Greta and the Hornsby Council

By October 2, 2019Other

I had not taken much notice of the 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden, Greta Thunberg, thinking that she was simply part of the children’s crusade about climate change. Then I learned that she had given a great speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, and that the world was buzzing with it. So I thought I had better see what the buzz was about. There are various versions of it, most of them shortened. Just go to You Tube. I don’t think it matters a great deal which versions you watch: you’ll get the same message.

For those who haven’t seen it, or her, my summary is that she is an articulate girl/woman, passionate and angry. What exactly she is angry about never became quite clear to me, but it has to do with climate. She thinks that the generations older than her are responsible for it, that it is bad in itself (aspects of a warmer climate change could be most beneficial to some parts of the world, Sweden not least of such nations), and that somehow the older generations are relying on those younger to solve the problems. ‘You come to us for help,’ she declaims at one point. ‘How dare you!’ (Great applause from somewhere.) Indeed, she uses the rhetorical ‘’How dare you!’ several times, and each time she waits for the applause. For her age she is a skilled public speaker, and to speak in the General Assembly is no easy feat (I have sat in it as an audience member, fortunately without having to utter a word.) En passant, why any of us would be asking 16-year-olds to solve world problems escapes me entirely. I’m unaware that there has been any such cry.

But my general impression is that what I heard was a rant, indeed the kind of thing you might expect from a seven-year-old having a tanty, leaving the table, slamming the door and sobbing on her bed. I don’t think she knows much about science at all, and I doubt that she wrote the speech. There are so many things wrong with its content that it is pointless to start a line-by-line refutation, but one example would be her claim that for thirty years the science [which science?] has been crystal clear. That’s so easy to demolish. The whole thing is a travesty of public debate. I think she is deluded, enjoying the fame, and wondering what the next task will be. She says at the beginning of her speech that she oughtn’t to be here (the UN), but in school. I agree entirely.

There is a whole lot of stuff in the media about how Greta is being pushed by her mother, a former actress, and she has certainly been picked up by those with lots of coin. But I leave all that for those with that kind of interest. Mine is the accuracy of the content of her speech (which in my view is appallingly bad), and its possible effect on others. My guess is that she will have disappeared from public sight within twelve months. I hope so, anyway. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, here is a small story about an incident in Sydney that bears on Greta’s heart-felt appeal to somebody to do something (she doesn’t know what) about climate change.

What follows is an emailed letter that seems to have been widely circulated. So far as I can find out, it is factually accurate. I have shortened and edited it slightly. Its origin is the Australian Taxpayers’ Association. You can read an angry report from those who wanted the Council to agree that there was a climate emergency here.

‘Last Wednesday, I attended a council meeting at Hornsby shire. Up for debate was a motion that some of you might be familiar with — that the council should declare a “climate emergency” in response to the impending threats posed by climate change.

A dedicated and well-resourced lobby of green activists has been pushing for motions like these at local governments in the western world: across Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States and continental Europe.

They’ve had some success. The City of Sydney council declared a “climate emergency” earlier this year. Northern Beaches council also declared one recently. Many others have followed suit.

The room was stacked to the brim with activists in “Stop Adani” t-shirts and there wasn’t even enough space for everyone to sit.

One activist began shedding crocodile tears as she told us about how she had developed a drinking habit because of anxiety over the ‘climate emergency’. I certainly needed a drink after listening to her…

It seemed inevitable that Hornsby Shire council would become the latest to succumb to the global push. But it didn’t. The council declined to declare a climate emergency.

So what happened? A passionate band of vocal residents spoke up against the motion. They included scientists, engineers, men and women with families who believe in their community and believe in the future of this wonderful country. I was proud to stand with them.

Not one of us denied that the climate is changing, and that events like droughts and bushfires are causing our communities great distress which must be addressed. Not one of us denied that carbon dioxide has a warming effect or that human activity produces it. Not one of us were “climate science deniers”.

We spoke out because the science is not settled on the issue of “emergency”. Only 1 of the 32 models collated by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has accurately predicted the trajectory of global temperatures thus far. And it does not predict an alarmist scenario calling for rapid action or de-industrialisation within the decades to follow.

We spoke out because Hornsby Shire Council accounts for a small fraction of the already minuscule 13/1000th fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions that Australia accounts for. Anything that the council does, ostensibly at the expense of Hornsby’s ratepayers or Australian taxpayers, will make no meaningful difference to global emissions or temperatures.

We spoke out because a vague and meaningless term like “emergency” with no details is tokenistic virtue-signaling at best, and an excuse for draconian, expensive and reactionary spending programs at worst.

We spoke out because most of us wouldn’t necessarily oppose financially prudent initiatives that green the area or make it more walkable and livable. Or, even better yet, environmentally friendly ways to more cost-effectively deliver council’s core services of “roads, rates and rubbish”.

Yet these “climate emergency” motions come with no such detail.

After all, state and federal governments already throw billions a year into emissions reduction funds or subsidies for renewable energy and we don’t need to see more of that at the local government level.

But if there is one takeaway from all this, it is that the voice of the silent majority will prevail if we are not afraid to counter the vocal minority who are not afraid to speak out or to quickly mobilise into action.’

Maybe Greta will pull a counter-movement together. I hope so.

Join the discussion 193 Comments

  • Chris Warren says:

    This sort of crude attack is what I would expect from SkyNews.

    It is crude politics to seek to tag Thunberg’s presentations as:

    a rant,
    the kind of thing you might expect from a seven-year-old having a tanty, leaving the table, slamming the door and sobbing on her bed.
    a travesty of public debate.
    deluded,
    enjoying the fame,
    being pushed by her mother.

    All that is just propaganda.

    However it does seem that some activists have upset poor ol’ Hornsby Shire but, it seems, they weathered the storm.

    It is certainly not the case that:

    “Only 1 of the 32 models collated by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has accurately predicted the trajectory of global temperatures”

    Is this a deliberate lie? A denialist dogma? An innocent misunderstanding? or true scientific fact?

    Just look at the evidence;

    “While some models projected less warming than we’ve experienced and some projected more, all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not too far off from what actually occurred, particularly when differences in assumed future emissions are taken into account.” [ http://www.tinyurl.com/models-perform ]

    and;

    http://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Just look at the evidence”:

      So many qualified people, even NASA, are waking up to model fakery;

      Professors Furfari and Masson write: “The climate system, and the way IPCC represents it, is highly sensitive to tiny changes in the value of parameters or initial conditions and these must be known with high accuracy. But this is not the case.”

      “This puts serious doubt on whatever conclusion that could be drawn from model projections,” the two professors write.

      https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/30/two-european-professors-ipcc-climate-modeling-methodology-opens-door-to-fake-conclusions-manipulations/

      Also:

      “We are at the best of mankind’s time in many ways.”

      Petteri Taalas, Chief UN Climate Scientist calls the climate crisis carrative “Religious Extremism”:

      “IPCC reports are read like the Holy Book, where certain sentences are sought to justify their own extreme position. It has the features of religious extremism ….This world will not end…. We are at the best of mankind’s time in many ways.”

      Petteri Taalas: Climate change is not yet out of control, but the debate is – “It has the features of religious extremism.”

    • Aynsley Kellow says:

      Chris, you do yourself no favours with you constant use of the term ‘denialist’. This term was introduced c2001 by critics of Lomborg who quite deliberately likened him to a Holocaust denier, and was then picked up by climate activists who wanted something more pejorative than ‘sceptic’ – realising that scepticism was, in fact, central to the scientific method.
      I – and I am sure many others – simply dismiss the arguments of those who descend to such tactics, because it suggests that even you consider them weak enough that they need bolstering with cheap and offensive ad hominem rhetorical devices.
      Try polite engagement, using reason and evidence – and people might then pat attention to your arguments.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Aynsley Kellow

        The relevance of the term denialist was discussed sometime ago using references in the scientific literature.

        As you say denialists will. “simply dismiss the arguments of those who descend to such tactics” and your faux objection to “cheap and offensive ad hominem rhetorical devices.” is best directed to those who bolster their non-argument with, for example;

        rant,
        the kind of thing you might expect from a seven-year-old having a tanty, leaving the table, slamming the door and sobbing on her bed.
        a travesty of public debate.
        deluded,
        enjoying the fame,
        being pushed by her mother.

        not to add the usual spleen we get from Neville.

        Acres and mountains of evidence has been posted in the past so I take your point as to:

        “Try polite engagement, using reason and evidence ” as simply naive. Remember too, denialists always get paid back in their own coin.

        • Aynsley Kellow says:

          As noted previously, you confuse the various kinds of propositions. Go read Alfred Ayer’s Language, Truth and Logic. He sets out four kinds of propositions: synthetic (empirical, or propositions that are falsifiable); analytic (those that are true by definition – eg 2+2=4); ethical (those that make statements about right and wrong); metaphysical (statements about god, the afterlife, etc that are not subject to falsification).
          Your use of the term ‘denialist’ is an ethical proposition that cannot be justified by any number of of paper in the scientific literature, which deals (or should) with examining synthetic (or sometimes analytic) propositions.
          The use of the term by the likes of Cook, Lewandowsky, Mann, etc does not change this one iota. It is, in fact, a sad reflection on the current state of scientific journals that they allow such language – but then all three of those I name believe that consensus (the fallacy of argumentum ad populum) is a good way to establish scientific truth, so that is where we have descended to.
          Unfortunately, the term was infused other areas of science, such as public health, where Professor Michael Siegel has rightly pointed out:
          ‘‘Diethelm and McKee have endangered the integrity of public health by comparing those who challenge the conclusion that secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer with those who deny the Holocaust. . . .This perspective brands hundreds of reputable scientists throughout the world as denialists, no different from Holocaust deniers.’
          He adds:
          ‘To argue that those who fail to conclude that the small relative risk for lung cancer of 1.3 among persons exposed to secondhand smoke is indicative of a causal connection are comparable to Holocaust deniers is to turn public health into a religion, where the doctrines must be accepted on blind faith to avoid being branded as a heretic.
          ‘While I personally believe the evidence is sufficient to conclude that secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer, there are a considerable number of reputable scientists who have come to different conclusions. While I believe those scientists are wrong, I would never argue that they are denialists, nor would I ever compare their dissent with Holocaust denial.
          That is in the scientific literature – and it is a strong argument why it is wrong to use the term as you do – morally wrong!

          • Chris Warren says:

            Aynsley Kellow

            It is not possible to impose your view as to the term ‘denialist’ on everyone, particularly as thishas been discussed before and the real issue is climate change .

            Your statement:

            “…but then all three of those I name believe that consensus is a good way to establish scientific truth,”

            Scientists do not use consensus to establish scientific truths – the consensus comes subsequently, as a “consensus” after a scientific hypothesis has been tested by a preponderant number of authoritative peers.

            Any consensus can always be subject to new science, but the science has to have the same quality as the original view. This also means any established authoritative consensus easily withstands the libels and slanders hurled its way by the many denialists that infest the blogosphere.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          “The relevance of the term denialist was discussed sometime ago using references in the scientific literature.”

          Written by alarmists? Pal reviewed? Published in well known alarmist journals???!!!

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          “Remember too, denialists always get paid back in their own coin.”

          And so also will alarmists be paid back!!!

    • Aert Driessen says:

      Chris, you give great weight to temperature increases in the period 1960 to 2016 to support IPCC models. I can produce temperature-increasing trends at will simply by selecting an appropriate starting point. Nothing in the universe goes up all the time. Everything that goes up will, in the long term come down again. Right now, on a long term trend basis (say 20,000 years) we are in a cooling trend.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Aert Driessen

        I do not remember giving great weight to temperature increases in the period 1960 to 2016 to support IPCC models.

        The normal method is either use all of the data, or select a range of 30 years.

        I do not use IPCC models as there is now no need.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          “I do not use IPCC models as there is now no need.”

          Yet you continue to defend those models ferociously???!!!

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      “While some models projected less warming than we’ve experienced and some projected more, all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not too far off from what actually occurred, particularly when differences in assumed future emissions are taken into account.” [ http://www.tinyurl.com/models-perform ]”

      Is this a deliberate lie? Alarmist dogma? An innocent misunderstanding? or true scientific fact?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Thanks Don, for a great summary of the current Climate Craziness that so many of the determined doomsday dills are promoting.

    It is to be hoped [and I fully believe] that the silent majority are becoming more and more aware that the mad mob are at the gates and it’s time to close and lock them.

    I feel their actions of shutting down the debate and brainwashing the kiddies are working against them.

    Rationality is taking over:

  • Neville says:

    A very good summary Don on the Greta girl and her handlers. Let’s hope that people do stand up to these extremists.
    Here’s what I said a few days ago with the link to Lomborg’s response to Greta.

    Lomborg replies to poor Greta’s ignorant tirade at the UN and elsewhere.
    Without the sanity from these enlightened people we would be as stupid and dangerous as Gore, Flannery and Mann etc.
    After all fossil fuels have lifted an extra 1 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years. Just check the data I’ve linked to recently and 100s of new coal stns to be built in the developing world.
    Even China has seen a huge increase in life expectancy over the last 40 years and they now generate 66.7% of their total energy from coal alone. Think it through.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-on-climate-change-humanity-is-not-evil/

  • Aynsley Kellow says:

    There is a very good account of the campaign behind Greta – and, coincidentally, the movement to declare a ‘climate emergency’ written well before her UN speech at:
    https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/june-2019/gretas-very-corporate-childrens-crusade/
    This is not a spontaneous event, but one the has been very carefully staged, and the stagers include our old friend the Club of Rome.
    It is entirely proper to call out the numerous errors Greta parrots. Her selection was an entirely deliberate strategy, so that her critics could be excoriated for daring to criticise a child, and those who selected her and this strategy are those who are deserving of opprobrium.

    • Aynsley Kellow says:

      I should add that the real hero, the inspiring girl we should all fete, has to be Malala – who was shot simply for wanting to do what Greta turns her back on.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      I too, read a report that Greta is backed by a cabal of wealthy and well-connected Swedish businessmen. One is inclined to wonder how it was that a schoolgirl ‘happened’ to be offered a free trip across the Atlantic on a racing yacht owned by Pierre Casiraghi, a prince of Monaco. Not someone likely to be chatting with a psychologically compromised child outside her school. And before the rants start, she admits to a range of such disorders, that only in the mind of a disturbed child would be thought to be ‘superpowers’.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Maybe the Koch Brothers declined her request???

        You cannot travel to UN using pocket-money.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          Which raises the question – why was she travelling to the UN at all? I have no respect for the organisation, but it is not normal for it to permit noisy and truculent children to address its members.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Yes – and that is why the UN was not addressed by a noisy, truculent child, despite the imputations from noisy truculent denialists on various blogs.

          • Bryan Roberts says:

            “How dare you”
            truc·u·lent
            adj.
            1. Disposed or eager to fight or engage in hostile opposition; belligerent.
            2. Showing or expressing bitter opposition or hostility; aggressively defiant: a truculent speech against the new government; a truculent glance.
            3. Disposed to violence; ferocious or cruel.

            Maybe a refresher course in English comprehension?

    • Chris Warren says:

      So it was all a conspiracy????

      Take off your tin hat.

  • spangled drongo says:

    We can only hope that climate alarmism is a genetically-inherited trait. That way it will be bred out of us in no time and the global “temperature” will reduce quite quickly :

    “Convinced that people are the problem, in all our forms, abortion is now emerging as a “solution” to climate change. Prince Harry recently said he and his celebrity wife would only have two children because of climate concerns.

    “British musician Blythe Pepino founded “BirthStrike” because of her fears for the environment, even though she told CNN, “I really want a kid … I am in a position to be an activist. It’s a stronger calling than motherhood, even though I still mourn the idea.”

    “Speaking to Elle magazine, Miley Cyrus said, “We’re getting handed a piece-of-shit planet, and I refuse to hand that down to my child.

    “Bernie Sanders praised the abortion lobby in the U.S. that allows the procedure through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason at all, and sometimes with taxpayer funding.

    “But worldwide abortion is the thing we really need to change the temperature, he indicated, “especially in poor countries around the world.”

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-change-radical-agendas/

    • Neville says:

      Geeezzz SD you certainly listed a trifecta of loonies who want to remain childless and the clueless Bernie Sanders as well.
      And yet our left wing dopes would hang on their every word and follow them over a cliff. And stuff up their country’s future for zero change to temp or climate or anything else.

  • Karabar says:

    The divide is becoming stronger that separates two distinct sorts of people.
    On one side of the divide are those that realise full well that the entire hoax is nothing but an illusion; the same sort of make-believe that has been conjured by magicians since the beginning of time. if there is ‘global warming’, where is it to be found in a cooling environment? If there exists a “greenhouse gas”, how can it be reconciled that there is nothing at all similar when comparing a greenhouse to a planet’s atmosphere? If all of the predictions made over the past fifty years are nonsense, why would anyone believe the ongoing IPCC nonsense?

    On the other side of the divide, the furries, the luvvies, and the greenies can only be described as ignorant, stupid, and gullible.

  • Neville says:

    This is an earlier response to Greta from the Friends of Science.

  • Aert Driessen says:

    Don, Greta is obviously not an independent thinker. I would have thought that living in Sweden, as you allude to in your post, a few degrees of warming would be a good thing.

    • spangled drongo says:

      You would think so Aert, but in actual fact she is so away with the fairies she is not aware that her Sweden is getting colder As CO2 Rises:

      “Greta Thunberg has been warning the world about the dangerous warming consequences of the modern rise in CO2 concentrations.

      “And yet despite CO2 levels rising from 260 ppm to 410 ppm since the Early Holocene, the country where she resides has continued to record nearly the coldest temperatures of the last 9000 years.

      “For example, permafrost that exists today in northern Sweden wasn’t present just a few hundred years ago, as the region was too warm to support permafrost until recent centuries”:

      https://notrickszone.com/2019/09/26/protesting-warmth-gretas-home-sweden-is-3c-colder-today-than-nearly-all-of-the-last-9000-years/

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Greta has been diagnosed with, and admits to a number of psychological disorders, one of which is OCD. She is fixated on climate, and obviously recognises no alternative views. She is clearly working from a script, as when asked a quite reasonable question on a discussion panel, she was inarticulate, and obviously embarrassed because she could not answer. She is to be pitied, but is neither a saint nor an icon. She is a little girl, and as she said, what was done to her was wrong.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Her mother’s book. Her own words. Google. You Tube. Your own eyes.

    Wait till Melbourne Cup day, when the bet may pay off.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Chris, my points were self-evident facts. She has no knowledge of science, climate or otherwise. She has no life experience, but apparently a number of important high level connections. She was ‘invited’ to address the UN, and ‘sailed’ across the Atlantic to avoid carbon emissions despite the fact that almost the entire crew had to be flown back to Europe! As a (presumably former) research officer, what conclusions can you draw from that?

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    The whole charade was a political stunt, that achieved nothing, but damaged, possibly irreparably, a vulnerable and impressionable young girl.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Chris,

    You object to my calling Ms Thunberg’s speech a ‘rant’. Yet the dictionaries agree with me. One says that to rant is ‘to speak or shout at length in an angry, impassioned way’. That seems an accurate description of the speech to me. How would you describe it? The tone and the ‘How Dare You!’ expostulations do indeed remind me of small children having a tantrum. Have you not experienced temper tantrums from young people? What would your reaction be to a 16 year-old saying ‘How Dare You?’ to you, especially when it is plain to you that she doesn’t really know what she is talking about? The other things you complain about are my opinions, based on what I saw and heard. You are certainly entitled to your own. I did not say that she was being pushed by her mother, only that others have argued that way. I said I was much more interested in the content, if indeed there is much, of her speech.

    On another thread you have objected to my saying that I have no time for Michael E. Mann, as though this was was somehow a blow below the belt. Not at all. I think there is ample evidence that he is and remains a poor scientist given to exaggeration, poor argument, misuse of data, and so on. There is abundant evidence to support such an opinion. Of course, if you have good, strong contrary evidence now would be a good time to provide it to the world.

    And all this coming from you, the one who calls those with whom he disagrees ‘denialists’! Perhaps you could provide readers with a straightforward summary of the Thunberg speech that is based on facts, evidence and good argument to be found in what she said. Such attributes are hard to find in her little rant, but I’m sure you’ll do your best.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Don

      Greta’s speech was “angry and impassioned”. But the word “rant”, in usage, has other additional connotations which you were seeking to imply.

      Why would anyone say of Greta; “she doesn’t really know what she is talking about? ” This is false – she does know what she is talking about.

      You seem to be continuing a campaign against Mann. There are claims that: “there is ample evidence that he is and remains a poor scientist given to exaggeration, poor argument, misuse of data, and so on. ” but as you know such claims only come from denialists and are mostly subjective slanders spread in bad faith.

      The claim which can be tested objectively was the overused canard of; “misuse of data”. But you know Mann’s work was formally reviewed and he was completely cleared of this precise provocation.

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientist-michael-mann

      Any misuse of data, by anyone, can be addressed and fixed.

      The facts of climate change and global warming are now so well known that all that others can do is launch all manner of ad hominem attacks without ever providing any sort of alternative scientific explanation for modern GHG, ice melt, sea level and air, land and water temperature trends.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        “Greta’s speech was “angry and impassioned”. But the word “rant”, in usage, has other additional connotations which you were seeking to imply.”

        As does the word “denialist”, your favoured ad hom when you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion.

        Perhaps a glance in the mirror might help you??

      • Don Aitkin says:

        Chris,

        It is almost pointless to argue with you, because you seem to have no real sense of what is meant by discussion or debate. Nonetheless I continue, simply to point out the sort of devices you use which readers can correctly object to.

        1. You write: ‘the word “rant”, in usage, has other additional connotations which you [meaning me, DA] were seeking to imply.’ How do you know what I was seeking to imply? How could you possibly know? And what ‘additional connotations’ do you have in mind? What the dictionaries say is surely enough.

        2. What is the evidence that Greta knows what she is talking about? The speech contains very little factual information at all, and she herself says that she has no idea what the solutions to her imagined problem are. What evidence can you point to?

        3. You have not offered any summary of the speech yourself, and I defy you to formulate one that actually makes sense and is based on good scientific data drawn from her speech.

        We will leave the odious Michael Mann for another occasion, when you will be able to show readers how his work actually does stand up to real scrutiny. I don’t think it does at all, and again, I defy you to show readers why his graph in AR3 is actually really true, and that his upside down data are really OK, his tree rings make a good sample, and so on.

        You’re good at trashing others as ‘denialists’. How about showing that you know what you are talking about on something like the Thunberg speech?

        • Chris Warren says:

          Don

          The connotations are typically negative – depending on context also means, uncontrolled, speaking nonsense, confused or making silly statements.

          All this is clear here:

          https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rant

          Greta’s speech was not intended to be a scientific justification and no other speaker took on this task. This was not the context of the UN Summit.

          So it is unfair to try to gain traction from this point.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            And how do you know that that I had those connotations in mind? You are not a sage or a mind-reader. There is no warrant for your assuming that the the words you used are what I had in mind. Indeed, it is presumptuous for you to do so.

            If she was not there to make a serious point based on science, what on earth was she doing there at all? And what sense do you gain from her speech?

            Really, you should leave this sort of disputation to others. You do not engage in it properly or effectively.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Don

            You are sophisticated enough that you are aware of the role of word choice. However I note that there is a fair bit of copying – one denialist after another, as the same rant accusation appeared in a recent Letter in the Canberra Times and internationally for example by Jeremy Clarkson. So they are all getting on the same song-sheet of ad hominem attacks on Greta Thunburg.

            António Guterres (UN Sec. General) made it clear that the purpose of the UN Summit of world leaders was to announce action against climate science. Jacinda Ardern acquitted herself well announcing that NZ was banning all future fossil fuel exploration. It was not an occasion for going through all the science which has been expounded elsewhere at great length.

            Mann’s TAR graph (2001) has been 100% confirmed by PAGES 2k Consortium data (2013) as shown here:

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-1193px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg

            PAGES found the same hockey stick at figure 4 as published in Nature at:

            http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ngeo1797

            So it would seem that Mann should feel quite proud of himself.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            “Mann’s TAR graph (2001) has been 100% confirmed by PAGES 2k Consortium data (2013) as shown here:

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-1193px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg

            PAGES found the same hockey stick at figure 4 as published in Nature at:

            http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ngeo1797

            So it would seem that Mann should feel quite proud of himself.”

            Alarmists of a feather stick together.

            Or to use an old army expression, “Like sh1t to a blanket”.

  • John Stankevicius says:

    I was talking to a physicist last Saturday, and they said that ice under sea melting could increase sea levels but not ice above s a level. Could some one please explain

  • Neville says:

    Dr Nakamura’s new book ( “Confessions of a Climate Scientist”) is available in Kindle version online. His criticism of climate models is well accepted by most scientists in the field but will come as a surprise to most clueless journos, pollies and most of the general public.
    Here is a summary from Dr Nakamura at the Fabius Maximus website.
    Perhaps Greta and her handlers should buy a copy, then read it and learn something?

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/10/01/confessions-of-a-climate-scientist/

  • Chris Warren says:

    Highest September in satellite record …

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    Future years will be warmer …

  • Rafe Champion says:

    Aynsley Kellow, how dare you! (bold upper case).
    Citing “Language Truth and Logic” by (expletives deleted) Freddy (expletive) Ayer!!
    He is the cad and bounder who spread the word in the English-speaking world that Popper’s demarcation criterion was about meaning when it was really about good science.
    Misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Popper underpin most of the muddles and maladies of methodology that mislead many scientists about the way to do good science. Refer to Richard Feynman, the foremost exponent of Popperian practice after Einstein.

    • Aynsley Kellow says:

      Rafe, smiley emoji, you know full well I’m with Popper on scientific method. But Ayer provides a clear basis for pointing out Chris Warren’s conflation of empirical propositions and ethical ones. Perhaps I might throw GE Moore’s Principia Ethica at him, because he he certainly confuses his ‘is’ and his ‘ought’. Not that I will engage with him any further – as Don observes, he really has no idea about the niceties of argument.
      Trust you are well!

  • Aert Driessen says:

    This clip is very relevant to Don’s theme and my initial comment to Chris on cherry-picking data. Unfortunately I didn’t have the computing wherewithal to copy the link ‘live’ so you will have to key it in. Chris, I invite you to watch it and then post your comment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=8455KEDitpU

  • Chris Warren says:

    Aert Driessen

    All these petty arguments are misguided. Context is everything.

    Measuring US wildfire acres from 1930’s to post 60’s is difficult as there has been massive deforestation from the 1930’s as population increased and (in Australia) various soldier-settlement schemes were rolled out.

    You cannot compare sea ice “extent” with sea ice extent “anomaly” which is what is done here.

    https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU?t=212

    compared to;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=8455KEDitpU

    It may well be possible to find a location in the United States where days over 95 are falling, but this specific location was not mentioned in the document under examination. I wonder why this location was chosen and how many alternatives were passed-over to find this case. If you look t a BOM map of temperature trends you will find some small isolated areas with falling temps.

    In general the 1930-40’s were warm and the highest temp in Sydney is still in the 1930’s and you can find sites in Australia where maximums from decades past have not been exceeded.

    So there are a lot of tricks in this video and the author has taken a lot of effort to construct this. If I used the max. temp. data for Oodnadatta or Birdsville I too could prove the the globe was cooling.

    In general I see no problem in seeking to find a climate change signal in periods over 30 years, and I know that matching data further back needs a lot of careful understanding due to different populations, environmental impacts and measurement standards.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Perhaps our blith could get some facts on climate change from this;

    The latest mean sea level at Ft Denison has gone down another 68 mm in 2 months.

    It is now 121 mm LOWER than it was at the first BoM recording in May 1914.

    This is a stilling-pond adjacent to the broadest piece of ocean in the world and if there is no sea level rise here in over a century, how does he calculate there can be any sort of climate emergency?

    http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

  • spangled drongo says:

    The Greens admit that all our problems can be solved with a dose of China-style dictatorship:

    “For the perceived destruction of the planet, angry teenage activist Greta Thunberg puts the blame on economic growth and capitalism. Yet she doesn’t talk much about any alternative system that could provide for our needs.

    “The question arises: Is it even possible for human society to progress without economic growth?”

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/10/01/german-public-television-editor-green-party-leader-calling-for-a-little-dictatorship-to-solve-the-climate-crisis/

  • Boambee John says:

    “Chris Warren
    October 2, 2019 at 6:32 pm
    What book?”

    This is typical of the evidence free ranting which has comprised your posts on this thread.

    Since a simple booko search seems to be beyond your apparently limited research skills, Saint Greta’s book is “No One is Too Small to Make a Difference”. It comes in several languages, including English. If you think it was her unassisted work, I have a bridge to sell you.

    Now, crybaby, rather than mindlessly defending someone of whom you seem to know little (apart from the, to you, important point that she is a fellow hysterical alarmist), perhaps you might make an effort to engage in reasoned debate?

  • John Stankevicius says:

    Thanks Bryan – no understood what she said and not drunk- unfortunately the game restarted with Harry Himmelberg getting a kick and her ex shouting – “ there’s my boyfriend – he has nice hair”

  • Neville says:

    Poland refuses to sign up to the EU madness and will continue to rely on their own base-load coal for the foreseeable future.
    Just imagine relying on the tender mercies of Russia/Putin for your future energy needs.
    But this courageous leadership is very uncommon among other EU countries and nobody seems to understand the clueless German folly of changing to Ruinables over many decades.
    IOW just a complete waste of time and at extreme cost to their economy and ZERO change to temp or climate by 2040 or 2100 or …..

    https://www.thegwpf.com/poland-defies-eu-by-vowing-to-stick-to-coal/

  • Neville says:

    The GWPF’s new study of UK climate over the last 120 years shows little change in most of the important areas like rainfall, SLR, extreme weather events, etc.
    Why would any sensible country ever declare a state of emergency when clearly no emergency exists?
    Just more tens of billions $ wasted for a guaranteed ZERO change and at the end you have a much more fragile, super expensive electricity grid. What a con, what a fra-d.
    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/10/UKClimate2018web.pdf

  • Neville says:

    Dr Roger Pielke jnr calls nonsense on the DEM ZERO emissions by 2050 donkeys running for President in 2020.
    He calculates if the US started today they would need to build a new Nuclear plant every day until 2050.
    Or alternatively build 1500 new wind generators a day until 2050. So clearly mission impossible and they should save those endless tens of trillions $ and concentrate on adaptation and new R&D for new ways to meet their future energy needs.
    Meanwhile the developing world will be building new coal stns for their future energy needs for a long time.
    But will the DEM’s donkeys and their voters wake up anytime soon?Don’t bet on it.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/02/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/

  • Chris Warren says:

    The heat is on ….

    “The September mean maximum temperature was the warmest on record for Western Australia,…”

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml

  • spangled drongo says:

    We know about the adjustocene, blith.

    Check something they can’t adjust [or at least they haven’t to my knowledge yet] and use your tiny brain to extrapolate:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

  • Neville says:

    Now the imbeciles are telling us to eat babies to save the planet. This loony fan thinks AOC is wonderful, but eating dead people and bombing Russia still won’t be enough.
    There’s just too many people in the world.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/03/aoc-follower-goes-berserk-in-town-hall-claims-we-have-to-eat-babies-to-survive-climate-change/

    • Boambee John says:

      Some Swedish “scientist” apparently suggested recently that we might have to resort to cannibalism because “climate change”!

      Google it if interested. Still, it could help Chris with his population stabilisation or reduction program!

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      That video has all the marks of a deliberate provocation, and to even suggest it is relevant to the climate change movement, is obnoxious in the extreme.

      • Boambee John says:

        In your own coin.

      • Boambee John says:

        To be fair, he is a “behavioural” scientist, not a real one. But possibly a step up from a climate “scientist”!

        “While talking about the Gastro Summit focused on “food on the future” on Swedish TV, the behavioral scientist and marketing strategist Magnus Söderlund from the Stockholm School of Economics proposed that in order to truly take on the effects of climate change, we must “awake the idea” that eating human flesh should be discussed as an option in the future.

        Söderlund used his tv interview on the State Swedish Television channel TV4 to give a powerpoint presentation entitled “Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh?” It included such topics as “Is Cannibalism the solution to food sustainability in the future?” and “Are we humans too selfish to live sustainably?””

        • Chris Warren says:

          Be very clear this is all a deliberate lie being spread by the lowest form of denialism as a tactic when they have no other means.

          “Magnus Söderlund did not propose or advocate cannibalism as a solution to climate change during a Sept. 3 interview on the Swedish television channel TV4. Rather, he explained that his research into the issue was intended to provoke thought and gauge where audiences would “draw the line” in their willingness to consume various kinds of meat. ” [ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/swedish-scientist-cannibalism/ ]

          Anyone spreading this nonsense is just a trouble maker.

          Anyone with integrity would retract.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Ah, yes, Snopes!!!

            That would be the “fact checking” group that “fact checks” the Babylon Bee, a well known satirical site?

            Your own coin, Chris.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The way the universities are stopping FOS so as to promote their groupthink is not just confined to JCU and the Peter Ridd affair.

    It’s no wonder little Greta is so brainwashed.

    What absolute desperate hypocrites they are:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/02/the-university-of-washington-should-not-censor-faculty-social-media/

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    I doubt we will hear much more from young Greta. If the world is ending,, she has nothing more to say, and I also doubt journalists will cover her ’emission-free’ return to Sweden.

  • Neville says:

    Dr Spencer has provided this update for Sept 2019 temp data. It seems a record stratospheric warming over Antarctica has caused the higher LT warming.
    No need to panic or confusion and certainly no need for any misunderstanding about more extreme nightmares of co2 driven hell etc.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/10/record-antarctic-stratospheric-warming-causes-sept-2019-global-temperature-update-confusion/#comments

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Just random thoughts.

    Who paid for Greta’s food on the yacht? There were no photos of her fishing.

    Where did she stay in New York, and who paid for it? She is a minor, so someone else did. Who?

    Who is looking after her, funding her subsequent travels, and return to Sweden?

    The old reliable : follow the money.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Bryan, the ACT has just legalised cannabis.

    Regular use of cannabis doubles the risk of psychotic symptoms ­including schizophrenia and is closely associated with anxiety disorders, depression and ­psychosis.

  • Chris Warren says:

    The heat is on…

    ANOTHER HEAT RECORD BREECHED

    https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-world-just-had-another-month-of-record-heat-1838771974?IR=T

    “What makes the records stand out all the more is the absence of El Niño, a natural climate pattern marked by warm waters in the eastern Pacific. It tends to boost the global average temperature. The previous June, July, and September records all came in 2016, the year of a Super El Niño that roasted the eastern Pacific and upped the global average temperature to previously unseen levels. That the new spate of records are happening without a natural assist only underscores how much carbon pollution is changing our climate.”

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Chris, I am sick of your nonsense. If you believe you are in a debate, then you are obliged to rebut, refute, or otherwise discredit your opponents arguments. You fail on all counts.

    • Boambee John says:

      Bryan

      Chris specialises in hysteria, lies, slander, and demanding that others answer his questions, while ignoring those asked of him.

      They are his good points.

      He was getting hysterical a few days back about the latest IPCC report on the oceans and cryosphere. I suspect that he read the press release and the summary for policymakers only. Had he read the full report, he would have found it riddled with caveats and uncertainties that did not appear in the propaganda for the hysterics. It is not a sound basis for any action other than sensible “no regrets” changes.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    BJ, Yes, Chris reads the headlines. No-one sane believes humans can regulate the climate of a planet. We can do our best to limit our impact, but that’s it. Finis

    • Boambee John says:

      Bryan

      Some extracts.

      “3.3 Acceleration of ice flow and retreat in Antarctica, which has the potential to lead to sea-level rise of several metres within a few centuries, is observed in the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica and in Wilkes Land, East Antarctica (very high confidence). These changes may be the onset of an irreversible ice sheet instability. Uncertainty related to the onset of ice sheet instability arises from limited observations, inadequate model representation of ice sheet processes, and limited understanding of the complex interactions between the atmosphere, ocean and the ice sheet. {3.3.1, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3, 4.2.3} (SROCC, 24 September, 2019)

      From Chapter 1 of the SROCC Final Draft (pages 41 to 48):

      In some cases, deep uncertainty may exist in current scientific assessments of the processes, rate, timing, magnitude, and consequences of future ocean and cryosphere changes. This includes physically plausible high-impact changes, such as high-end sea level rise scenarios.

      Existing guidelines to ensure consistent treatment of uncertainties by IPCC author teams (Mastrandrea et al., 2010; Section 1.9.2) may not be sufficient to ensure the desired consistency or guide robust findings when conditions of deep uncertainty are present (Adler and HirschHadorn, 2014). The IPCC, and earlier assessments, encountered deep uncertainty when evaluating numerous aspects of the climate change problem.

      Deep Uncertainty – Case B —Antarctic ice sheet and sea level rise: Dynamical ice loss from Antarctica provides an example of lack of knowledge about processes, and disagreement about appropriate models and probability distributions for representing uncertainty. However, the magnitude of additional rise beyond 2100, and the probability of greater sea level rise than that included in the likely range before 2100, are characterised by deep uncertainty (Section 4.2.3).

      Overturning circulation in the Southern Ocean is a key factor that controls heat and carbon exchanges with the atmosphere, and hence global climate, however there are no direct measures of this and only sparse indirect indicators of how it may be changing. This is a critical weakness in sustained observations of the global ocean. (SROCC, Final draft, chapter 3, section 3.7, Key Knowledge Gaps and Uncertainties, 2019)

      Snow depth on sea ice is essentially unmeasured, limiting mass balance estimates and ice thickness retrievals. Improved mechanistic understanding of the observed changes and trends in Antarctic sea ice is required, notably the decadal increase and very recent rapid retreat. This has consequences for climate, ecosystems and fisheries; however, lack of understanding and poor model performance translates to very limited predictive skill.

      There is a need to better understand the evolution of polar glaciers and ice sheets, and their influences on global sea level. Longer and improved quantifications of their changes are required, especially where mass losses are greatest, and (relatedly) better attribution of natural versus anthropogenic drivers. Better understanding of the sensitivity of Antarctica to marine ice sheet instability is required, and whether recent changes in West Antarctica represent the onset of irreversible change.”

      However, there is a sting in the tail, for those who deny that there is any political objective corrupting a pure scientific endeavour to save the world.

      “This assessment of the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate reveals the benefits of ambitious mitigation and effective adaptation for sustainable development and, conversely, the escalating costs and risks of delayed action. The potential to chart Climate Resilient Development Pathways varies within and among ocean, high mountain and polar land regions. Realising this potential depends on transformative change. This highlights the urgency of prioritising timely, ambitious, coordinated and enduring action.”

      “Sustainable development” is, of course, the hint that the whole farrago is all about the UN’s Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals. As variius UN, EU and World Bank lunimaries have let slip from time to time.

    • Boambee John says:

      Bryan

      Some extracts via Quadrant On-Line.

      “3.3 Acceleration of ice flow and retreat in Antarctica, which has the potential to lead to sea-level rise of several metres within a few centuries, is observed in the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica and in Wilkes Land, East Antarctica (very high confidence). These changes may be the onset of an irreversible ice sheet instability. Uncertainty related to the onset of ice sheet instability arises from limited observations, inadequate model representation of ice sheet processes, and limited understanding of the complex interactions between the atmosphere, ocean and the ice sheet. {3.3.1, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3, 4.2.3} (SROCC, 24 September, 2019)

      From Chapter 1 of the SROCC Final Draft (pages 41 to 48):

      In some cases, deep uncertainty may exist in current scientific assessments of the processes, rate, timing, magnitude, and consequences of future ocean and cryosphere changes. This includes physically plausible high-impact changes, such as high-end sea level rise scenarios.

      Existing guidelines to ensure consistent treatment of uncertainties by IPCC author teams (Mastrandrea et al., 2010; Section 1.9.2) may not be sufficient to ensure the desired consistency or guide robust findings when conditions of deep uncertainty are present (Adler and HirschHadorn, 2014). The IPCC, and earlier assessments, encountered deep uncertainty when evaluating numerous aspects of the climate change problem.

      Deep Uncertainty – Case B —Antarctic ice sheet and sea level rise: Dynamical ice loss from Antarctica provides an example of lack of knowledge about processes, and disagreement about appropriate models and probability distributions for representing uncertainty. However, the magnitude of additional rise beyond 2100, and the probability of greater sea level rise than that included in the likely range before 2100, are characterised by deep uncertainty (Section 4.2.3).

      Overturning circulation in the Southern Ocean is a key factor that controls heat and carbon exchanges with the atmosphere, and hence global climate, however there are no direct measures of this and only sparse indirect indicators of how it may be changing. This is a critical weakness in sustained observations of the global ocean. (SROCC, Final draft, chapter 3, section 3.7, Key Knowledge Gaps and Uncertainties, 2019)

      Snow depth on sea ice is essentially unmeasured, limiting mass balance estimates and ice thickness retrievals. Improved mechanistic understanding of the observed changes and trends in Antarctic sea ice is required, notably the decadal increase and very recent rapid retreat. This has consequences for climate, ecosystems and fisheries; however, lack of understanding and poor model performance translates to very limited predictive skill.

      There is a need to better understand the evolution of polar glaciers and ice sheets, and their influences on global sea level. Longer and improved quantifications of their changes are required, especially where mass losses are greatest, and (relatedly) better attribution of natural versus anthropogenic drivers. Better understanding of the sensitivity of Antarctica to marine ice sheet instability is required, and whether recent changes in West Antarctica represent the onset of irreversible change.”

      However, there is a sting in the tail, for those who deny that there is any political objective corrupting a pure scientific endeavour to save the world.

      “This assessment of the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate reveals the benefits of ambitious mitigation and effective adaptation for sustainable development and, conversely, the escalating costs and risks of delayed action. The potential to chart Climate Resilient Development Pathways varies within and among ocean, high mountain and polar land regions. Realising this potential depends on transformative change. This highlights the urgency of prioritising timely, ambitious, coordinated and enduring action.”

      “Sustainable development” is, of course, the hint that the whole farrago is all about the UN’s Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals. As variius UN, EU and World Bank lunimaries have let slip from time to time.

  • Boambee John says:

    Sorry about the double post, needed to add attribution.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    I should add, no rational adults are going to run their lives according to the dictates of a mentally disturbed, hysterical, teenage girl. The performance was amusing, but not persuasive. ”People are dying” … who, where, and why? An outright lie. Caught in such an obvious fabrication, who would believe the rest of her nonsense? Only people like our Chris.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s more on those fra-dulent EVs that our donkeys told us would change our world.
    This Canberra EV owner bought his Nissan Leaf new ( $53,000+) in 2012 and it’s been downhill ever since.
    Just 7 years later he is trapped because his car is now worth just $12,000 and a new battery will cost him $33,000+.
    But read all about it and watch the videos at the link and perhaps even our stupid fools may start to wake up? But that’s a big ask I know.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7527339/Nissan-Leaf-owner-Phillip-Carlson-charged-33-000-new-battery-2012-electric-car.html

  • Chris Warren says:

    Bryan Roberts, Boambee John

    You seem to be sinking into unacceptable levels of slander.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      Chris, I fail to see how I have ‘slandered’ you. I asked several questions that you refused to answer. That indicates you are unwilling to engage in any form of debate, and renders your position untenable.

    • Boambee John says:

      Slander and lies as defined by Chris: anything said that challenges his world view.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Bryan Roberts

    I am always willing to engage in sensible debate and my position is entirely tenable.

    If you use terms such as “bullshit” then you will be ignored.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Incidentally, you are free to ask Don to ban me. But have the courage to do it publicly, so that people will know, after throwing around all manner of accusations, that you have a very thin skin. Good luck.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Bryan Roberts

      1) I oppose banning people
      2) Don is unlikely to listen to me.

      Is it the case when you asked your question – you already had an answer in mind, which you now distribute?

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Chris, I don’t have the time or interest to discuss the opinion of a teenager. Apart from shrieking ‘the world is ending’ she has nothing more to say, and will quickly disappear from public view.

  • Neville says:

    More data and evidence that backs up Dr Pielke’s study above 4/10 about the fra-dulent US DEMs 100% renewables target by 2050.
    But why are the liars in the MSM telling us exactly the opposite? Of course none of this will change co2 levels,the climate or temp by 2050 or 2100 or ….

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/05/democrats-deliberately-conceal-global-energy-co2-emissions-realities-from-the-public/

  • Chris Warren says:

    Ah! So these are the tricks Rightwing nutters will pull to falsify facts …. This is all in the style of other deliberate falsified provocations – “Reichstag fire” , “Gulf of Tonkin” or “Operation Northwoods”.

    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/pro-trump-group-behind-aoc-protester-calling-to-eat-babies-2019-10?fbclid=IwAR2tI2xcLYWsB4BlNftK-g80AIZ_8CjBel4Q7LPmMmCaippwkeAMnyU1Zbc&r=US&IR=T

    You can track the “eat babies” trope all through climate denialists blogs and sites.

    They all live in a fantasy world of their own creation.

    • Boambee John says:

      Utterly appalling that someone should use the alarmists’ style of scare tactics against them.

      But it does show some historical literacy, with an echo of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”.

      PS what was the reaction of AOC’s audience? Vociferous rejection, or embarrassed silence?

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris, of course, thinks that it is perfectly acceptable for alarmists to groom a teenager with mental health problems to spread a fantasy story that the world will end by 2030, leading to despair and despondency among millions of young people.

        However, take up and exaggerate for dramatic effect a mind f@rt by a Swedish “scientist” and link.it with a literary classic is ” in the style of other deliberate falsified provocations”.

        Chris is a bit of a humourless p0-faced moron.

        • Boambee John says:

          Still, Chris has abandoned his “alarmists vs sceptics” theme, and now acknowledges that he is pushing a left wing political agenda. Guterres would be pleased with him!

  • Neville says:

    Here Lomborg quotes the IPCC to try and expose the fanatic’s claims about droughts, floods, cyclones etc. Here’s part of his message referring to the IPCC.

    “For example, we are constantly told that climate change is to blame for an increase in extreme weather conditions such as flooding, droughts and cyclones. But the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found the evidence does not support claims that floods, droughts and cyclones are increasing.

    The scientists have said, “there is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend” in drought, a “lack of evidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale” and “no significant observed trends in global (cyclone) frequency over the past century.”

    What’s more, the scientists have found that current human-caused global warming cannot reasonably be linked to any of these extreme weather phenomenon-“globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in (cyclone) activity to human influence”, “low confidence in detection and attribution of changes in drought” and low confidence “that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and magnitude of floods”. This doesn’t mean there is no problem?just that the facts matter”.

    Here is the link.

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201909/19/WS5d82c73ea310cf3e3556c445.html

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    For those not yet bored witless by the antics of the little Swedish snow white, there is a critique by Michael Galak in a recent Quadrant (29/9).
    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/poor-ignorant-exploited-scoldilocks/

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova and the Bolter nail the Flannery BS about Aussie + world droughts becoming worse because of their so called CAGW.

    The BOM data clearly shows that Aussie droughts are not worse today and Dr Roger Pielke jnr had to school silly Obama and his so called Science adviser Holdren on this issue as well.

    Jo has a recent article on the subject and highlights the recent admission by Prof Andy Pitman that droughts are not worse today because of their CAGW fantasy. Here’s the link and also a link to Dr Pitman who has been a lead author on the IPCC reports.

    So how long must this lie persist and will our resident donkeys admit they’ve been misled on Aussie droughts?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/prof-andy-pitman-admits-droughts-are-not-worse-and-not-linked-to-climate-change/

    Here’s the UNSW link for Prof Andy Pitman, IPCC lead author etc.

    https://www.bees.unsw.edu.au/andy-pitman

  • Neville says:

    The German govt has watered down their latest climate legislation. Great news although it couldn’t have happened to a sillier mob of fools.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/german-government-waters-down-climate-bill/

    And has the Mann donkey gone one step too far in his criticism of Steve McIntyre?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/michael-mann-just-stepped-in-it/

  • Neville says:

    Here is Steve McIntyre’s talk at the Heartland conference, where he covers Mann’s HS study etc.
    What I would give to have Steve’s maths and stats skills. Even maths and stats guru Nic Lewis is a fan.

  • Neville says:

    The Ext Reb loonies will be protesting across OZ for next few days and the Bolter gives us a clue what makes them tick.
    Some are religious fanatics, but others are totalitarians, some are Marxists and others are delusional fools who really believe the world is about to end.
    That’s our modern world of 7.6+ bn people where the average life expectancy is 70+, everyone is much safer from extreme weather events, extreme poverty is dropping fast, food is much more plentiful, wealth is increasing etc.
    Watch his video and have a laugh at these dopes or wonder why/how people can become so delusional.
    These stupid people really are a complex mix of mad, bad and sad.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/extinction-rebellion-its-not-about-science-but-religion-and-marxism/news-story/2b5cb604c3370446ffa780946630f0b9

  • Ian MacCulloch says:

    The Betoota Advocate nails it:
    Greta Thunberg Speech Reminds Conservative Of Other Times Insolent Women Raised Voices At Him

    CLANCY OVERELL | Editor | CONTACT

    Local conservative voter and staunch climate skeptic, Alan Bolt (55) says he’s all for free speech – but it’s worth noting that throwing a tantrum is a sure fire way to get people off side.

    This comes as teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg captures the world’s attention in a fierce and passionate speech at the United Nations headquarters, accusing world leaders of failing to act on climate change.

    “This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean, yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you,” said the 16-year-old, her voice trembling with anger at times.

    Her speech has infuriated climate change skeptics around the world, who find themselves triggered as they are reminded of times other insolent women raised their voices at them.

    “It’s just not helpful” says the semi-retired retailer of white goods from the upper middle class Hillsong enclave of Betoota Heights.

    “She’s throwing a tantrum. Speaking into her microphone made of coal and wearing clothes made of other coal products. She’s a complete hypocrite”

    “She’s achieving nothing more than getting people offside and encouraging tens of millions of students around the world to protest in the streets every six months”

    The Swedish campaigner’s brief address electrified the start of the Climate Action Summit in New York, which she travelled to by boat to shut up the skeptics who feel that proving that she uses aeroplanes means that global warming isn’t real.

    The UN event was aimed at mobilising government and business to break international paralysis over carbon emissions, which hit record highs last year despite decades of warnings from scientists.

    However, for millions of climate change denying conservatives around the world, most who will die before the true disasters of environmental vandalism rears their heads, Greta Thunberg has only reconfirmed their views that young women should be seen and not heard.

    “There’s no use whinging and skipping school” says Alan.

    “Even if climate change is real, she isn’t achieving anything by playing the victim card” shouts Alan.

    “I never had it easy!” says Alan, who bought his first house on an apprentice wage when Aboriginal people were still considered flora and fauna by Australian law.

    “Young people need to stop complaining and finding reasons to throw their toys out of the cot”

  • Chris Warren says:

    So the denialists campaign of savage ad hominen attacks continues.

    Latest example “but it’s worth noting that throwing a tantrum is a sure fire way to get people off side…young women should be seen and not heard.. .and finding reasons to throw their toys out of the cot””

    Unfortunately Greta Thunberg’s impassioned plea has had the opposite effect. It has shifted public support towards science and against do-nothing governments.

    Try telling your teenager they “should be seen and not heard” ?!

    • Boambee John says:

      “So the denialists campaign of savage ad hominen attacks continues.”

      Thus saith the master of the ad hom, and also the greatest denier that alarmists would ever make ad hom attacks.

      Physician, heal thyself.

      And in the meantime, dry your tears crybaby. The sun will rise tomorrow.

      PS, FYI, the Beetoota Advocate specialises in satire. You might ask your friendly neighourhood fact checkers, Snopes, to fact check the satire.

  • Boambee John says:

    To demonstrate that not all young people are as silly and ill informed as St Greta of Sweden and the UN, check out the article in the Daily Telegraph by Joanne Tran, who just finished high school.

    Title is “Young People Need to Look at the Facts About the True State of the World”.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Our blith pontificates: It is all pretty obvious now …”

    Even Rachel Warren, Professor of Global Change and Environmental Biology at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, UK whose research focuses on the production of policy relevant science related to climate change and sustainability disagrees with you, blith.

    “One of the standard talking points among progressives is that the right-wing obfuscation machine will hide behind “uncertainty” in order to stall necessary action on climate change. And yet in this latest episode, the tables have turned. As Rachel Warren—a Lead Author on several important IPCC reports—and her co-authors argued in a 2018 paper, the uncertainty in our understanding keeps alive the possibility that the latest UN climate goal might pass a cost/benefit test after all.”

    https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=12951

  • Chris Warren says:

    It is all pretty obvious now….

    http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

    Oxygen only falls at this rate if the amount of carbon increases over the same period.

    They are linked – one is the inverse of the other.

    http://climatestate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/o2-oxygen-decline-co2-rise-keeling-scripps.jpg

    Presumably Oxygen falls because it takes oxygen to form CO2 and water from the carbon and hydrogen in fossil fuels.

    • Boambee John says:

      “Presumably Oxygen falls because it takes oxygen to form CO2 and water from the carbon and hydrogen in fossil fuels.”

      Top scientist is Chris. He has finally worked out that you need two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom to form one CO2 molecule!!!

      But he is not entirely convinced, it is only “presumably”!!!

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee John

        From now on I think it would be best if you simply ignored my posts, or learnt how to consider issues without infantile brain-snaps.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          Just copying you.

          In your own words, “repaid in your own currency”, which itself consists largely of “infantile brain-snaps”.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            From now on I think it would be best if you simply ignored my posts, or learnt how to consider issues without infantile brain-snaps and copying.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Just copying you.

            In your own words, “repaid in your own currency”, which itself consists largely of “infantile brain-snaps” and copying.

  • Neville says:

    Well for once I’m in full agreement with our chief donkey. Yes we should ignore him and his silly Greta cult and concentrate on the real planet Earth and leave him to his fantasies and silly religious dogma.
    Here the Bolter and ex Labor leader Mark Latham ( 8 Oct) look at actual data/evidence plus some of the latest trends and then use logic and reason to arrive at a conclusion.
    Bolt can always support his point of view with proper data and Latham has caught up quickly to become a top critic of their so called CAGW.
    Well worth 10 minutes of your time.

  • Neville says:

    Sorry here’s the Bolt, Latham video. I hope.

  • Neville says:

    Sorry again, but I doubled checked this time, yet the video I selected some how changes to another Bolt video.
    I just sent the same link to myself via email and it works fine. I’ve never encountered this before. So why does this link change to another Bolt video when I try and link it here? Strange indeed.

  • Neville Gardner says:

    Sorry, but I’ve got to test this again by linking to the Ext Reb video above.
    If this some how links to Bolt and Latham video I’ll be surprised, but I’ve got to check this out. Sorry Don.

    • Boambee John says:

      “Save the planet”, by relying on imported French nuclear power? Would you support Australia having nuclear power plants, to “save the planet”? Probably not!

  • Neville says:

    I just linked to the Bolt, Latham video at Jo Nova’s blog and it worked first time. So what’s going on? If anyone wants to watch it you can check it out over there.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a fairly recent Bolt editorial on their CAGW religion. I’ve checked this link via my email and it works OK, so here goes.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that Prof Andy Pitman GLOBAL drought link AGAIN for our slow learning donkeys to ponder. Andy is an IPCC lead author.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/prof-andy-pitman-admits-droughts-are-not-worse-and-not-linked-to-climate-change/

  • Neville says:

    Even their BBC dummies get it right occasionally. These Ext Reb loonies’ ideas have to be seen to be believed.
    How could any group of fools be so dumb?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Good video – speakers makes point that pre industrial level of CO2 (280ppm + water) meant that Earth was not frozen.

    Then indicates we have added 120 ppm CO2 whci is a sizeable proportion.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      “Good video – speakers makes point that pre industrial level of CO2 (280ppm + water) meant that Earth was not frozen.”

      This is a brilliant insight. Until you posted this link most people assumed that the pre-industrial world was frozen, and that events like the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were simply mythology!

  • Chris Warren says:

    24 facts that help confirm the science

    • Ross Handsaker says:

      According to the Global Energy Budget (used by IPCC and NASA – there are other similar energy budgets in circulation) incoming solar radiation is 341 W/m2, with 102 W/m2 reflected by the atmosphere and surface, plus a further 40 W/m2, which is radiated direct to space via the atmospheric window. This means the maximum radiation the atmosphere can absorb is: 341 less 102, less 40 equals 199 W/m2.
      However, according to the Budget the greenhouse gases convert this energy into 333 W/m2 which is radiated back to the surface. This, Chris, is the science you support, that greenhouse gases can create additional energy in the atmosphere!

      • Boambee John says:

        Ross

        Climate “science”, now offering a perpetual motion machine! Harness that extra energy, and there will be no need for power stations.

        I guess that conservation of energy is not a climate “science” principle. Rather, we have tge creation of energy from nothing.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Ross Handsaker

        It would be best if you cited exact sources for your data.

        Greenhouse gases do not create energy.

        Flows of energy from outside add or subtract from the warming trends of any mass depending on its own body heat.

        An inflow of 341 W/m2 has a different effect if the Earth is at zero, or at 10 or at 15 C.

        You need to separate the incoming flows (left hand side) from the resulting pattern after several decades of such inflows (right hand side)

        https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/users/lisagard/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2008_big.jpg

        • Ross Handsaker says:

          Chris, the web site you referred to shows net energy incoming at the surface is 161 W/m2 which is the maximum energy radiated from the surface and available for absorption by the greenhouse gases.

          It does not matter how many times this energy is circulated between the atmosphere and surface there can be no increase in overall energy unless there is additional work done.

          You can add as much insulation as you like but the temperature cannot exceed that of the source of the heat.

          As the budget shows 333 W/m2 being radiated from the atmosphere to the surface there must be another source of energy to balance the discrepancy between incoming energy and energy leaving the top of the atmosphere. Obviously, the source of this additional energy cannot be absorption of surface radiation by the atmosphere.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Yes there is another source of energy – the stored heat in the lower atmosphere. Each year there is a discrepancy and around 0.6 w/m2 is trapped. This builds up.

            As the atmosphere is not at -273 C it must be radiating heat itself. This would continue even if the sun’s input suddenly dropped to zero. It is the extra heat that is part of the system independently of the sun’s input.

            As the Royal Met. society says:

            the sum of the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere is less (239+100 W/m2) than the energy entering it (340 W/m2). The imbalance is estimated to be about 0.6 W/m2. Most of this excess energy is absorbed at the surface (mainly by the oceans), as shown by the orange box, causing the observed increase in temperatures in the lower atmosphere and oceans.

            See: https://www.metlink.org/climate/pcc-updates-science-teachers/#!prettyPhoto/-1/

    • spangled drongo says:

      “24 facts that help confirm the science”

      Sorry blith, those aren’t facts, they’re predictions.

      Just like Jimmy Hansen’s.

      And they’re WRONG!

      But when all else fails, grab a kiddie, hey?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Bad news for denialists …

    Russian scientists in the Arctic Ocean said they have discovered the most powerful methane gas fountain ever recorded, highlighting the danger of this greenhouse gas accelerating climate change or causing an oil or gas spill as it erupts from thawing permafrost.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/08/russian-scientists-find-powerful-ever-methane-seep-arctic-ocean/

  • Chris Warren says:

    Does this blow away the pretences of our denialists???

    Typhoon Hagibis, which the U.S. military’s forecasting agency has put on par with a Category 5 hurricane, is approaching Japan’s main island of Honshu after a rapid intensification in the Pacific and could make a direct pass over the Kanto region this weekend.

    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/10/09/national/typhoon-no-19-likely-hit-japan-saturday-sunday-may-become-super-typhoon/

  • Neville says:

    Here is that recent 2019 Ashcroft et al rainfall study of Melb, Syd and Adelaide ( 1840 to 2017) from Jo Nova’s site. IOW SE Australia over the last 178 years, check the graphs, abstract etc.
    Interesting to note that the most extreme rainfall events occurred well before 1900. But Sydney’s wettest year was in 1950 and driest year was 1849.
    And Prof Karoly was part of the study and of course this study shows that rainfall overall + extremes have nothing to do with increasing co2.
    Level in 1840 about 290ppm, 1950 about 312 ppm and today about 410 ppm.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/05/178-years-of-australian-rain-has-nothing-to-do-with-co2-worst-extremes-1849-1925-1950/

  • Neville says:

    Here is a recent article from Lomborg and a quote from the IPCC. This is for our resident donkey and his interest in single weather events. Like hurricanes. But rest assured this fool will never wake up.

    This just backs up what Dr Christy had to say in his recent talk at the GWPF in London. And Prof Andy Pitman has tried in vain to stop dills like Flannery creating confusion over our Aussie drought record. Here’s Lomborg plus Scientist’s quotes.

    “Adding to the polarization on the topic makes it impossible to engage in sensible policy discussion. For example, we are constantly told that climate change is to blame for an increase in extreme weather conditions such as flooding, droughts and cyclones. But the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found the evidence does not support claims that floods, droughts and cyclones are increasing.

    The scientists have said, “there is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend” in drought, a “lack of evidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale” and “no significant observed trends in global (cyclone) frequency over the past century.” Here is the link.

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201909/19/WS5d82c73ea310cf3e3556c445.html

  • Chris Warren says:

    Three strikes and you are out….

    Strike – two!

    July 2019 – hottest on record

    https://www.noaa.gov/news/july-2019-was-hottest-month-on-record-for-planet

    • Boambee John says:

      And yet, strangely, there were also extremely late snowfalls in parts of the northern hemisphere.

      Perhaps the recorded temperatures have been “homogenised”?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Three strikes and you are out….

    Strike – three!!!!

    September 2019 – hottest on record

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/10/04/earth-just-experienced-its-hottest-september-heads-record-books/

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      You are either getting desperate or you are succumbing to hysteria.

      Have a nice cup of tea, lie down, hug your security blankie, and dry your tears.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that Dr John Christy study presented to the GWPF AGAIN.
    Note no hot spot, no correlation with extreme weather events and co2 and very much healthier and wealthier world for our 7.6+ bn people today.
    Average global life expectancy today is over 70 and this is expected to increase according to UN projections.
    In 1920 the 1.8 bn global pop endured very high deaths from extreme weather events but today that has decreased by over 95%. Do the simple sums showing 1.8 bn compared to 7.6 bn today and work it out for yourself. And in just 100 years.
    But then again stupid Ext Reb nutters + their supporters are supremely dumb.

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

    • spangled drongo says:

      Just so true, Neville.

      What does Christy’s statement: “What I’ve found today is that if someone makes a claim about the climate, and someone like me falsifies that claim, rather than rejecting it, that person tends to just yell louder that their claim is right. They don’t look at what the contrary information might say”….remind you of here?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Our feverish Hot Gospeller, blith has to quote massaged and manipulated short-term records to promote his religion.

    He should just join the new Catholic Church and relax:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/vatican-may-list-green-sins-against-planet/#more-66816

    • Boambee John says:

      SD

      “short-term records”

      If those records showed record cold months, they would be “weather”. Because they claim to show record heat, they are “climate”.

  • Neville says:

    Another Prof and Greenie has looked at the data and started to wake up. Good for him.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/11/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-global-warming/

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    The latest courtesy of the ABC: “Ms Thunberg will continue touring the Americas for several months, concluding with a UN climate conference in Chile in December’.

    I have a few questions. First, who is paying for this extended holiday? It is (presumably) not the UN. If it is her parents, I have no problem with it – if it is anyone else, who and why? Second, who is travelling with her? No-one in their right mind would allow a 16 year old female to travel through a foreign country alone, let alone through South America. Third, one assumes the ‘emission-free’ yacht will not be waiting in Santiago, so how is she getting back to Sweden? Of course, Santiago has a very nice airport.

  • Ross Handsaker says:

    Chris. “Each year there is a discrepancy and around 0.6 W/m2 is trapped.” I notice the error margins in many of the radiation flows are far greater than 0.6 W/m2! This estimate of excess energy seems like a guess.

    Given the radiative gases (radiative means to emit) are good absorbers of energy they must also be good emitters of energy and therefore cannot trap heat. The atmosphere would need to be solid for heat or energy to be trapped and, if that were the case, the surface would never cool.

    The discrepancy I was referring to relates to the so-called greenhouse effect of 33C.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Ross Handsaker

      Any material, gas or solid (that is not burning itself) can only emit heat it has previously trapped.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        But can only emit some lesser amount, as the collection ans emission are not perfectly “frictionless” (to use a simplistic term).

        Perpetual motion is not possible.

  • Neville says:

    Vancouver has broken 41 COLDEST temp records over two days 9th+ 10th Oct 2019.
    This is the coldest temp recorded in 60 years and then for 123 years. But I accept this is only weather and I won’t make the same mistake as our resident donkeys.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cold-temperatures-weather-records-british-columbia-bc-1.5316498

  • Neville says:

    Here is a list of Japanese disasters over the last 200+ years and you’ll note that it is possible for loss of life to exceed 1 to 2 thousand people over that long period of reliable data.
    Even extreme weather events can kill 100s or even thousands, but fortunately so far the death toll for the latest ( cat 5?) cyclone/typhoon is just 2 people.
    Let’s hope it stays at that very low number.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters_in_Japan_by_death_toll

  • Neville says:

    Brazil has another record year for grain crops etc. Amazing with all the usual lies /hysteria we forget that the world pop has increased by about 2.3 bn people since 1990.
    Then about 5.3 bn and today 7.6+ bn people in less than 30 years. Yet everybody today is better off , live longer, are better educated, have better nutrition etc than anytime for thousands of years.
    How can these facts and data escape the understanding of certain scientists, the MSM, Pollies and the kiddies + handlers etc?
    Of course all this will suddenly end in 10, 20 or 50 years? What a CON , what a FRAUD. But the con merchants are happy to encourage and promote this nonsense to kids and weak- minded fools.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/ignore-climate-hysteria-brazil-set-to-post-record-harvest/

  • Neville says:

    Jim Steele writes another excellent article covering the so called Adele penguins + polar bears disastrous drop in populations. Just another con and fraud.
    Both are doing better than ever, contrary to the nonsense promoted by so called scientists and MSM etc.
    In fact the penguins have now returned to the cooler Antarctic peninsula as well. See BAS study about Antarctic peninsula cooling since 1998. Jim provides many links for further reading.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/12/chicken-littles-vs-adelie-penguins/

  • spangled drongo says:

    I hope Greta [and blith] are paying attention:

    • Neville says:

      Yes SD, poor Greta couldn’t be more wrong about their CAGW, but some people are happy to hurl abuse at anyone who points out these inconvenient facts.
      This will all end in a big mess, but many trillions $ will be wasted down the drain for decades for a zero return before the donkeys admit they were wrong.
      Best for us to build new coal power stns ASAP and stop wasting billions $ on ruinables like S&W and idiocy like EVs.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The temperature recorded on the shady veranda at Gundabooka Station on the banks of the Darling on the 19th Jan 1896 was 129f [54c].

    How convenient for the BoM to delete those record records:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image777_shadow.png

  • spangled drongo says:

    Rowan Dean has a good Swedish accent to convey the message:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/how-dare-you-steal-my-dreams-for-a-sensible-democracy/

  • Chris Warren says:

    Nice data – watch the denialists squirm …

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFIUWAdXkAACIFU.png

    Sea level rise – is it exponential?

  • Chris Warren says:

    How many nails is it now in the coffin of our denialists …?

  • Chris Warren says:

    This will piss-off the denialists …

    “We have plenty of water in Norway, but it can be scary if the climate change leads to a lot of drought. Last year there was a state of emergency in Oslo, and they had to introduce water saving because it was so dry. This can also lead to more expensive water in the future .”

    https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/noreg-slosar-med-vatn-_-slik-kan-du-spare-1.14735501?fbclid=IwAR2f3JAvVWQtPralR9dcMZ4kofXP5db0N2WYEhLIthEQbbH_38ibC84cOZ8

    • Boambee John says:

      Standard alarmist sleazy scare tactics. Why should this kind of rubbish concern sceptics?

      Dry your tears (or bottle them and send them to Oslo), lie down, hug your security blankie, and chill out. You are in a state of panic over something that, even if real, you cannot influence because you are afraid to even name the real global CO2 emitters.

  • Neville says:

    There has been a huge drop in China’s EV sales, due to cutback in subsidies. Big surprise NOT. Yet we have our resident donkeys who claim this will be the way of the future for the Aussie car market?

    https://www.thegwpf.com/china-cuts-subsidies-green-cars-sales-drop-34/

    Contrary to the above Chinese EV problem, the UK will lose more and more revenue if they actually continue to sell more EVs for the next 30 years.

    If they do somehow change over to EVs by 2050 they must find a way to replace billions of pounds lost every year from taxes on petrol and diesel ICE vehicles. What a mob of clueless fools.

    Of course the poor and vulnerable will cop it in the neck to introduce this madness and cop it in the neck AGAIN from the big drop in govt revenue. And no change to temp or climate by 2050 or 2100 or ….

    https://www.thegwpf.com/35-billion-uk-faces-huge-loss-from-electric-vehicle-adoption/

  • Neville says:

    It seems that Ext Reb is just another money making machine for the founders and some of them have used mind altering drugs to help create their new vision. Big surprise NOT.
    This just adds to our modern pseudo-science where the UN promotes and encourages a young Asperger sufferer to talk about climate change and even quote erroneous nonsense about our modern world.
    Of course the Pope and some other world leaders are more than happy to join in and mislead their followers/countries along this barren path.
    The Chinese and Indians etc must be laughing their heads off over this first world stupidity.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/extinction-rebellion-are-run-by-paid-activists-the-200000-grassroots-movement/#more-66842

  • spangled drongo says:

    And poor, deluded blith chooses, quotes and prefers fiddled satellite data when he could simply put his head out the window and observe that sea levels are actually falling in what is known as the real world.

    And then he could confirm the last 105 years here:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

    Physically measured adjacent to the greatest area of the world’s oceans.

    But when he is already aware of these facts, is he really deluded or just a determined, desperate denier?

  • spangled drongo says:

    A possible solution for our blith.

    But should it be the kiddies or the parents?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/13/bbc-its-important-to-let-climate-worriers-talk-about-murdering-their-children/

  • Boambee John says:

    Via Jo Nova

    “for the United States 48 contiguous states, January through August 2019 was the COLDEST January through August since U.S. records were kept in 1895. ( based on the Average Daily Maximum
    Temperatures in NOAA’s 1,218 U.S. Historical Climatology Network, or USHCN, land surface weather stations )”

    Didn’t Chris tell us about the “hottest evah” months recently?

Leave a Reply