyclone could do. Dr Jonathan Nott from James Cook University at Cairns has been looking into the geological record to figure out how often cyclones hit the North Queensland coast.

    Today he’s taking me to one of his study sites on Fitzroy Island, just off the coast from Cairns.

    Jonathan Nott: Out there is the Great Barrier Reef so the beaches here are not made of sand, they’re made of broken coral. This coral shingle is washed onto the beach during storms.

    Narration: Cyclones create storm surges and these walls of water push the shingle into ridges at the back of the beach. The bigger the cyclone, the bigger the storm surge, the bigger the shingle ridge it leaves behind.

    Jonathan Nott: We have a small ridge here that is deposited by a relatively moderate size cyclone. A ridge behind that what was deposited by an earlier cyclone that was bigger again and then back into the rainforest we have another deposit that was deposited by a very large or very intense cyclone.

    Narration: By measuring shingle ridges Jon’s been able to build up a 6,000 year history of cyclones in North Queensland. He’s found dozens of super cyclones – enormous storms the likes of which have not been seen within historic times. The last big cyclone seen in Cairns hit in 1920. It had a storm surge of just 2.5 metres.

    Jonathan Nott: In the early 1800’s we had a storm surge which was more than 4 metres high and that would have been at least a metre over my head as I sit here now.

    Narration: As you can see Cairns has changed quite a bit in the last 80 odd years. As the city has grown and developed, the building regulations have been tightened to account for the strongest cyclones on record. But, if Jon’s right, they ain’t seen nothing yet.

    Cyclone Vance was Australia’s biggest recorded cyclone. It hit the North Coast of Western Australia in 1999 with 267 km/h winds. Homes and buildings built to withstand cyclonic winds were no match for Vance. More than 240 were damaged, half beyond repair.

    Destruction came from both the extreme winds and a ferocious sea. The storm surge was a 6 metre high wall of water. It ploughed up to a kilometre inland stripping bare everything in its’ path. Is Cairns ready for a Super-cyclone? Built to withstand smaller cyclones, the 300kmh winds of a super-cyclone would leave half of Cairns uninhabitable. A storm surge greater than 4 metres would devastate the waterfront and shopping districts.

    If the city is evacuated there should be no loss of life but the damage bill could run into many millions of dollars.

    Jonathan Nott: These events occur every two to three hundred years and it has been a couple of hundred years since the last one hit this region here around Cairns. So we know that they’re going to occur in the future. We don’t know when they will occur, but we know that one will definitely occur in the relatively near future.”

    Narration: Jon’s findings have only just been published in the journal Nature, so the authorities haven’t really had time to take on board his warnings. It may well mean that building regulations have to be tightened even further and development close to sea level stopped altogether”.

    But the take home message is BEWARE: killer cyclones will hit north Queensland”.

  • Neville says:

    Here AGAIN is the BOM Aussie cyclone trend graph since 1970. AGAIN NOTE that only recently we’ve had the only season ( 2015 to ’16) over the last 50 years without any SEVERE cyclones.
    Of course the TREND over the last half century is DOWN. OH and in 1970 co2 levels were about 325 ppm or about 25 ppm lower then than Dr Hansen’s latest choice of 350 ppm. Gotta love the data.
    Let’s hope stu has his thinking cap on.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

  • Neville says:

    I should’ve added that we’ve had KILLER CYCLONES hitting the QLD coast for many thousands of years and co2 levels than were about 280 ppm.
    Yet over the last 50 years the trend is down and co2 levels have increased by about 90 ppm since 1970.
    As I said, ya gotta love the DATA.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the latest study of the S&W disaster and the verified waste of trillions of $ with the result of environmental damage on a global scale.
    Even stupid lefties like Michael Moore understands this and Shellenberger, Lomborg etc have highlighted these S&W disasters for years.
    And of course ZERO measurable change to temp or climate by 2100 and beyond. See Zickfeld study plus Nic Lewis’s excellent summary of the Royal Society and NAS claims of NO CHANGE for thousands of years.
    IOW their claims of so called CLEAN ENERGY is a TOTAL delusional fra-d and con trick.
    Here’s the link.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/07/surprising-science-theres-no-such-thing-as-clean-energy/

    • Stu says:

      “ And of course ZERO measurable change to temp or climate by 2100 and beyond.”

      Even if that was true, and it clearly is not, because it is a broad and unsupported statement and it is a classic case of ignoring the bloody obvious. If the world had never produced any S&W power before now and none between now and 2100 we would need to have to burned a heap more coal, gas and oil by that date. The resultant increase in global CO2 would certainly produce a change in temperature and climate by 2100. But I just know you will totally disagree on some spurious basis so go ahead.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Your claim essentially rests on the output of computer models which are based on assumptions that the models then regurgitate.

        GIGO.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu, the whole basis of your understanding of climate science is spurious as you have never been able to produce any empirical evidence to support your claims of CAGW.

        Yet you have the hubris to accuse others of your precise problem.

        Here is some recommended reading to introduce you to the real world:

        https://www.ceres-science.com/content/Evaluating_human-caused_and_natural_contributions_recent_global_warming.html

        • Stu says:

          I am not a scientist. Go and read the reports from the 99% of climate scientists. The ones not being bought off by interested parties. It is not for me to reprint the millions of pages of real science.

          • spangled drongo says:

            I’m pleased you finally admit that you have no idea from your personal non-observations.

            Only from your determined belief.

            Just as you have no idea about your “99%”.

            But always remember the words of one of the best and oft-quoted scientists that are consistently confirmed on a daily basis and for which daily examples are [should be?] apparent to even the most religious believer, such as yourself:

            “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “The ones not being bought off by interested parties.”

            That reminds me, how are you going with providing the evidence to support your conspiracy allegation? Or perhaps you don’t see any need for “evidence”, because in your heart you just “know” it has to be true (otherwise you would need to admit that you have been conned).

            A bit like your uncritical acceptance of the whole computer based alarmist story, really.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    Go to Jo Nova for the full story. (Just to ease your conscience, she did not write the published paper).

    “A meticulous new review published in the scientific journal, Energies, conducted by a team of Irish and US-based researchers including CERES researchers, raises surprising and unsettling questions about the feasibility and the environmental impacts of the transition to renewable energy sources.”

    But we know you want more!

    “The researchers discovered that renewable energy sources sometimes contribute to problems they were designed to solve. For example, a series of international studies have found that both wind and solar farms are themselves causing local climate change. Wind farms increase the temperature of the soil beneath them, and this warming causes soil microbes to release more carbon dioxide.”

    “Green energy technologies require a 10-fold increase in mineral extraction compared to fossil fuel electricity. Similarly, replacing just 50 million of the world’s estimated 1.3 billion cars with electric vehicles would require more than doubling the world’s annual production of cobalt, neodymium, and lithium, and using more than half the world’s current annual copper production.”

    You will have to read the rest for yourself!

  • Neville says:

    Here’s what stu said in reply to my comment….

    “Even if that was true, and it clearly is not, because it is a broad and unsupported statement and it is a classic case of ignoring the bloody obvious. If the world had never produced any S&W power before now and none between now and 2100 we would need to have to burned a heap more coal, gas and oil by that date. The resultant increase in global CO2 would certainly produce a change in temperature and climate by 2100. But I just know you will totally disagree on some spurious basis so go ahead”.

    Again I’ll state the obvious just for silly stu using proper data.
    World co2 emissions have increased by about 90 ppm since 1970 and about 65 ppm since 1988.
    Nearly all of that NET increase has been emitted by China, India and the developing countries and the OECD countries have not increased emissions for at least 20+ years. Look up the data for yourself.
    Clearly S&W will never be able to power a modern economy and any country stupid enough to try will suffer an environmental disaster as well as regular blackouts and an ongoing mess to clean up every 20 years or so as the generators and solar mess have to be replaced.
    Of course none of this S&W disaster is base-load power and when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine you have more failure of the system.
    This happens from sunset to sunrise , plus days of little wind or no wind. Frosty nights would provide little power and this would be disastrous for citizens, businesses and in fact every part of the economy.
    Lomborg has already provided us with the data and supported by his unique team of about 24 , including about 3 Nobel Laureates.
    He’s used the MAGICC software as used by the IPCC etc to prove that there would be no measurable difference in temp EVEN if every country followed COP 21 to the letter.
    But co2 levels are increasing every decade as I’ve shown using the proper DATA from NOAA and the Wiki data using the most up to date info for every country every year.
    Dr Hansen has told the world that COP 21 is just BS and fra-d and S&W are just fairy stories and yet you still believe your delusional nonsense?

    Deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by 95% since 1920 although there are 6 billion more people today. And I’ve provided the best data we have on Hurricanes /cyclones to prove that there is no increase over the last century. In fact in the USA the recent trend is much better and ditto for Australia. See recent major hurricanes for both US and OZ.

    But you still want to waste trillions $ on the S&W disaster for ZERO change to the climate and temp by 2100 and beyond? Look up the Zickfeld study at the Royal Society & NAS that I’ve linked to many times. Don’t forget that developing countries are building hundreds of new coal power stns and will continue for decades, because they want cheap, reliable base-load power.

    AGAIN here’s that NOAA co2 trend per decade since 1960. Please THINK before you bother to reply.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

  • spangled drongo says:

    Hey stu, this is what you are advocating, too. Check it out:

    Governor Cooper’s “Clean Energy Plan” seeks to install more renewable energy including solar power in North Carolina.

    https://www.johnlocke.org/update/gov-coopers-clean-energy-plan-part-3-raising-prices-and-polluting-more/

  • spangled drongo says:

    This is the same lefty logic as applied to CAGW by the true believers:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/10/media-criticizes-trump-for-downplaying-virus-threat-by-not-dying/

  • Neville says:

    Here AGAIN is the Duvat study of Pacific and Indian Island groups and like Prof Kench they find that 87% of the islands are either growing in size or are stable.

    Here’s a link to the graph and you’ll note that only islands less than 10 hectares in size have any problem.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/522e8360-ca12-471d-a3ea-7ff26e86217d/wcc557-toc-0001-m.jpg

    Here’s the Abstract.

    Abstract

    “Over the past decades, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization in the face of sea?level rise. A reanalysis of available data, which cover 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, reveals that no atoll lost land area and that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. Atoll islands affected by rapid sea?level rise did not show a distinct behavior compared to islands on other atolls. Island behavior correlated with island size, and no island larger than 10 ha decreased in size. This threshold could be used to define the minimum island size required for human occupancy and to assess atoll countries and territories’ vulnerability to climate change. Beyond emphasizing the major role of climate drivers in causing substantial changes in the configuration of islands, this reanalysis of available data indicates that these drivers explain subregional variations in atoll behavior and within?atoll variations in island and shoreline (lagoon vs. ocean) behavior, following atoll?specific patterns. Increasing human disturbances, especially land reclamation and human structure construction, operated on atoll?to?shoreline spatial scales, explaining marked within?atoll variations in island and shoreline behavior. Collectively, these findings highlight the heterogeneity of atoll situations. Further research needs include addressing geographical gaps (Indian Ocean, Caribbean, north?western Pacific atolls), using standardized protocols to allow comparative analyses of island and shoreline behavior across ocean regions, investigating the role of ecological drivers, and promoting interdisciplinary approaches. Such efforts would assist in anticipating potential future changes in the contributions and interactions of key drivers”.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks Neville. My own obs of local sand islands is that they have grown in area and some have increased hugely since the Pacific climate shift in the late ’70s.

      But this will again change when the climate Nat Var goes full circle.

      • Boambee John says:

        Ditto.

        On one beach, we observed that the vegetated portion of dunes advanced several metres seaward over about a decade. The overall width of the sandy shore stayed about the same, so the land area was increasing.

        Perhaps Stu’s “sea level rise” is driven by water displaced by advancing shorelines? (That’s sarcasm Stu!)

    • Stu says:

      Those guys also wrote “ Analyzes the physical changes in over 200 islands on 12 atolls in the central and western Pacific in the past few decades when sea level in the region increased at rates three to four times the global average” which has to be a little inconvenient for your belief about SLR. I recall you had some notion about SLR being uniform. Secondly the adaptation of island structures has more to do with the natural processes that formed the islands and is a poor paradigm for your persistent arguments denying changes in the rate of SLR and their effect on other types of coastal landform. Check out Holland island in Chesapeake bay for a different story.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        So you argue that gerbil worming is a global phenomenon, but also that sea level rise varies around the globe.

        Perhaps gerbil worming is not a global issue, but simply some random events in particular locations?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Your trouble stueyluv, is that when you do try to pay attention, you only half do the job.

        Sea levels in the Pacific and other large oceans are influenced by prevailing winds and SLR depends on their strength, duration and direction.

        Your; “you had some notion about SLR being uniform” is just blither.

        Sea level change around the world is all over the place, up and down, and depends on a myriad of things.

        That has always been happening but it’s the long term that we need to look at and if you check that BoM link I keep giving you, you will see that for the total record of over a century, the biggest ocean in the world is actually falling.

        You are improving slightly but do pay full attention.

        And you will find that life is better than you thought.

        • Stu says:

          “ Your; “you had some notion about SLR being uniform” is just blither.”

          Bull shit. One or other of you two super intellects has pushed that point. At least get your attempted double act to line up.

          And as for “ the biggest OCEAN in the world is actually falling.” (My emphasis on ocean). Good luck with that one. I suggest you try and get that published in a letter in the SMH to see how it flies. As said before, only in this tiny forum, do you succeed in not being laughed out of town.

          • spangled drongo says:

            If it’s BS stu, please supply any evidence that we said that or apologise.

            And if harbours and islands across the biggest ocean in the world are showing no SLR but actually a fall, please explain how the ocean could actually be rising.

            Provide some evidence [instead of blither] for a change.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Strange as it might seem to you, steeped as you are in the conspiracies of alarmism, SD and I do not know each other, and have never communicated directly other than on this blog. There is no “double act”, just different perspectives on a problem, attempting to come up with a valid explanation for a phenomenon.

            It’s called the “scientific method”, you might try it sometime, if your intellect is up to it.

            “I suggest you try and get that published in a letter in the SMH to see how it flies. As said before, only in this tiny forum, do you succeed in not being laughed out of town.”

            Two points. First, given the lack of scientific knowledge among the SJWankers who infest modern journalism, I have no doubt that any such letter would be rejected as “not supporting the narrative”. Second, your description of this blog is offensive to Don. You are not obliged to post here.

          • Stu says:

            You said “ If it’s BS stu, please supply any evidence that we said that or apologise.”

            So here is a quote.

            “Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.

            Higher sea levels mean that deadly and destructive storm surges push farther inland than they once did, which also means more frequent nuisance flooding. Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago.

            The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. The oceans are absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.

            With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century. In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world’s 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans.

            Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers. In urban settings, rising seas threaten infrastructure necessary for local jobs and regional industries. Roads, bridges, subways, water supplies, oil and gas wells, power plants, sewage treatment plants, landfills—virtually all human infrastructure—is at risk from sea level rise.“

            https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

            And then you wrote “ And if harbours and islands across the biggest ocean in the world are showing no SLR but actually a fall, please explain how the ocean could actually be rising.”

            That reads awfully like the movement you describe is uniform. Make up your mind.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “So here is a quote.”

            Where and when did I quote that?

            Don’t make stuff up.

            And what you stu-pidly fail to get is what I just said;

            “Sea levels in the Pacific and other large oceans are influenced by prevailing winds and SLR depends on their strength, duration and direction.”

            IOW the oceans rise an fall in various places depending on wind strength and direction.

            EG, the Aust east coast current runs southward when the wind blows consistently from the south because sea levels are increased in the north [and vice versa].

            It’s called seeking equilibrium.

            But this equilibrium in sea levels [just like in weather patterns, HPa etc] is never achieved.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Would you vote for Joe?

    • Stu says:

      Or you could vote DT who rambled on twitter today “ Joe Biden is a PUPPET of CASTRO-CHAVISTAS like Crazy Bernie, AOC and Castro-lover Karen Bass. Biden is supported by socialist Gustavo Petro, a major LOSER and former M-19 guerrilla leader. Biden is weak on socialism and will betray Colombia. I stand with you!”
      Sounds like the meanderings of a bi-polar narcissist coming down from a high dose of steroids. And due to the steroids he would fail a drug test for performance enhancing drugs before any debate. But then again despite his ravings before the first debate he refuses to have any further tests or declare the results of ones he has done. Including the SAT’s that he did not sit. You are very welcome to him. But then again I get the feeling you might also support Senator Mike Lee who wrote during the VP debate “ Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.” I think the US is on a dangerous precipice right now.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Just your “balanced” opinion coming to the fore again, hey stu?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “refuses to have any further tests or declare the results of ones he has done. Including the SAT’s that he did not sit.”

        Thanks for the reminder. When can we expect to see Obama’s college scores?

        • Stu says:

          BJ, “When can we expect to see Obama’s college scores?“. Oh yes, just like Trump, still fighting Hillary, time to move on. Assuming you meant to write Obama and it was not a typo, you have to be kidding. Obama relevance equals past tense. And surely you are not trying to put him in the same situation as Trump and his NDA’d college records. Just compare the vocabulary, speech, general demeanour and achievements with Trump and there is no comparison. But I digress, you may be harping back to the racist trope referred to generally as “birtherism” which was (is) promoted heavily by Trump. If so, sick.

          And have you been following the money trail? Wow, what a story and more will emerge over time, no wonder Trump is fighting so hard to stave off investigation for four more years.

          Did you see only 300 turned up to his latest Rose Garden appearance? And they were all hired, very impressive. The wheels are falling off the Trump bus.

          And SD, so you do agree with Senator Lee, good.

          • spangled drongo says:

            I asked for evidence or an apology, stueyluv.

            Which one do you call that?

            Just more blither?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Yes, I did mean Obama. I don’t recall ever offering an opinion on the “birther” issue, but since you have chosen to throw out this red herring, let me state that I have no reason to doubt that Obama was born in the US.

            The issue with Obama’s college record is the question whether he (like Elizabeth Warren) made his background a bit more exotic in order to qualify for affirmative action. This remains a valid question.

            “Obama relevance equals past tense.”

            You are either not following US politics as closely as you try to suggest, or you are trying to divert attention. The Obamas are still politically active.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            PS, AFAIK, Shrillary’s college records have been available for yonks. There was a period, however, when access to her thesis (on Alinsky) was restricted by her old college.

          • Stu says:

            “ You are either not following US politics as closely as you try to suggest, or you are trying to divert attention. The Obamas are still politically active.”

            So what? We are in the middle of a presidential election. The Obamas are historical bit players in that, but you and Trump seem to want to make it all about them and Hillary. Why? Is Biden too hard to take on directly? And what is the relevance of a thesis by Hillary now? Grasping at straws again are you?

            At least all those folk can write. Unlike DT who can barely scrawl his name and even then only with a “sharpie”.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            You give two short planks a good reputation for intelligence.

            If you think the Obamas are not looking to the future you are in cloud cuckoo land.

            I did not say that there was any current relevance to Shrillary’s thesis, only that her record is available, Obama’s isn’t, and he is definitely a player for tge future.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Speaking of Trump and the Rose Garden gathering, how about

            “Tweet
            David Croom – (?)
            @dailycallout
            ·
            7h
            Biden and Harris hold a campaign event in Arizona and the local news can’t believe that not one supporter showed up!”

            At least they didn’t have to pay them!

  • spangled drongo says:

    It’s amazing the number of donkeys that think this is the road to take. Self-flagellation in order to fail to solve a non-problem:

    https://climaterealism.com/2020/10/google-boston-review-promote-rolling-blackouts-to-cut-co2-emissions/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Some of the real issues at stake in the US election:

    “The Green New Deal is the only approach to climate stabilization also capable of reversing rising inequality and defeating global neoliberalism and ascendant neofascism.”

    “The two efforts—averting environmental disaster, and dismantling capitalism in favor of a freer and more just society—should and can proceed in parallel.”

    http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-global-justice/noam-chomsky-robert-pollin-c-j-polychroniou-political-economy-saving

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the way to save the planet, just elect left wing loonies who think that Zimbabwe is the way to go.
    There’s no doubt about it, the Yanks are riding for a very big fall if they elect the Biden donkey in Nov.
    And if the polls are correct that seems to be what the majority of people want. Who knows?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/11/the-west-intends-energy-suicide-will-it-succeed/

    • Chris Warren says:

      So now Neville is spreading slander and lies.

      This was deliberately false;

      “Here’s the way to save the planet, just elect left wing loonies who think that Zimbabwe is the way to go.”

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        Good to see you back.

        How are you going with that spreadsheet demonstrating that the trillions of dollars needed to fund the Green Nude Eel can be seamlessly transferred from fossil fuel costs to fund the Nude Eel?

        You were so confident when you made the assertion that I had assumed the data were readily to hand.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Just found stu’s “evidence”:

    “Some scientists fall so in love with their guesses that they fail to test them against evidence. They just compute the consequences and stop there. Mathematical models are elaborate, formal guesses, and there has been a disturbing tendency in recent years to describe their output with words like data, result or outcome. They are nothing of the sort.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/11/what-the-pandemic-has-taught-us-about-science/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Reality dawns:

    In an interview with publicist Roland Tichy, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt – one of the founders of Germany’s modern environmental movement – said we have in fact three generations time to revamp the world’s energy supply system to one that is cleaner and sustainable.

    He rejects the Fridays For Future claim that there are only 12 years left.

    Climate catastrophe not taking place

    In the interview, moderator Tichy reminded that civilization began 7,000 years ago, a time when it was “3°C warmer than today” and Vahrenholt responded by saying he expects civilization to continue for another seven thousand years.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/german-prof-climate-science-politicized-filled-with-fairy-tales/

    • Neville says:

      Yes SD, and even the UN calculates that human’s health and wealth etc will be much higher by 2050, by 2100 and beyond and Lomborg’s expert team has quoted the UN projections for decades.
      Prof Varenholt is correct, just look at our poorest continents improvement over the last 50 years.
      Africa has gained 950+ million people over the last 50 years and life expec etc has changed from 47 to 64 years. This is the guaranteed proof that the climate is not in crisis and yet we have our donkeys preferring to frolic with the fairies rather than accept proper data and evidence.

  • Neville says:

    Matt Ridley tries to encourage us to follow the Scientific method wherever it may lead.
    Experts can be very wrong when they try to predict how a virus may behave and then the best way to try and cope with it.
    Sweden and particularly Taiwan have had a better outcome than most other countries and without the very expensive lock downs that we’ve seen in Australia.
    Australia has performed better than most other Western countries, although Vic has been a disaster and 90% of Aussie CV-19 deaths have occurred in that state.
    This is a very good article and I’ll read it again just to properly understand the more thought provoking ideas.

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-pandemic-has-taught-us/

  • Neville says:

    The UN really does BELIEVE in their CAGW nonsense and happily make up their idiocy as they go along.
    But Dr Pielke jnr looks at their so called data and comes to a different conclusion. Who would you believe or trust I wonder?
    As I’ve tried to explain many times, a quick check of the data since 1800 or 1900 or 1950 or 1970 should tell us we are much better off today and this takes about 4 mins to watch Dr Rosling’s video I’ve recently linked to a few days ago.
    Here’s Jo Nova’s summary of the UN garbage.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/10/peak-climate-religion-un-says-earth-to-become-uninhabitable-hell/#more-73552

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Dr Pielke’s summary of the impacts of extreme events after checking 54 study results since 1998.
    He concludes that “this paper reviews 54 normalisation studies published 1998–2020 and finds little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales is attributable to human-caused changes in climate, reinforcing conclusions of recent assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.

    Note he adds that this is also the conclusion of the IPCC.

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2020.1800440?journalCode=tenh20

    ABSTRACT
    “Nowadays, following every weather disaster quickly follow estimates of economic loss. Quick blame for those losses, or some part, often is placed on claims of more frequent or intense weather events. However, understanding what role changes in climate may have played in increasing weather-related disaster losses is challenging because, in addition to changes in climate, society also undergoes dramatic change. Increasing development and wealth influence exposure and vulnerability to loss – typically increasing exposure while reducing vulnerability. In recent decades a scientific literature has emerged that seeks to adjust historical economic damage from extreme weather to remove the influences of societal change from economic loss time series to estimate what losses past extreme events would cause under present-day societal conditions. In regions with broad exposure to loss, an unbiased economic normalisation will exhibit trends consistent with corresponding climatological trends in related extreme events, providing an independent check on normalisation results. This paper reviews 54 normalisation studies published 1998–2020 and finds little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales is attributable to human-caused changes in climate, reinforcing conclusions of recent assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.

  • Chris Warren says:

    It had to happen … bye, bye coral

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-54533971

  • Chris Warren says:

    These Neville-idiots cannot even use proper English.

    ABSTRACT
    “Nowadays, following every weather disaster quickly follow estimates of economic loss.”

    • spangled drongo says:

      Poor ol’ blith is getting desperater and desperater.

      But that’s the best we can expect when you can’t handle the science.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Where is your Green Nude Eel costing spreadsheet? You must have it to have made your earlier confident assertion.

  • Neville says:

    I see Prof Hughes is up to his usual silly nonsense about the GBR.

    Here’s the latest from Prof Ridd and the Australian Institute of Marine Science or AIMS who actually check the coral data and make it available. And the loss of coral shown on their graph was due to 2 major cyclones in 2011.

    OH and Prof Hughes has been criticised by AIMS before and according to Prof Ridd he refuses to release the raw data for his latest claim. Shades of their “upside down Mann” donkey, and Prof Ridd considers we should treat his report with great scepticism. Here’s the GWPF link.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/claims-of-dramatic-loss-of-great-barrier-reef-corals-are-false%e2%80%a8/

    “Claims Of Dramatic Loss Of Great Barrier Reef Corals Are False?”

    Date: 15/10/20
    Press Release, Global Warming Policy Forum

    “Corals expert hits out at media reports

    “Claims that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has lost half of its coral cover between 1995 and 2017 have received global media coverage”.
    “The stories were based on a new paper co-authored by controversial Australian researcher, Professor Terry Hughes of James Cook University”.

    “But according to Professor Peter Ridd, a leading authority on the Great Barrier Reef, these claims are false”.

    “According to Professor Ridd, the best data on coral cover is taken by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), who have been measuring over 100 reefs every year since 1986:”

    “AIMS data shows that coral cover fluctuates dramatically with time but there is roughly the same amount of coral today as in 1995. There was a huge reduction in coral cover in 2011 which was caused by two major cyclones that halved coral cover. Cyclones have always been the major cause of temporary coral loss on the Reef.”

    “Coral cover of the Great Barrier Reef 1986-2019; AIMS/Peter Ridd 2020”

    “This is not the first time that Professor Hughes has made such claims about coral loss. His previous study was strongly criticised by the AIMS scientists responsible for collecting and publishing the coral data”.

    “Moreover, Professor Hughes has refused to make public the raw data upon which he made this claim, despite repeated requests”.

    “This latest work by Prof Hughes needs a thorough quality-audit to test its veracity”, says Ridd. “Prime-facie, there are excellent grounds to treat it with great scepticism”.

  • Neville says:

    How corrupt are Joe and Hunter Biden? Well here’s Joe Biden boasting how he stopped the Ukraine inquiry into his son Hunter. And people could soon elect this creep to the Presidency of the USA.

    “Less than eight months after Pozharskyi thanked Hunter Biden for the introduction to his dad, the then-vice president [Biden] admittedly pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk into getting rid of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin by threatening to withhold a $1 billion US loan guarantee during a December 2015 trip to Kiev.

    “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden infamously bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018. “Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/10/bidengate-facebook-twitter-censor-the-whitehouse-as-unsafe-but-fbi-awol/

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Biden boasting about stopping the inquiry in the Ukraine and the onscreen transcript states that Hunter may have received 3 million $.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Our silly blith sez: “It had to happen … bye, bye coral”

    Here’s a detailed response to your quoted source of fake science.

    Read it and learn:

    https://jennifermarohasy.com/2020/10/half-the-corals-dead-but-not-in-real-life/

  • spangled drongo says:

    After the Covid lockdown comes the Carbon lockdown.

    “To meet UN Paris targets there will be no more petrol cars, diesel trucks, reliable electricity, beef
    burgers or Christmas ham, but bio-fueled battleships, hydrogen-fueled planes and sail-powered bulk
    carriers will be decreed (except in the BRICS world). Diesel submarines will be scrapped and NATO
    will mandate battery-powered battle tanks. Pit ponies will return to the mines, and farmers will plough
    with Clydesdales”:

    https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/carbon-lockdown.pdf

  • spangled drongo says:

    Study: Renewable Energy does Nothing to Reduce CO2 Emissions:

    A group of high profile scientists, including Dr. Willie Soon, have published a meticulously referenced study which discuses the pros and cons of various CO2 reduction strategies.

    “Therefore, given that the global CO2 emissions from soil respiration are an order of magnitude greater than anthropogenic emissions, we suggest that the increase in biological CO2 emissions caused by wind farms warming the night-time soil temperatures could potentially be similar in magnitude to the reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the wind farms.”

    Eric’s logical main takeaway from the study is that public policy should be rational; if a government genuinely wants to reduce CO2 emissions, they should pursue policies which provide a realistic chance of achieving their stated goals, in full awareness of the likely outcomes and consequences of those policies, instead of frittering away public resources on enormously expensive energy programmes which are unlikely to achieve meaningful emissions reductions.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/14/study-renewable-energy-does-nothing-to-reduce-co2-emissions/

Leave a Reply