How not to argue about climate change

By September 14, 2019Other

A couple of years ago Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip Dilbert, published a cartoon which sent up the ‘climate change’ orthodoxy in a merciless way. If case you’ve never seen it, here it is.

Needless to say, such a publication, from such an eminent cartoonist, was bound to get up the noses of the orthodox, and it did. It has taken some time, but there is now a rebuttal, from the Yale people (Yale Environment  360). Trouble is, it seems to confirm the argument of the original comic strip. You can read the whole piece here.h

Written by Ross McKitrick, who is no slouch, and writes well, it takes you through the argument and counter-argument. The Yale response was a video, and while I don’t seem to be able to find a copy I can lead interested readers to bits and pieces of it. It is all fascinating, and there are links to other pieces which I also found most interesting. McKitrick begins like thisThe video is full of impressive-looking scientists talking about charts and data and whatnot. It probably cost a lot to make and certainly involved a lot of time and effort. The most amazing thing, however, is that it actually proves the points being made in the Dilbert cartoon. Rather than debunking the cartoon, the scientists acted it out in slow motion.

How do they accomplish this? A lot of it by simple assertion. At the end Andrew Dessler, a prominent orthodox climate scientist, says ‘It’s inarguable — though people still argue it heh, heh…’ In short, those who do argue it are fools. In any case, what does ‘inarguable’ really mean? Well, says McKitrick, By selective editing we are led to believe that everything said in the video is based on multiple independent lines of evidence carrying such overwhelming force that no rational observer could dispute it.He gives an example from the video, where a scientist [a Dr Myhre] says: It’s irrefutable evidence that there are major consequences that come with climate warming, and that we take these Earth systems to be very stable, we take them for granted, and they’re not stable, they’re deeply unstable when you perturb the carbon system in the atmosphere.

How does she know this? She can’t, of course. Statements like hers are based on models, and the models don’t all show the same thing. Indeed some new research suggests that fears of a runaway heatwave are hardly feasible, while other  models show little sensitivity to greenhouse gases at all.

Even the IPCC itself says thatFor most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement). Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.

McKitrick is unimpressed by the scientific rigour of the video: Much of what she [Dr Myhre] says in the video is unsubstantiated and sloppy. For instance she talks (2:14) about paleoclimatic indicators like tree rings, ice cores and sediment cores as if they are handy records of past climate conditions without acknowledging any of the knownproblems extracting climate information from such noisy sources. The well-known Michael Mann, responsible for a number of ‘errors’, says emphatically that there are dozens of lines of evidence that all come together, ‘telling us the same thing’. ‘That’s how science works,’ he adds.

McKitrick is scornful.  Really? The lines of evidence regarding climate do not all lead to one uniform point of view, nor is that how science works. If that’s how science worked there would be no need for research. But that’s how activists see it, and that’s the view they impose to drive climate science along in service of the activist agenda. What is science and scientific leadership for, then? Dr Myhre quoted above has no doubt. She saysOur job is not to objectively document the decline of Earth’s biodiversity and humanity, so what does scientific leadership look like in this hot, dangerous world? We don’t need to all agree with each other – dissent is a healthy component of the scientific community. But, we do need to summon our voices and start shouting from rooftops: “We have options”, “We don’t have to settle for cataclysm”. Hmm. It seems that from her point of view the job of scientists is not objectively to gather and present evidence, but to impose their own view and yell it from the rooftops. It’s certainly not mine.

It’s a pity I can’t find a copy of the video itself. But someone will, making this essay more checkable.  McKitrick’s attack, however, is straightforward. What the viewer gets is selective editing. Here’s an example: [In] the process of presenting responses, the video flits back and forth between lists of observational evidence and statements that are based on the outputs of models, as if the former prove the latter. For instance, when Myhre says (2:45—2:55) that the climate systems is “deeply unstable” to perturbations in the carbon “system” (I assume she meant cycle) the video then cuts to Andrew Dessler (2:55) talking about satellite measurements, back to Myhre on paleo indicators, then to Carl Mears and Dessler (3:11) talking about sea ice trends. None of those citations support Myhre’s claims about instability, but the selective editing creates the impression that they do.

Another example is a sequence starting at 1:14 and going to about 2:06, in which various speakers lists different data sets, glossing over different spatial and time scales, measurement systems, etc. Then an assertion is slipped in at 2:07 by Ben Santer to the effect that the observed warming can’t be explained by natural causes. Then back to Myhre listing paleoclimate indicators and Mann describing boreholes. The impression created is that all these data types prove the attribution claim made by Santer. But they do no such thing. The data sets only record changes: claims about the mechanism behind them are based on modeling work, namely when climate models can’t simulate 20thcentury warming without incorporating greenhouse gas forcing.

I found this essay and the links in it to be a frustratingly bad advertisement for orthodox climate science. I have no time for Michael Mann, nor for those who got rid of editors who didn’t see things their way. Surely to goodness we have reached the time where there can be a civilised discussion about global warming and its importance. It is certainly time for it.

Join the discussion 216 Comments

  • Chris Warren says:

    Don

    This sort of statement “…I have no time for Michael Mann”, is not a good approach.

    We have to move beyond this.

    • bb says:

      Mann was hugely responsible for the hockey stick graph. When he found his methods instead of producing an uptick he grafted actual present-day data into his graph. Then refused to disclose his methods and his data. He took the authoritarian view that he knew the truth without and that all others should just believe him. He sued Tim Ball for accusing him of being fraudulent and lost. So yes we have to move beyond this and just forget him as having any authority at all.

  • Doug Hurst says:

    Thanks Don – I’d not seen the cartoon. It does rather sum up the situation.

    Over the years I have realised that, in simple terms, alarmist claims are that human production of CO2 is (or will) produce dangerous and unprecedented climate change and wind and solar energy is the best way to reduce our CO2 output.

    In reality, none of the claim is true. Nothing happening is dangerous or unprecedented, there is no hard evidence CO2 drives climate shifts, nor is there evidence that, when the entire energy system is considered, wind and solar have made any difference to CO2 output, or the climate – although there is ample evidence renewables have degraded the power supply, forced up costs and increased duplication, complication and the number of untruths peddled by alarmists and their supporters in the MSM.

    A good case in point is Germany, where the failed push to renewables has created an energy crisis, the car companies are telling the government over 800 000 jobs in their sector are threatened, the solar industry has gone bust, the wind industry is failing and they have turned back to coal while the world, especially here in Oz, remains blissfully unaware of this crisis thanks to media obsession with social and political issues that will be forgotten in weeks.

    We really are dealing with something more akin to religion than science and engineering, with fears and fantasies overriding facts and reason. Accordingly, I suspect that those who say facts and reason will only predominate again following a massive blackouts this summer have a point, but even then I don’t see how we could unscramble the climate and energy omelette.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Doug Hurst

    Why is the increase in proportion of CAT 5 cyclones not dangerous?

    Why is the melting of land ice not dangerous?

    If nothing is “unprecedented” when was CO2 over 410ppm unless you want to go back into geologic time [this is irrelevant]?

    • Doug Hurst says:

      Check your facts, Chris. The number and intensity of cyclones has not increased since the 1800s. What melting land ice is dangerous? – sea levels are little changed since 1900 with no trend and the oft made claim that without glacial melt the great rivers of India etc will not provide enough water to irrigate their crops is nonsense, as the rivers are fed almost entirely by snow melt. And so what if the CO2 level has increased – the links between CO2 and climate shift is not proven and, in two recent, separate studies from japan and Finland (I think) have been disproved – as you would expect given the geological record showing no consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature changes, other than the temperature always leading the CO2 changes.

      If you have hard evidence CO2 is a driver of dangerous and unprecedented climate change, please let us know. Such proof would be news to me, and I imagine many others too.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Doug Hurst

      But I always check my facts. You can see that there has been an increase in proportion of CAT 5 cyclones here:

      https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/agu_integrityofscience_curry.pdf

      See screen 3.

      You have suggested that:

      The intensity of cyclones has not increased ??????

      So can you also check your facts?

      I am not aware of any data on CAT 5 hurricanes going back to 1880’s. It is possible that the numbers have remained stable, but the fact is that the proportion of CAT 5 events has increased – and this is dangerous.

      • Doug Hurst says:

        Chris – the article by Judith Curry is 14 years old. Since then she has become more sceptical and resigned because of intense pressure from colleagues for not toeing the alarmist line. But I note, that while her data does indeed show an increase in Cat 5 numbers up until 2005, it shows a decrease in overall numbers and no recent data.

        Until satellites became available, grading hurricanes was much harder. Ideally, this was done by measuring barometric pressure at the eye but that was not always possible, especially with hurricanes that didn’t make landfall. Hence, while records go back to 1880 and sometimes earlier, the intensities are often estimates, not precise measurements and comparisons with today also lack precision.

        And it is all irrelevant if CO2 proves to be innocent and not the demon gas behind everything from drought to flood to storms. Quite simply, if CO2 is innocent, as it increasingly seems to be, we can stop spending hundreds of billions trying to abate it.

        Hence my request to you to share any hard evidence you have that CO2 dives climate. I don’t know of such evidence. If you have it, along with evidence that the billions we are spending each year on renewables subsidies actually helps the environment, then do let us know – and you might just become famous in the process.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Doug Hurst

          My statement was about the increasing proportion of CAT 5 cyclones and Judith Curry’s material was derived from other published scientists and is not affected by her resignation.

          Data from NOAA is showing a slight trend to increasing numbers of storms at over 4 per century but, to my eye, there is an acceleration after 1980 or so.

          https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/pix/user_images/tk/global_warm_hurr/Adjust_TS_Count.png

          Curry’s data does not show a decrease in overall numbers provided you use the entire range of years. You only come to this conclusion if you pick merely the last third or so. From 1970, the trend has gone up and down with no real variation overall.

          You state it increasingly seems that CO2 is innocent. You need to check your facts.

          You want hard evidence [this is appropriate] but claim “I don’t know of such evidence”.

          But the WWW is chock full of hard evidence. The key is simple. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and this is a proven scientific fact. This is why levels of the atmosphere above the CO2 concentration are losing heat and are cooling and why levels of the atmosphere within and below the CO2 concentration are warming.

          This is all proven by satellite records going back almost 40 years.

          The absorption of CO2 is demonstrated here:

          http://www.tinyurl.com/AGW-cause

          This is hard evidence.

          If you have evidence that CO2 inceasingly seems innocent – please cite it.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            ” CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and this is a proven scientific fact.”

            And that absorption saturates quickly.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            Making silly comments like that is not how adults argue about climate change.

            You need to provide evidence – or play elsewhere.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Seems that your definition of “silly comments” is “comments with which you disagree”.

          • Chris Warren says:

            So no evidence.

            The very definition of silly statement.

          • Doug Hurst says:

            Chris,

            The absorption and radiation of heat by CO2 is known to all, but it does not prove changes to CO2 will change the climate. Virtually all the climate models used by the IPCC had much too high climate sensitivity assumptions based on CO2’s impact. These models were analysed by Prof John Christy, head of the University of Alabama climate centre, who told the US Congress the average overestimate was X2 and some as bad as X3, with none too low.

            Few models included solar and oceanic variables, which have strong collations with actual climate shifts varying from months to 100 000 years. I don’t have the time or space to expand on these factors here, but as you say, there is plenty to read on the WWW.

            To this, we can add two recent independent studies from Japan and Finland, both peer reviewed, claiming CO2 has no affect at all on climate. A quick look at a temperature/CO2 diagram for the Holocene would seem to back this up, with constant CO2 levels of about 280ppm throughout (until after WWII) and temperatures as much as 2C higher and up to 1C lower. The Vostok ice cores add further evidence, showing that temperature change always led CO2 changes, while for the large majority of the geological record there is no correlation at all.

            As i said, if you have proof, let’s see it.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Doug Hurst

            If CO2 absorbs radiation (as agreed) then it will heat up. This human induced CO2 increase leads temperature change.

            Climate is changed by heat. I am not aware of any dispute on this point nor need for proof. It is an observational fact. Observational facts are proofs in themselves.

            Vostok and Holocene are not relevant as these were driven by Milancovitch cycles (and possibly volcanoes) over much, much longer timescales.

            The usefulness and relevance of Vostok is to prove that CO2 has never reached today’s levels – of course that is while ever mankind walked this Earth. They also show the past responsiveness of change in temperature compared to associated GHGs.

            It is possible to find some modern CO2 “lagging” temperature changes, but this is just from the expected out-gassing from warming water – itself a response to CO2.

            The real dynamic of climate change is not driven by CO2 as much as it is from the feedback from water vapour.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            “Climate is changed by heat.”

            Ever the master of the trite comment.

            Climate is also changed by loss of heat, leading to ice ages. Are you aware of any dispute on this point? Does it need proof? Is it not an observational fact, that is proof in itself.

            But what do these points add to the debate?

          • JMO says:

            Chris Warren
            The experiment you showed on that YouTube clip is as ridiculous as the experiment on the climate denier site principea australia on July 31.

            Clearly the climate doomsayers are as bad as the climate denier, more likely worse.

            That camera was tuned to the exact wavelength of ( probably) the 15 micron line. The climate doomsayers would have as believe that is the only IR wavelength when it is 0.7 to 100 microns.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Try 50 years of global cyclone frequency:

        https://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png

        And the same 50 years of global cyclone energy:

        https://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png

        And bear in mind that we now have a lot more data available than 50 years ago.

  • Aert Driessen says:

    Thanks Don, and good to see you pick up the pen again. Had I heard Santer say or write along the lines you quote “Then an assertion is slipped in at 2:07 by Ben Santer to the effect that the observed warming can’t be explained by natural causes” (penultimate para), the first query I would have put to him would be what ‘natural causes’ he had in mind.

  • Karabar says:

    Not only is evidence of CO2 causing “warming” non-existent; there is ample evidence that it does not. Over geologic time changes in temperature always PRECEDE changes in atmospheric CO2. Following recent periods of increased CO2, there is no correlation with temperature. The Scientific Method does not and cannot “prove” things. The entire process involves DISPROVING a faulty hypothesis.

    The entire CAGW construct is founded on an imaginary phenomenon called “global warming”. How would we know if the “global average annual temperature” had changed if we don’t even know what that is? Such a parameter is a mathematical and thermodynamic impossibility.

    The faith that the CAGW cult is founded upon is superstitious nonsense and out right lies. It deserves no more consideration that witchcraft and astrology. The atmosphere is fortunately incredibly stable, due to the amazing properties of a substance called water.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Karabar

      What is the ample evidence of which you speak?

      Science can disprove your hypothesis.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Science can disprove your hypothesis.”

        We’re still waiting for that.

        Only 40 years, so far.

        Try some evidence then, for a change.

      • bb says:

        I think they are tilting at windmills so to speak. Certainly it is warmer now than it was during the Little ice age but overall for this interglacial we are at a very cold period. CO2 levels were also much higher in the past. If you look at climate history we are at the moment in a very stable period. Be grateful. Is it science to examine the weather for at most the last 200 years and forecast doom I think it is insanity?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Thanks Don. Good to hear from you again.

    The true believers never let a chance go by.

    The favourite comment from the alarmists at present is that our current spate of bushfires is due to “climate change”.

    As with all current weather and climate events that have occurred not only continuously but to often much greater extents throughout the Holocene, they are in denial that this is just the same old, same old.

    And the fact that the kiddies are lighting many of them, not increased lightning [climate] hardly get a mention:

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/beset-by-flames-and-flim-flammery/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Good to see Scott Adams is a wake up and is brave enough to say so:

    https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-07-14

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    “We really are dealing with something more akin to religion than science and engineering, with fears and fantasies overriding facts and reason.” Doug Hurst

    Agreed. And politics, especially UN climate politics, as will be confirmed again next week at the Climate Summit in NYC with Our Littler Lady of the Apocalypse, Saint Greta. Another attempt to extort more billions from West by the developing world on the pretext of “climate reparations”.

    One only has to read a few pal-reviewed papers to see the dark secrets in the CC attic. One of my favourite: “Challenges in combining projects from multiple climate models: by Reno Knutti et al in the Journal of Climate (2009). From the Abstract:

    “Last, there is little agreement on metrics to separate “good” from “bad” models, and there is concern that model development, evaluation and posterior weighting or ranking are all using the same datasets. While the multi-model average appears to still be useful in some situations these results show that more quantitative methods to evaluate model performance are critical to maximize the value of climate change projections.”

    Well, we’re still waiting a decade later.

    In what other field could one say – seriously – that because we can’t distinguish “good” from “bad” models, let’s just mix them all up, take an average and hoodwink the public into believing the result is a good approximation of the planet’s future climate?

    Another quote: “the degree of confidence we place on model results, however, essentially depends on whether we can quantify the uncertainty of the predictions and demonstrate the results do not depend strongly on modeling assumptions…

    They couldn’t then and still can’t today.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Obviously the amount of energy both trapped and escaping is based on “absorbance” and “emissivity”. But this is well established and we know that 70-75% of incoming radiation gets down to the surface. But the pattern of amount being re-radiated is completely different because its wavelengths are longer – it is to the right of this standard diagram:

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

      “Transmission out” is impacted by CO2 and water. “Transmission in” is not affected by CO2 and hardly affected by water.

      Only 15-30% gets out.

      Now there are additional considerations as the warmer atmosphere also radiates in all directions so half goes out and half is “back radiated” to the surface.

      However the spectroscopic imbalance between 70-75% coming in, and 15-30% going out (less after allowing for back radiation) contradicts the paper’s conclusion:

      “This spectroscopic based analysis suggests that sensitivity to both gases is likely to be
      far lower than would be required for such a scenario and does not support either
      hypothesis.

      The paper’s authors appear to have not included the current understanding of atmospheric transmission but have constructed their own private model that has not been calibrated with hard data.

      It is not clear that this paper has been published in a reputable refereed journal.

      The source is well known: See https://www.desmogblog.com/lavoisier-group

      Maybe a more rigorous source can be found?

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        I am both unsurprised and disappointed by this response.

        Unsurprised because it again demonstrates that your mind is closed to any contrary evidence.

        Disappointed because I only got one point out of a possible four on rejection bingo (and even that was a rather weak demand for “more rigorous” source, not your usual reference to “prominent denialist”). You missed “not refereed”, “pal reviewed” and “not from a reputable journal”.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “…but have constructed their own private model that has not been calibrated with hard data.”

        LOL!!!

        Please show us any climate model that has “hard” data, blith.

        You obviously are in denial of that NASA report on climate models being 100 times less accurate than needed for climate projections.

        And it is a bit rich trying to refute Lavoisier with Desmogblog. Oh, dear!

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a new artificial EXTREME GHG for our resident fools to worry about. This gas is used to stop overloads in all of the new switch gear etc BECAUSE we are using so many more ruinables today to combat their so called CAGW.
    When will we stop the insanity of using these clueless ruinables and return to proper base-load power like coal,gas, nuclear and hydro?
    Here’s the BBC link. Read it and start to wake up.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197

  • Neville says:

    Dr Christy and Prof McKitrick have a new study that shows rainfall and drought in the USA are following historical trends.
    Willis Eschenbach also commented that his study of the Palmer drought index data etc also agrees with this new study.
    But for OZ we know that the BOM data shows increasing rainfall trend since 1900.
    And since about 1972 the overall OZ rainfall trend is much higher. So much for Flannery’s silly nonsense, see BOM link.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/14/long-term-us-drought-and-precipitation-trends/

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=6

  • Chris Warren says:

    Boambee John is demonstrating how not to argue about climate change

  • Boambee John says:

    Trust renewable generation, sure can!

    AEMO slashes output of five big solar farms by half due to voltage issues

    https://reneweconomy.com.au/aemo-slashes-output-of-five-big-solar-farms-by-half-due-to-voltage-issues-42232/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Remember Christmas day, 1974, Darwin, cyclone Tracy? Nothing like it since:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Wagaman-685w_shadow.png

  • Doug Hurst says:

    Chris,

    Vostok is important because it demonstrated that temperature change always led CO2 change. The Holocene interglacial period we are now in is important because it was 8 000 years of constantly varying temperatures and very stable CO2 levels of 280 ppm or so. In other words, CO2 did not drive temperature in either the Vostok example or during the Holocene.

    If you want some more evidence, ask the Chinese. They are burning 3.6 billion tonnes of coal each year and are building coal-fired power plants at a rate that suggests they will burn even more in the future. The Indians have similar plans with lower consumption rates. Obviously neither country thinks this behaviour will cause their grandchildren to fry and die.

    Neither do I. My fear for my grandchildren is that they will inherit an expensive, unreliable power system that has been pointlessly degraded with wind and solar and a massive debt to pay for it. They will probably also wonder at the sanity of the generation that did this to them. So do I.

    • Boambee John says:

      Doug

      Well said!

      I find the alarmist use of pedophrasty (Statements on the lines of “Won’t you think of your children/grandchildren/future generations.”) quite disgusting. Their propaganda campaigns to frighten young children into believing that they have no future amount to the mental abuse of children.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Doug Hurst

      Temperature only leads CO2 when temperature is driven by Milankovitch Cycles. The lag is 100’s of years.

      This does not apply today.

      The last 8,000 years show a cooling trend as you would expect due to Milankovitch cycles with a dramatic reversal recently.

      http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

      The level of 280ppm only lasted until around 1790 or so, since then it has increased.

      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png

      This was due to coal burning then oil and gas burning particularly as population and industrialisation increased.

      • Doug Hurst says:

        Chris,

        If you warm the oceans they ‘outgas’ CO2 – the source of the warming is irrelevant. As we have recovered from the recent Little Ice Age – when now free flowing European rivers iced up each year and Greenland people died in droves from cold and failed crops – temperatures have increased by about 1C, so some outgassing can be expected. But we are still not as warm as in Roman times.

        My best info is that CO2 levels increased from 260ppm to 280ppm during the holocene until about 1900 (not 1790) when a slight increase began until WWII, after which the faster increase to over 400ppm began. Despite the increase, temperatures for almost all the Holocene period fell by 2C or more and we are still cooler than 8 000 years ago. No evidence of CO2 driven climate change there that I can see.

        The CO2 increase since 1900 has been steady, but the temperature change has had downs as well as ups and shows no correlation with the CO2 increase. Solar variations, changing cloud cover and oceanic cycles like the (roughly) 60 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation are thought by many to be much more influential than CO2 and to me the evidence bears this out.

        The previous interglacial period was about 2C warmer than this one, consistent with a gradual cooling trend over millions of years that only during the last (I think) 3 millions years began producing a 100 000 year ice age (i.e., glacial period) with each Milankovitch cycle. Previous to that, the Milankovitch cycles – the main one of which is roughly 100 000 years – produced only cooler times, but not ice ages.

        Climate is described in my books as a coupled, non-linear, chaotic (as with Lorenz) system. This means that very small variations to inputs can produce widely different outcomes – even if we could precisely measure all the input factors (which we can’t) and had detailed understanding of all subsequent processes (which we don’t). In a word, it is, like the weather, completely unpredictable over any but short time frames and attributing change to just one factor in such a complex, multi element, chaotic system is irrational, even if carefully selected bits of data at times suggest otherwise.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Doug Hurst

          I think the source of heat causing outgassing is relevant – as a feedback effect to atmospheric warming.

          While temperatures have had ups and downs, at least for the period we have accurate satellite records over, temperature rise is correlated with CO2 accumulation once you subtract ENSO and volcanic impacts.

          The PDO effect naturally reverses, so cannot explain the ongoing increase in CO2 since around late 1700’s.

          The rise in CO2 does not show any fluctuation based on solar variations except due to associated orbit changes.

          I do not think anyone is trying to predict weather which is chaotic, however the chaos in the Earth’s climate is impacted at the macro level by the energy balance of the Earth. This “energy balance” is a single factor that is not irrational.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            “temperature rise is correlated with CO2 accumulation once you subtract ENSO and volcanic impacts.”

            Homogenisation to find the “correct” answer????

            If you adjust it, you will find the answer!!!

          • Chris Warren says:

            “temperature rise is correlated with CO2 accumulation once you subtract ENSO and volcanic impacts.”

            If you do this adjustment, you do get the right answer based on 5 data sets.

            http://www.tinyurl.com/cleaned-temp

          • spangled drongo says:

            “If you adjust it, you will find the answer!!!”

            Particularly when it goes in the other direction.

            As has often happened in the past.

            Check the Younger Dryas, CO2 v Temperature:

            The trend line shows that the relationship is negative; a temperature rise of 1°C occurs when CO2 falls by 2.5 ppm during the 2000 year period covered by the stomata proxy data. It is apparent that the high CO2 concentration did not cause any warming, as it occurred when the temperature was approaching the lowest recorded by the ice core data:

            https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/C_2.png

            Where would cli-sci be without true believers, BJ?

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            So it is “adjusted”. The reference in the link to “cleaned-temp” is a giveaway.

  • spangled drongo says:

    True-believer-bed-wetter=blith, actually believes Marcott’s claim of less than 1c variability for the whole of the Holocene when evidence that everyone can witness shows sea levels 3m higher, tree lines much further north and forests previously under glaciers during that same period.

    And peer reviewed science claiming temperatures of up to 7c higher required for this to happen.

    Is that convenient, selective, cherry picking or what?

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova has a look at the history of Aug and Sept bushfires in Qld in the 1940s and 1950s.
    Amazing that their ABC and other MSM seem to be unaware of these facts and co2 levels were a little over 300 ppm.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/fires-in-august-in-1951-in-queensland-were-described-as-catastrophic-when-co2-was-311ppm/#comments

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    The ultimate in absurdity?

    “How Climate Change Will Affect Your Pet”

  • Boambee John says:

    The “stupendously accurate” models compared with measured (even if homogenised) reality.

    http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Christy-modeled-versus-observed-temperatures-mid-troposphere-just-trends-1979-2015-Jan-2015.jpg

    No wonder that NASA doesn’t think the models are useful for projections of the future!

  • Boambee John says:

    One for Stu.

    From cfact, The solar panel toxic waste problem.

    “Solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. They also contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic (even carcinogenic) chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. Worse, rainwater can wash many of these toxics out of the fragments of solar modules over time.

    Another real concern is the vast increase in the use of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) in the construction of solar panels – up 1,057 percent over the past 25 years. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deems NF3 to be 17,200 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas – meaning that even relatively minor quantities can have major impacts.”

    Seems that “Clean and Green” might be false advertising?

    • Neville says:

      SD and BJ keep trying,but our silly donkeys will NEVER turn their back on their CAGW religion.
      We live in a world that is much healthier and wealthier than 30 years ago, 50 years ago and 100, 200 etc but they stick like glue to their BS and fra-d.
      Who cares about wasting trillions $ on delusional S&W energy, or EVs, etc and who cares about the toxicity and poisons from these products?
      This is the level of ignorance these con merchants have descended to and yet they have the hide to criticize us for using proper data and evidence?

  • Boambee John says:

    From Graham in the Oz (Yes, Stu and Chriss, I know, eeeevil Mudrock denialist media!)

    “Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide and is widely used to make wind turbines, solar panels and the switching gear needed to run more complex electricity systems.

    Research has shown leakage of the little known gas across Europe in 2017 was the emissions equivalent of putting an extra 1.3 million cars on the road.”

    But renewable generators will save us!!!!

  • Boambee John says:

    Graham Lloyd in the Oz.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “And way more frequently (practically all the time) by delinquent denialists”

      Proof? Or just another unsupported alarmist assertion?

      And the sceptical case gets weaker and weaker, but somehow the renewable nirvana never arrives. Go back to the dictionary where you got your denial definition, and look up (psychological) projection.

      PS, checked out those pollution posts yet, or are you trying to mentally deny their existence? Denialist!

  • Chris Warren says:

    Did anyone actually read McKitrick’s piece?

    While it generally consisted of standard denialists slandering and heckling, it did purport to show:

    “Many key data sets indicate that climate models are wrong, and in particular that they overstate the rate of warming, (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.). ”

    The 8 “here” are links to supposed supporting documents. What a joke. If you click on the first one you get directed to an article in Nature. Articles in Nature are reputable. The article is: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/abs/nclimate1972.html However it is just a “Commentary” not a research product.

    So this is how they falsify facts to invent some models overstatement. This is how the authors start:

    “Global mean surface temperature
    over the past 20 years (1993–2012)
    rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C
    per decade (95% confidence interval) [1] .
    This rate of warming is significantly
    slower than that simulated by the climate
    models participating in Phase 5 of
    the Coupled Model Intercomparison
    Project (CMIP5).”

    They give no source for the 0.14 ° C (1993-2012) except for a footnote [1].

    When you check the footnote you see it is all a con. The footnoted article was published in early 2012 and could never include 2012 data, Presumably only 2011 annual data was available so the time span must have been 19 years at best. This introduces a denialist error rate of 5.26%. Spreading an event that may have occurred over 19 years – and pretend it took longer – falsifies the trend. This is a denialist trick.

    But it is worse. When you go to the footnoted paper itself [JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117] – there is no mention of 0.14 ° C per decade.

    It gets worse. The paper [ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2011JD017187 ] states:

    “Fitted linear trends in temperature anomalies are approximately 0.07 ° C/decade from
    1901 to 2010 and 0.17 ° C/decade from 1979 to 2010 globally.”

    This completely contradicts the position of McKitrick.

    But it is even worse. Anyone can enter the denialist date range in the York tool [using endpoints: 1993 and 2011.99] and select any Global data and you will see immediately the falsification being perpetrated by McKitrick.

    Instead of 0.14 ° C, the trend is actually 0.20 ° C.

    So the manipulation is 30%.

    These are the tricks they play. You can easily make up silly data and silly time frames, supported by fake footnotes, to attack climate science.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      “These are the tricks they play. You can easily make up silly data and silly time frames, supported by fake footnotes, to attack climate science.”

      Indeed, YOU can and you do.

  • dlb says:

    I see Flannery has an article in “The Conversation” calling for the upping of climate activism to engage in socially disruptive behaviour such as strikes and championing a group called “Extinction Rebellion”. This article was dutifully repeated on the ABC’s website.
    Unsurprisingly the article got a fair amount of pushback from climate sceptics and even the orthodox who disagreed with this type of activism.

    In response “The Conversation” has gone down the full authoritarian track, banning anyone sceptical on AGW from commenting. Not only this, if you post a comment sceptical of AGW you will be ousted from other comment threads regardless of your knowledge and standing in other fields. Unbelievable! Moderate sceptics such as Judith Curry would be silenced.

    Don thanks for at least allowing dissenting opinion from people like Chris and Stu on your website.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    The facts that are blindingly obvious are that almost nobody believes the prophecies of doom, in 10, or even 100 years. Schoolchildren do not doubt that they will reach their 21st birthday, or, if they have children, that they, in turn, will reach their 21sts. Banks have not stopped lending money for the purchase of what are alleged to be worthless assets. They may be credulous in some aspects of their behaviour, but they are not stupid. Best of all, Tuvalu, the poster child for sea level rise, is still securely above the waves, and the Maldives are still building hotels and resorts. People are not fleeing Manhattan, and there is no fire sale of apartments on the Miami foreshore. And Tim Flannery, according to his recent article in The Conversation, faithfully reproduced by ‘our’ ABC, is a demented hysteric.

  • Neville says:

    I just checked the period 1993.01 to 2012.99 and found the average of RSS V 4 and UAH V 6 to be 0.135 c/ dec. This is from York tool.
    UAH is much lower and RSS is higher, just what you would expect. But taken to the next dec point this average would be 0.14c/ dec.
    And remember the trend does become lower over a longer period of time, because some periods have cooler trend, some warmer trends and some periods may have no trend.
    Like the period from 1850 to 2019 that has an overall trend of .056 c/dec ( HAD Crut 4) , but has warming and cooling trends,plus no trend periods as well. That’s over the past 170 years.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      Why have you informed us that you have checked a period 1993-2012.99? What is the purpose? What is the context?

      Why have you informed us of an average of RSS and UAH? What is the purpose? What is the context?

      How does the trend get lower over a longer period? This proves that there is acceleration.

      Why have you informed us that HADCrut4 from 1850 to 2019 is .056 C? What is the purpose? What is the context?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Boambee John

    You have made a typical, false, obnoxious accusation.

    You need to provide evidence.

    You have been exposed – yet again.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Dry your tears crybaby.

      To borrow your own words, you are being “repaid in your own coin”.

      Learn the art of civilised debate and then get back to me.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee John

        So you have no basis. here is your chance…

        You have made a typical, false, obnoxious accusation.

        You need to provide evidence.

        You have been exposed – yet again.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          Your reading comprehension remains poor. Go back and look again at my comment.

          You routinely accuse others of lying, slander and being “denialists”. These are not part of civilised debate. Civilised debate means (here) following the scientific method. This method advances scientific knowledge by robust but polite disagreement and criticism.

          Your words are published here as pixels on a screen, not inscribed on tablets of stone.

          Disagreement is not a synonym for lying.

          Criticism is not a synonym for slander.

          Scepticism is not a synonym for denial.

          This is Lesson 1 in civilised debate.

          PS, the term “denialism” is obnoxious. Don has previously asked you to cease using it. While you continue to use it, you have no basis to call others obnoxious.

          PPS, I have checked my zipper, I am not exposed.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            Denialists do lie and slander and I always give examples.

            “Denialist” is a well known characteristic that is based on proper research. It is a true description particularly when you make false statements with no evidence.

            You on the other hand have made a typical, false, obnoxious accusation.

            You need to provide evidence.

            You have been exposed – yet again.

            Where is there evidence.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            You really do not understand do you?

            Expect more of your own coin.

  • Neville says:

    Geeeezzzz I must admit that the Flannery hypocrite just seems to get more stupid by the decade.
    I wouldn’t have thought it possible and I wonder why he bought his property on the Hawkesbury river when it’s so vulnerable to his dangerous SLR?
    This is the donkey that told us to expect SLR of about 8 metres in one of his silly rants about 10 years ago.
    And their ABC’s Science???? Show presenter told the Bolter that sea level could rise 100 metres in 100 years. Boy they both have a lot of catching up to do in the next 80 years.
    And yet people believe this idiotic, delusional nonsense?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Notice denialist Neville’s misleading statement –

    “…some periods (HADCRUT4) have cooler trend, some warmer trends and some periods may have no trend.”

    In fact rare periods have no trend, a few have a cooling trend, and more have warming trend.

    Unlike a denialist – I include evidence

    Here is the actual data – showing each decade as a “period”.

    http://www.tinyurl.com/HAD4-decades

    All last 5 decades have been warming – there has been no cooling decade for the last 50 or so years.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Actually it is worse for Neville,

    If you switch to linear trends you find:

    ZERO periods of “no trends”
    2 periods of cooling
    8 periods of warming.

    https://tinyurl.com/HAD4-decades-trends

    And the current warming period is steeper than the earlier warming periods.

    So you can only find rare periods of “no trends” if you eye-ball the data and cherry-pick some nonstandard period.

    This would be a denialist trick.

    • Chris Warren says:

      If you go further back you still find zero periods of Neville’s “no trend”.

      But now we have 12 warming periods and
      just 5 cooling periods.

      http://www.tinyurl.com/HAD4-1850-trends

      So where are there consistent periods of “no trend”?

      Come-on cherrypickers – surely you can find one??????????????

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        If there have been, as you claim, either “2 periods of cooling
        8 periods of warming” or “12 warming periods and
        just 5 cooling periods”, how do you identify the gaps between the extra warming periods, unless there are “periods of “no trend”, of which you claim there were “ZERO”?

        • Chris Warren says:

          What an absolutely stupid question ;

          “how do you identify the gaps between the extra warming periods, unless there are “periods of “no trend”, of which you claim there were “ZERO”?”

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Then you should have no trouble explaining it to the simpleton.

            A graph would do the job very effectively.

          • Chris Warren says:

            What a doubly stupid question – the link IS A GRAPH !!!!!

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Ooooh you are so right.

            Not only that, it is a graph that goes up, then it goes down, then up, then down etc. Almost like a sawtooth pattern!

            Didn’t you state very clearly that no such sawtooth graph existed???!!!

          • Boambee John says:

            And guess what, the sleazy alarmist trick of stretching tbe vertical axis to give a more dramatic visual presentation also exaggerates the sawtooth effect.

            Surely you noticed that?

          • Chris Warren says:

            Stupid, stupid, stupid…

            There is NO STRETCHING OF A VERTICAL AXIS

            It is in no way a sawtooth pattern.

            You have no idea what you are talking about – none.

            Please take yourself to Catallaxy – your kin awaits.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Still in denial about the visual tricks used by alarmists in their graphs!!!

            Choose an artificial construct to graph (world “average” temperature), use a vertical exis that displays minor changes in that artificial construct so that they appear to be dramatically large, scream “The end is nigh, we are all doooomed!!”

            PS, if you cannot see a zig-zag “sawtooth” pattern there, you need to see an optometrist. Denying it just confirms your denialist status.

            Back to your alarmist websites, you will be more comfortable there than here, where your hysterics are making no impression.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “If you go further back you still find zero periods of Neville’s “no trend”.’

    Is that riiight, blith?

    How many decades would you like of whatever trend your little heart desires?

    http://www.biocab.org/Geological_TS_Sea_Level.jpg

    It’s called natural climate change, blith, and guess how long it’s been going on for?

    High time you stopped your climate denial, hey?

  • Neville says:

    Remember when they told us we should soon be coming to the end of snow in OZ? They picked 2020 as one date but this season has been a very good one for the skiers and Perisher has had one of the best seasons on record according to some reports I’ve heard lately.
    Here’s the Bolter’s reference to one of the alarmist’s predictions in 2012. Such wishful thinking almost matches our blog fools who are so full of despair and morbid thoughts most of the time. What a hoot.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/anotehr-scare-melts-away/news-story/aa526e9f625359c87d49ead02a118dbf

  • spangled drongo says:

    I wonder if the real deniers here, blith’n’stu, have any idea what CO2 levels were when most of the world’s life forms evolved?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Just because we have a few souls who do not know what they are talking about.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waveforms.svg

  • Stu says:

    I found a presentation which makes a compelling case for action on climate change. Now, of course I don’t expect BJ and fellow travellers to even give it cursory attention. But, going back to Don’s request for convincing argument. I say, DON, DON, DON, please take the time to watch this video. The speaker, now dead sadly, was a very respected science communicator. Don, remember when watching, this is nearly 30 years old. The message has not changed but the urgency has increased. Surely this video can provide the answer to the question Don asked. In any event, whatever a persons science persuasion it is an entertaining talk complete with Greek gods.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xz3ZjOSMRU

    “Emerging issues”

    Meantime crapping on about CO2 levels when life formed is just so bloody ridiculous it shows the poor level of know how in this debate.

  • Boambee John says:

    Alarmists use misleading data presentation as their most valuable technique. The deceptive “y” axis is a classic example. There are many texts that advise care with graphical presentations. Sceptics should be aware of these tricks. A sample warning below.

    RTWT

    How to Mislead with Graphs
    By Gwenyth Brockman
    CHI KT Platform
    CHI KT Platform
    Follow
    Mar 16, 2017 · 5 min read

    In an earlier post, I wrote about publication bias, which can adversely affect synthesis in knowledge translation (KT) — and by extension, our perception of truth on a given subject.

  • Stu says:

    Lots of pots out there for the kettle. Misusing of statistics is the stock in trade of the denialists. Look up bad science or bad statistics linked with Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard and you will find many examples. And while looking him up I also found he is infamous as a “Sandy Hook” denier. It seems denialist is a very apt description of him.

    BTW, Denialist = “Denial, in ordinary English usage, is asserting that a statement or allegation is not true.[1]The same word, and also abnegation (German: Verneinung), is used for a psychological defense mechanismpostulated by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.[1][2][3]An individual that exhibits such behavior is described as a denialist[4]or true believer. Denial also could mean denying the happening of an event or the reliability of information, which can lead to a feeling of aloofness and to the ignoring of possibly beneficial information.”. (From Wiki)

    It is a generalist term and legitimate to use to describe people with that atteibute.

  • Boambee John says:

    Here is another item on graphical misrepresentation as frequently practised by alarmists.

    “Recognizing Deceptive and Misleading Graphs
    Good graphs are extremely powerful tools for displaying large quantities of complex data; they help turn the reams of information available today into knowledge. But, unfortunately, some graphs deceive or mislead. This may happen because the designer chooses to give readers the impression of better performance or results than is actually the situation. In other cases, the person who prepares the graph may want to be accurate and honest, but may mislead the reader by a poor choice of a graph form or poor graph construction. The software used might produce misleading graphs. If you read graphs in your business or in the newspapers or other journals, the ability to recognize deceptive and misleading graphs will avoid your making poor decisions based on a misunderstanding of the data. If you also prepare graphs, this knowledge will save you from the loss of credibility with resultant loss of business that comes from producing misleading graphs. Examples come from annual reports, medical literature, and other fields.”

    From http://www.nbr-graphs.com

    • Stu says:

      “Here is another item on graphical misrepresentation as frequently practised by alarmists.”. And way more frequently (practically all the time) by delinquent denialists, it is their stock in trade. Whereas the science side of the argument is very careful to make proper use of statistical representation. That is part of the peer review and publication process. Whereas the stuff you routinely quote has no solid backing. But never mind we know you are desperate. As each month rolls by your case is getting weaker and weaker, not just in terms of climate, but popular opinion, public policy, company policies etc. The end of your indefensible position gets closer and closer. Even Don will have to concede soon. Very likely if he watches the entertaining Carl Sagen video.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “And way more frequently (practically all the time) by delinquent denialists”

        Proof? Or just another unsupported alarmist assertion?

        And the sceptical case gets weaker and weaker, but somehow the renewable nirvana never arrives. Go back to the dictionary where you got your denial definition, and look up (psychological) projection.

        PS, checked out those pollution posts yet, or are you trying to mentally deny their existence? Denialist!

  • Chris Warren says:

    Look at how denialists corrupt charts.

    We know that Central England has warmed from 8.5°C around 1700 to nearly 10.5°C now with most of the increase occurring after 1900.

    Of course this is caused by accumulating GHG’s which are produced as a result of fossil fuel exploitation and deforestation. The key symptom is CO2.

    This is the chart of Central England Temperature.

    https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2018/03/UK3yr.png

    The rise is obvious. So how do denialist chartists hide this warming – simply by adjusting chart scales to hide the variation so it looks like a straight line with little echo from CO2.

    See here: https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi

    The current CET figure is 10.68° C

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Pot meet kettle!

      “simply by adjusting chart scales to hide the variation so it looks like a straight line with little echo from CO2.”

      Let me amend that slightly:

      “simply by adjusting chart scales to accentuate the variation so it looks like a steeply climbing line when it is actually a very minor change over an extended period.”

      You really did not get the point about those deceptive HAD4 graphs, did you?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Poor deluded blith can’t see the wood for the trees.

      Wood for Trees, blith! Ring a bell?

      Check 1690 to 1730 on any of those graphs and you will see that the 2c increase then is far greater than today’s temperature rise.

      But from start to finish on all those graphs there is only about a 1c net warming.

      Considering that was the coldest extended period of the Holocene and the Holocene has been up to possibly 7c warmer during its many warm periods, please demonstrate how that small amount of warming is anything that has not happened during those same warm periods when atmospheric CO2 was less than 300 ppm.

      And then proceed to verify that the warming today is entirely due to mankind’s current CO2 emissions. We can’t wait to see your empirical evidence:

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/20190731_Central_England_Temperature_%28CET%29_%28annual_mean%2C_beginning_in_1659%29.png

  • Chris Warren says:

    Here are more lies from denialists being spread by the media – this time Radio 2UE. They claimed outrageously in Feb 2012 that:

    Here: https://youtu.be/2v2anKkSDsU?t=149 we hear Radio 2UE claiming:

    No significant global warming the last decade, 12 years or 15 years.

    This can easily be checked by entering 2012.8333 [start] and 2002.8333 [end] into WoodForTrees tool using GISTEMP global data.

    The warming over the decade was 0.5°C per century
    Over 12 years it was 2/3rds a degree per century
    Over 15 years it was 1 degree per century.

    See for example: http://www.tinyurl.com/2UE-lie-15yrs

    But of course 2UE was deploying the standard denialist trick – presenting weather as climate.

    Short runs over a single decade do NOT represent climate.

    Honest people generally use 30 years. If you look at 30 years before Jan 2012, you get

    over 1.5° C. This is the fact denialists tried to hide by their continuous dirty tricks.

  • Neville says:

    I watched the Carl Sagan video and it just proves EVERYTHING I’ve tried to say for years. Obviously everyone is much better off today than 30 years ago and his now greatest “polluter ” is China and their life expectancy has climbed to 76 years for their pop of 1400 mil people.
    And the world has greened since 1990 because of the higher levels of co2. And farmers have also benefited from the extra co2 to increase their yields.
    The poorest continent has also become wealthier and healthier and life expectancy has increased since 1990. Oh and the world economy has doubled in size since 1990. Think about it.
    Now I know our resident fools prefer their fantasy planet, but the real planet Earth is much more rewarding for the truth seekers.
    Of course nearly all of the increase in co2 emissions have come from the developing countries since 1990 and co2 levels have increased by 60 ppm since Sagan’s speech.
    Global SLR is about 1 to 1.5 mm a year today and the majority of the island nations have actually increased in size since 1990. See Kench, Duvat and other recent studies I’ve link to before.
    And there is nothing we can do to change co2 levels for thousands of years according to the RS and NAS report based on the Zicklfeld study of 40 international scientists. I’ve linked to this many times.
    We should stop wasting trillions $ ( globally) on idiocy like S&W energy and build new RELIABLE gas or coal power stns ASAP. Gas would cut our emissions in half if that’s what really concerns fools like silly Flannery etc.

    • Stu says:

      Much of what Nev writes (not all) is true. Where he goes off the rails is in adopting the denialist assumption that moving to clean energy, adopting a new mode of powering vehicles etc means the end of prosperity and a decline in living standards for everyone. It is one of their base and alarmist tricks. Classic reactionary thinking of course. Think of the how the world was a decade ago, how it is now, and how it will be in ten more. The future is very hard to predict except that there will be massive change. Many of the technology curves are going exponential. It is only neo luddites who tut tut and say we cant change our power sources etc. The reality is that Australia has already missed several golden opportunities with solar patents etc. Look at the boom in Danish wind technology which is exported all over the world. But no, our luddy friends want us to throw in the towel, “we cant lower carbon, we cant keep temperatures reasonable” etc. These are the same attitudes that prolonged slavery, resisted the development of astronomy, appeased tyrants and promoted ancient myths as truth. Fortunately the world (apart from Trump) is no longer listening. It is also true that even responding to troll output only helps it, but I can’t resist calling out bullshit when I see it.

      And no feedback on your favourite source being a sandy hook denier. He may even have links to Jones, the yankee one not our idiot.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “The future is very hard to predict except that there will be massive change.”

        Indeed, which emphasises the importance of not committing too early to technologies which are not proven to provide reliable, continuous, power.

        Hasten slowly, then move when the technology has been proven.

        Or, given your enthusiasm, you could end up with an Edsel. Actually, I don’t mind if you pay for it yourself, but don’t try to force me to.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Making people better off – based on fossil fuels – means making future generations worse off.

    You cannot blame China for merely seeking what others have.

    World greening is not a permanent possibility if CO2 accumulation increases forever.

    Poorest economies should get better and need renewables to develop further.

    Stop telling disgusting denialist lies about sea level – it is more than twice “1 to 1.5mm a year”. It is over 3 mm a year.

    https://i0.wp.com/www.feedbackreigns.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/graph-sea-level-nasa.gif?ssl=1

    Saying “there is nothing we can do to change co2 levels for thousands of years” is a lie.

    Calliing for more “new RELIABLE gas or coal power stns ASAP.” is an obscenity.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Calling for expansion of unreliable, discontinuous, renewables while lacking an affordable storage system is an obscenity.

      • Stu says:

        You are just an echo machine, is that the best you can do?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Stick to IT, you are better with ones and zeroes.

          It is a very useful technique for highlighting the silliness of many (most?) alarmist thought bubbles.

          Worked with you, didn’t it?

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee John

        Naturally you can only manufacture more lies.

        No one is calling for expansion of unreliable, discontinuous renewables lacking in affordable storage.

        This is all in your head. Just like Australian net sinks, saw tooth graphs and all the other confused nonsense you have sprouted.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          Since affordable storage is not currently available, might I assume that you do nor support further expansion of renewable generation?

          Or are you saying that solar and wind can provide reliable continuous electric power, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, rain hail, no wind, too strong wind, sun, cloud, night and day?

          Remember SA system black?

  • Stu says:

    Here you go Neville, something to suit your playbook. The Rev Jimmy Bakker .

    “According to Jim Bakker, when you hear people warning about the dangers of climate change, it’s actually just a ruse to distract you from the upcoming return of Jesus Christ.

    “God’s judgment is coming, just as his word said it would come in the Last Days,” Bakker said on Monday’s edition of the The Jim Bakker Show. “Why is man so livid about global warming? Why? Why do you think people in America—do you know what? They want to have people arrested that don’t believe that global warming is what they are saying it is. Do you understand me. Wake up everybody.”

    Bakker said he’s “studied” climate change, and declared “we’ve had periods of warming before.”

    “God is going to send judgment, he already has, he’s already begun,” he continued. “Global warming is the world’s excuse that God wasn’t in the storm. I’m going to prove to you God’s in the storm, God’s in the rain, God’s in the wind, it’s God’s storm, it’s God’s wind, it’s God’s lightening.” – Deadstate.org

    OMG, so that is what all this is about, who would have thought. Same level of thinking though.

  • Neville says:

    I see our resident donkeys don’t like the real facts and data and the chief donkey is on one of his more delusional days when he thinks we can actually do something to change the climate?
    Why waste time on these fools when they reject the best data and evidence and as always retreat to their beloved fantasy planet? Con merchants and fraudsters in love with the politics of their CAGW.

    • Stu says:

      Nev, at least Chris and I are in good company, not like you two percenters, who have to cluster here for any support. Wheras Chris and I here just for the challenge. And we have no illusions of convincing you drips of anything but maybe a few other followers have more open minds.

  • Stu says:

    Clearly I was referring to BJ not Chris.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    This crap has been hashed and rehashed for years. Come back when the Tuvaluans are sloshing around in gumboots.

    • Boambee John says:

      Bryan

      At least Stu shows glimmers of understanding that this whole kerfuffle long ago ceased to be about actual science, but is now a purely political issue. He hasn’t yet quite grasped that, regardless of what politicians, public servants, self interested pseudo scientists, virtue signalling company CEOs and directors and such might say, when the voters enter the polling booth, their minds focus on the classic Australian question: “Emma Chisit?”

      Chris, OTOH, still rabbits on incessantly about decimal places of a degree, what his favourite alarmist websites have to say, and the rest of the climate change bureaucracy puts out. Still, it keeps him happy, so some good comes of it.

      Neither has any semblance of a workable plan (as different to vague hand waving) to achieve their nirvana.

      • Stu says:

        Correction. It is about science, but sadly politics, driven by big fossil fuel money continues to delay real action. But actual climate events roll forward and the deniers are losing ground day by day. It is just a matter of time. Events will overtake the laggards. Fortunately it is plain economics, pricing of competing alternatives, that is shifting the ground from under the deniers. Rational behaviour usually wins in the end and that is where we are headed. Even huge companies like GM in the US are moving rapidly to an electric future. That is what underpins their current industrial problems. I look forward to our nay sayers here eating their words in the not too distant future.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Bryan Roberts

      Your crap has been spewed across the internet for years. Come back when you learn to read and count.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Neville, our chief donkey is too lazy to check the latest mean sea levels at Ft Denison The seas and oceans to the east of Ft Denison forms the largest body of water on Earth and they now are 53mm LOWER than their first mean sea levels over a century ago:

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

    But blith-donkey is happy to quote very dodgy satellite altimetry measurements which have been continually adjusted over very short life spans, providing very dubious data. When the European satellite Envisat, was in action it actually showed no sea level rise until it got hauled into line by the others.

    These days satellites measuring sea levels seem not to get much cred except from blith and other true believers who refuse to look out the window.

    But as Bryan says above and as can easily be seen in the Pacific, the Maldives, other atoll resorts, Bangladeshi delta regions etc., sea level rise is not happening.

    And if SLR is going nowhere then global warming likewise is nothing other than Nat Var.

  • Stu says:

    And for something to chew on, here is the latest demolishing of your mate Tony Heller aka Goddard. Interesting stuff. He has no cred. And did you know he is also a Sandy Hook denier? Not a nice person.

    https://youtu.be/Tq2Wv2KHGBc

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Who is Tony Heller? Never heard of him.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Stupid, stupid Boambee….

        “Who is Tony Heller ….. ?”

        When there was a link – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq2Wv2KHGBc about (wait for it) Tony Heller !!!!

        Heller commits all the denialist tricks and is the perfect example of “How not to argue about climate change”.

        But if Boambee John just covers his eyes and ears, then any fantasy will sprout – as we have seen on numerous occasions.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          Still having difficulty with reading comprehension.

          Stu introduced this character, of whom I knew nought. I asked who he was before wasting time watching more unbearable rubbish.

          Your stupidity is exceeded only by your arrogance.

          Now stop bleating and dry your tears snowflake!

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Recommended: The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity – September 17, 2019, Douglas Murray

  • Stu says:

    Chris, this quote shows why it is dangerous to engage with these tools.

    “Expose climate deniers’ malicious untruths for the sake of the confused (honest victims of their disinformation). But don’t waste time trying to convince deniers. There’s no good faith there. They WANT to waste your time so you’re not spending it leading others to action.”. Mann

    • spangled drongo says:

      That’s the way, stu.

      Instead of providing one skerrick of measurable evidence

      You carry on with your CONversation.

      When so called experts are so allergic to facts and behave like this, they sure tell the world how good your case is:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/the-conversation-gives-up-conversing-admits-defeat-on-climate-bans-all-skeptical-scientists-from-commenting/

      • Stu says:

        Once again you resort to quoting Nova/Codling. She is not a climate scientist, she is a blogger with a basic degree in science (microbiology). So she has more science quals than I do, but I don’t publish climate science material, by which action she lays claim to expertise. Her niche is flogging books and the narrow field she has chosen is climate denial. Find more credible climate scientists to quote.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Actually, he was quoting The Conversation, which was admitting that it cannot counter sceptical arguments, and that it is taking the intellectually cowardly route of banning them.

          • Boambee John says:

            She was quoting …

          • Stu says:

            No he was quoting her rubbishing “the conversation” which has decided to ignore people like her. The scientists are tired of arguing with nongs and The Conversation is following suit.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Good to see the open minds of the alarmists on display.

            Of course, were Don to use the same words to silence you and Chris (which I am quite certain that he would NOT do, as he understands the scientific method far better than the fools at the Conversation, and you) the screams would be heard on Mars.

            The only reason for that anti-scientific decision is that they cannot respond adequately to criticism of their alleged science.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu,

          Once again you resort to shooting the messenger.

          Please give us your honest opinion of these scientists at The Conversation who have to resort to this type of discussion where only those in agreement are allowed to speak.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu, to make it simple for you, do you think this is the way to argue about climate change?

          Yes or no?

  • Neville says:

    Meanwhile China, India and the developing countries are demanding we make a first payment of 100 bn $ to compensate for their CAGW.
    This comes after we find that an extra 60 ppm of co2 has been added by these same con merchants. They laugh all the way to their banks and we’re expected to pay them?
    But I’m sure this makes good sense to our delusional donkeys and fits in nicely with their political agenda? And many more coal stns to come over the next few years and don’t the con artists love it?

    https://www.thegwpf.com/china-india-demand-100-billion-for-climate-action-on-eve-of-un-summit/

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    Since you seem unable to do a simple “Find in page” search, here is one of the “renewable pollution” posts.

    From cfact, The solar panel toxic waste problem.

    “Solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. They also contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic (even carcinogenic) chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. Worse, rainwater can wash many of these toxics out of the fragments of solar modules over time.

    Another real concern is the vast increase in the use of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) in the construction of solar panels – up 1,057 percent over the past 25 years. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deems NF3 to be 17,200 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas – meaning that even relatively minor quantities can have major impacts.”

    Seems that “Clean and Green” might be false advertising?

  • Neville says:

    Poor old sniffy Joe Biden doesn’t seem to be traveling very well lately. He’s the DEMS favourite pick for President so I suppose it does make some sort of sense.
    Just like upside down Mann is their choice for info on their CAGW? Unbelievable but true.
    But you have to watch this latest video ad from the Republicans to understand the DEMs problems if they are stupid enough to choose this poor bloke. Just amazing comparison to poor Greta Thunberg.

  • Boambee John says:

    I see that Upside Down Mann has been caught out doing some typical alarmist “cherry picking”.

    He did another of his “tricks”, truncating a graph of temperature increase in the US, showing a rise of 2 degrees in the summer temperature since 1970. Doom is upon us, the end is nigh!!

    The full series going back to the 1890s shows noticeably higher temperatures in the 1930s. The actual graph zig zags up and down across the whole period in what could be picturesquely described as a sawtooth pattern, though some humourless bureaucratic pedants might disagree!

  • Stu says:

    SD wrote “Instead of providing one skerrick of measurable evidence”. See, there is the crux of the issue. Go and do a search of climate science and you will get the evidence. There is not space here for the half million plus pages of evidence. Meantime if your favourite trolls had any evidence to the contrary they would be feted as living genius types and be up for a Nobel. That does not seem to be happening does it? Stop wasting our time asking for evidence. As stated before, this is a very lopsided argument, although the minuscule side does make an extreme amount of noise. Even today the attempt to provide for some balance in media leads to an over representation of the unscientific side of the argument. It will be interesting to see who pops up clamouring to face off with Prof Mann next month when he visits downunder.

    And have you noticed how the denier story is evolving? Even the really bad players are now acknowledging that AGW is a problem, BUT, we should not do anything about it because it is too late! I recall seeing that line of argument here recently. Oh well, proves the point, it is hard to see light with the head in the sand.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “Even the really bad players are now acknowledging that AGW is a problem, BUT, we should not do anything about it because it is too late!”

      I think your memory, like much put out by alarmists, might not be fully accurate, although including a morsel of truth.

      The subject of “too late” has indeed appeared here, but usually in the context that scientists have accepted that CO2 levels will take centuries to return to what alarmists regard as “safe” levels. The point is then made that nothing we can now do (if we accept what the alarmists say) can mitigate the CO2 “problem”, so let’s do something productive with the money instead.

      But perhaps, like a true alarmist, you saw what you wanted to see?

      • Stu says:

        “The subject of “too late” has indeed appeared here, but usually in the context that scientists have accepted that CO2 levels will take centuries to return to what alarmists regard as “safe” levels. The point is then made that nothing we can now do (if we accept what the alarmists say) can mitigate the CO2 “problem”, so let’s do something productive with the money instead.”

        So as usual you completely overlook the fact that, if the rate of growth of carbon emissions is reduced or even reached negative, things will not be as bad in the future as they will be with taking no action and seeing CO2 ppm double, yes.

        And meantime don’t look now but business is making all the right calls. Nobody wants to invest in new coal powered steam engines (generators) but plenty (business and private) are investing in renewables. The only push for money to subsidise new coal is the supposedly business friendly, hands of Liberal/National government. And by the time the current stable of coal generators die out we will have plenty of investment in suitable storage. The market always knows best, just ask SCOMO.

        The future is bright, cheaper power, new jobs, greater prosperity and clean air and water. What a winning combination, time for laggards to get on board. Denialism is doomed and will die out, or at least meekly go very quiet.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu,

          Please stop with the absolute blithering and answer my simple questions.

          If you ever had the slightest bit of evidence for your claims you could make very concise and specific statements to back those claims but what is the best you come up with?:

          “Go and do a search of climate science and you will get the evidence. There is not space here for the half million plus pages of evidence.”

          Yet with all those oceans of “evidence” you have never once been able to specify what it is.

          This is exactly the same situation as with “The Conversation”.

          You just aren’t so lucky as to have control of the site awa taxpayer funding so you can shut down rational scepticism.

          On this blog of Don’s on how not to argue about climate change you, along with “the conversations” of this world, support the “how not tos” to perfection.

          • Stu says:

            You still don’t listen. I am not making the claim, practically the entirety of world climate scientists are. Take up your case with them, I merely refer to them and the consensus that the debate is over, time to move on. They certainly have lost patience with those who refuse to accept solid science. Have you looked at what insurers and financiers are saying regarding your position. Game over.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “So as usual you completely overlook the fact that, if the rate of growth of carbon emissions is reduced or even reached negative, things will not be as bad in the future as they will be with taking no action and seeing CO2 ppm double, yes.”

            So again you demonstrate both your inability to comprehend plain English, and your cloud cuckoo land approach to what you consider to be a problem.

            If you accept the judgement of the various scientists about the impossibility of reducing atmospheric CO2 levels in our lifteimes and those of our children and grandchildren, then the priority for action must be to adapt to the conditions that alarmists say are coming.

            That means building barriers against the rising sea levels they say are coming to inundate coastal regions, dams to store water for agriculture, and reliable, continuous power supplies for cooling homes, hospitals and businesses.

            Once those priorities have been met, then is the time for mitigation, if it turns out to be needed.

            Meantime, dream on about your wonderful technological future. Do you think that we might finally get those flying cars (electric of course) that have been forecast for around half a century?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            ” I am not making the claim, practically the entirety of world climate scientists are.”

            The infamous, and totally discredited, 97% rears its ugly head again.

            Several thousand culled down to well under 100, and 97% of that figure is “practically the entirety of world climate scientists”!

            More fantasy!

            Actually, under the definition of “denialist” that you so kindly provided, you count as a denialist!

            From the definition: “An individual that exhibits such behavior is described as a denialist[4]or true believer.”

  • Stu says:

    And folks, thanks for reminding me to go back to Don’s post at the top. I beg to differ on the qualities of McKitrick. Look him up. If you think his background makes him the go to guy on climate science, fine. But I do not. In fact I am always very skeptical of anyone that brings the gods into play, especially the christian one. No place in science for that, just ask Galileo.

    He is another member of the Cornwall Alliance and signed the “evangelical declaration on global warming” discussed previously. Amongst other things they hold true “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”

    I think the point is made. That is hardly scientific. Maybe you would like to give me some proof for what they believe.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu goes full religious bigot.

      Stu is so ignorant of the history of science that he is unaware that many of the major names in science were Christians.

      Not just a bigot, but an ignorant bigot.

      • Stu says:

        No problem scientists being christians, the problem is when they believe the shit he signed up to. Oh and by the way McKitrick is not a scientist, climate or otherwise.

        And BJ, are you saying there are less than 100 climate scientists? That is an amazing call.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Don’t be so obtuse.

          If you are not aware of the origin of the 97% figure, then you are less informed on the subject of climate change than even I thought. I am not going to waste time and pixels typing it out again. The story has been told previously on this blog. Go find it and stop making yourself look such a fool.

          • Boambee John says:

            PS, plenty of alarmists (Flummery, Algore, Garnaut, Stern) are not climate scientists either. Do you dismiss their opinions because of that, or do you read them and decide if they make sense?

          • Stu says:

            You wrote “PS, plenty of alarmists (Flummery, Algore, Garnaut, Stern) are not climate scientists either. Do you dismiss their opinions because of that, or do you read them and decide if they make sense?“
            No they are not climate scientists, they are effectively commentators like your man Bolt. When they quote valid science they should be listened to. Did Flannery make an ass of himself some years ago, yes. Same goes for the other side, if they quote science (and scientists) they can be worth listening to. If they do some really bad maths like Jones and his bag of rice, definitely not.

            One has also to be watchful for hired guns. We know that in the past Jones was found to take cash for comment. Any ideas on his current allegiance and motivation? I don’t.

            There are claims that big oil (and coal but especially oil globally) have been major funders of groups arguing against the facts of AGW. There is less to no evidence of comparable funding of any AGW proponents, beyond the crowd funding of groups like Greenpeace etc.

            Certainly in the current situation it is the fossil fuel interests with the most to gain by buying political and in some places popular support by sowing the seeds of doubt. Just like happened for decades with tobacco. Delay is money in their pockets. And remember big oil is very big. And you blokes are examples of the success of the program.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “There is less to no evidence of comparable funding of any AGW proponents, beyond the crowd funding of groups like Greenpeace etc.”

            I guess that Soros and similar environmental lobby groups and individuals around the world might constitute “crowd funding” in your eyes!

            “Certainly in the current situation it is the fossil fuel interests with the most to gain by buying political and in some places popular support by sowing the seeds of doubt.”

            I often wonder how much the alarmist obsession with financial influence might be projection. You routinely accuse others of seeking financial gain. Yet you seem quite relaxed about alarmists like Algore who have made significant personal fortunes.

            But while you focus solely on money, you forget (or are unaware) that there are three other motivations for corruption, ideology, conscience and ego.

            To take few examples (my opinions, anyway). Soros is motivated almost purely by ideology. He wants a world government, and is prepared to spend lots of money to get it. Figueres and other UN, EU, IMF and World Bank bigwigs also are motivated by a similar ideology, but get a big ego boost from the perks that go with their positions.

            Gore is largely in it for money. He might not match BigOil in what he gets, but the rumoured $100 million he might have made does not have to be divided among multitudes of shareholders. Flannery seems more of an ego type, but likes the money too. Mann is almost pure ego, with an element of enjoying power over the lives of others, shown by his interminable lawfare.

            And you, Stu? I accept that money is not your motivation. I suspect that, like me, you are motivated by conscience, wanting a good world for our descendants, albeit we differ in how to achieve that. But does anything else motivate you?

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      Stu, perhaps you could articulate why the beliefs (not even opinions) of a child who is claimed to be able to ‘see’ carbon dioxide should determine the economic future of the Western world? If a child stood on a street corner holding a placard that said “The end of the world is nigh” she would be locked up, or consigned to care, not hailed as a prophet.
      She could be exposed as a fraud by taking her into any laboratory with a bottle of compressed carbon dioxide (of which there are thousands in any major city), and asking her when it was turned on.

  • Neville says:

    Here is the Bolter’s best summary of the Flannery CRANK. You would think this donkey would have ZERO credibility left, but alas most of our religious extremists still cling to his every word.
    Bolt is correct that fools like this try to destroy reason and hope and really mess with the minds of children. All of his stupid dud predictions and their ABC and the Conversation morons still encourage and promote his poison.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/tim-flannery-calls-me-a-predator-of-children-so-who-is-this-nasty-crank/news-story/23789a24152571e00aac0b8af8cb501f

  • Chris Warren says:

    JMO

    I do not follow.

    I am not aware of the principea australia denier website.

    Why do you think the camera was tuned to one wavelength?

    Can you explain a bit more?

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    On the eve of this momentous ‘climate summit’; two questions. What major climatic disasters will you confidently predict will happen, 1, within 12 months; and 2, within 2 years. Because nothing will be proposed, or done.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu sez; “I am not making the claim, practically the entirety of world climate scientists are. . Take up your case with them, I merely refer to them and the consensus that the debate is over, time to move on. They certainly have lost patience with those who refuse to accept solid science.”

    You are doubly confused, stu.

    Not only have you been making the CAGW claim ad infinitum, in ever increasing panic,

    But you still are yet to produce one scrap of their “solid science” that you base your whole argument on.

    You are in complete denial that their “solid science” is just a theory that programs the GCMs.

    And these GCMs then make your “solid science” projections.

    And you know what NASA has said about these GCMs:

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/08/29/nasa-we-cant-model-clouds-so-climate-models-are-100-times-less-accurate-than-needed-for-projections/comment-page-1/

    So your GCM-based “solid science” is not even science.

    It’s simply GIGO.

    Now, stu, if you have any other “solid science” to tell us about we are all ears but to date all you have ever produced are GIGO projections.

    That are demonstrably 95-99% wrong and getting wronger by the day.

  • spangled drongo says:

    How’s this for rich irony?: Making renewable energy at all technologically plausible will require massive increases in the supply of rare earth and critical minerals. Without these valuable metals, there will not be more efficient 21st-century batteries for electric cars or modern solar panels. Kiss the utopian vision of 100% renewable energy goodbye.

    Yet, for decades now, environmentalists have erected every possible barrier to mining here for critical minerals.

  • Neville says:

    Can our delusional donkeys tell us what they plan to do on this “Climate strike” day? And then what difference it would make to temp or climate by 2040 or 2100 or 2400 or ….? I’ll show Dr Finkel AGAIN if you like?
    BUT don’t forget the 18 ludicrous forecasts from the Earth day summit in 1970 and how they all failed miserably and some of those morons are still telling us the world will soon end AGAIN?
    These fools are no better than ignorant witch doctors dancing around a camp fire scaring the crap out of their fellow tribesmen. Every shooting star was a sign from some big booga, booga scary fella in the sky.
    But again and again they line up and fall for these con merchants and don’t exhibit any shame at all. Ya gotta love it, just clueless lefties and their ongoing love of fantasy. Reality is such a bore.

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova has another brilliant coverage of the taxpayer funded ban by the CON-versation. Just another fascist, totalitarian kick in the guts to 50% of the Aussies who won’t bow down to their clueless fantasies.
    In fact I’m sure there are a majority of Aussies who’d be happy to hear both sides of any argument. Isn’t that what we do in a democracy?
    We had an election campaign that ended in the election of a Coaltion govt and everyone agrees that Qld + Adani was the catalyst for that win.
    But we didn’t have JUST Shorten or Morrison running around for weeks by themselves. In fact we had head to head debates and interviews over many weeks and people THEN made their choice. So why are they so scared of a proper debate on their so called CAGW and their cataclysmic end of the world?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/under-seige-the-conversation-pulls-the-weak-trust-your-doctor-or-climate-god-excuse/#comments

  • Chris Warren says:

    Nice, succinct statement …

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/20/we-declare-our-support-for-extinction-rebellion-an-open-letter-from-australias-academics

    “Humans cannot continue to violate the fundamental laws of nature or ignore the basic science with impunity. As oceans rise and temperatures soar, ecosystems will continue to collapse. As resources diminish, social unrest and civilisation collapse are likely. The most marginalised and vulnerable in society will be hit first and hit hardest. And If we continue on our current path, the future of our own species is bleak.”

    Dednialsts are now just a cranky rump.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Any group of wackademics who publish such a letter in the Grauniad have totally lost the plot.

      Perhaps they will follow up with a letter extolling the economic policies of Venezuela?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Yes, BJ, and any wacko who quotes the grauniad quoting those same wackademics likewise is plot-poor.

        • Boambee John says:

          The current government of Venezuela has effectively shut down that part of the economy. Doing well in the new “carbon” free economy, aren’t they? Millions have fled, tge hospitals are a mess, and stray animals end up in the cooking pot.

          Are you really so ill informed?

      • Chris Warren says:

        Venezuela’s economy is based on fossil fuels. Its policy is based on exporting more fossil fuel.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          No, mate. Venezuela embraced socialism. It didn’t work. The people fled, and are still fleeing. Presaging the horrors to come, if the climate authoritarians get their way. I wonder what the children will think when they can’t get their new iPhones, or Twitter goes down, as it assuredly would under any kind of authoritarian regime?

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          I might have missed the newsflash, but are children protesting in the streets of Caracas?

          • Chris Warren says:

            What sort of political agenda are you trying to distract everyone with?

            Have you given up climate denial?

          • Boambee John says:

            Part of the cause of the collapse of the Venezuelan economy was that many important jobs in the oil industry were given to Chavistas, who didn’t have a clue. The oil industry then collapsed.

            The disaster that is Venezuela is a warning of what would happen here if the Children’s Crusade get the more extravagant of their demands accepted. Jobs disappear, the health system collapses, food supplies disappear, and millions flee to become refugees elsewhere.

            This is what the more manic Gaia worshippers want.

            Still, it would meet the two conditions that Chris wants to save us from Goebbels Warming: lower per capita CO2 emissions and reduce population.

          • Boambee John says:

            “Chris Warren
            September 20, 2019 at 5:22 pm
            What sort of political agenda are you trying to distract everyone with?

            Have you given up climate denial?”

            What is your political agenda Chris? World depopulation?

          • Chris Warren says:

            Denialist trick – answer an inconvenient question with a copycat question?

          • Boambee John says:

            Alarmist trick, conceal the true agenda.

  • Neville says:

    I was approached recently by a young couple in my shopping centre handing out pamphlets about their CAGW fears.
    I asked them what they feared and they told me about terrible loss of life, storms, fires, SLR etc, in fact the end of the world was at hand.
    They then said we must have clean S&W power ASAP and stop using and exporting our gas and coal. I told them the Aussie people just voted in a govt who clearly wanted to use and export our coal, gas, iron ore etc to provide more jobs and wealth now and into the future.
    They started to get very nervy and just gave me a blank stare when I asked them why we should change our wealthy country into a third world economy for a guaranteed zero change in climate or temp?
    They didn’t have a clue and reminded me of creepy Joe Biden and poor young Greta. A pity our resident donkeys weren’t available or perhaps a Guardian or CON-versation journalist to pat them on the back. Shorten & Plibersek also come to mind as well after their regular display of stupidity during the election campaign. Gotta luv these dummies.

  • spangled drongo says:

    For rational climate observers Dr Pat Frank explains with great clarity how the GCMs are virtually useless and are unlikely to improve much in a lifetime.

    This is what NASA had to admit albeit in little detail and very small print and what Dr Frank spells out for anyone who wants to know the truth:

    “…The CMIP5 GCM annual average 12.1% error in simulated CF is the resolution lower limit. This lower limit is 121 times larger than the 0.1% resolution limit needed to model the cloud feedback due to the annual 0.035 W/m^2 of CO? forcing…”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/19/emulation-4-w-m-long-wave-cloud-forcing-error-and-meaning/

  • spangled drongo says:

    The model-predicted CO2 fingerprint that didn’t happen.

    The predicted feedbacks that the GCMs got wrong but the whole con of CAGW is based on.

    If the IPCC models were right about feedbacks, we would see a hot spot 10km above the tropics.

    The theory is that with more heat, more water will evaporate and rise, keeping relative humidity constant at all heights in the troposphere.

    This has been conclusively tested with many millions of weather balloons since 1959. The models all predict warming in the low to mid troposphere, and their predictions are about 4 times higher than the weather balloons and satellites measure.

    As a result, a doubling of ACO2 will see a warming of around 1c, not the up to 6c as claimed.

    A shame the kiddies can’t be taught evidential science to improve their rationality and peace of mind.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Probably the best example of how not to argue about climate change is this:

    https://www.steynonline.com/9742/michael-e-mann-loser

    Another clear example of the climate corruption network.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Do you, or any of your crowd, care about the people who have starved in the streets, or fled the country? Why would anyone flee a country that was so ‘woke’?

  • Chris Warren says:

    The denialists have been so thoroughly defeated that they now resort to saying – climate change is real, but the rate is unconcerning.

    Remember the core denialist claims (Fred Singer) were:

    · There is no current global warming and little to be expected in the future.

    · The past, both recent and geologic, has seen large and rapid natural changes in temperature.

    · Any onset of warmer temperatures would be expected to produce a drop in sea level, not a rise.

    · The science of climate change is not “settled” or “compelling,” and there is hardly any consensus within the informed scientific community.

    How embarassing. We know as a fact that there is current global warming and little is expected in the future.

    The recent past has not seen large and rapid natural changes in temperature.

    Warming temperatures are not expected to produce a drop in sea level.

    There is a solid consensus within the informed scientific community.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      “How embarassing. We know as a fact that there is current global warming and little is expected in the future.”

      This is great news. Chris advises that little more warming is expected. The minor warming so far has been essentially beneficial.

      Rejoice!!!! We are saved!!! Chris has confirmed it!!!

      • Chris Warren says:

        Denialist does not understand that the future global warming will not stop at “little”.

        True “little” will occur but more will follow.

        There is no proof that warming so far has been essentially beneficial – this is a religious dogma by those worshiping minor elevation in plant growth due to feedbacks after CO2 concentration has skyrocketed.

        • Boambee John says:

          Alarmist stuffs up his post, says that “little (warming) is expected in the future.” Realises the error once it is pointed out to the nong, tries to flannel about “little” will occur but more will follow.” In alarmist world, “little is expected in the future” means “lots is expected in the future.”

          Alice in Wonderland was a work of imaginative fiction, except in alarmist world, where words mean whatever alarmists want them to mean!!!

          A bit like being a “little” bit pregnant. Start with a “little”, more will follow.

          Then alarmist decries an increase in (CO2 absorbing) vegetation cover.

          Alarmist not having a good night.

          What is the political agenda you are trying to divert attention from, alarmist????!!!

  • spangled drongo says:

    BJ, could it have finally dawned on our blith that the GCMs are so dodgy that his much preached “catastrophic” warming just isn’t going to happen after all and that he better get his hysteria under control?

    • Boambee John says:

      SD

      No, enlightenment has not arrived. Chris just made a silly error, and is now trying to say that words mean whatever he wants them to mean. See the response above!

  • Chris Warren says:

    Who were those idiotic deniers who tried to suggest there were no school climate strikes in Venezuela???

    Just how incompetent are our dregs of denialism???

    ************

    School strike for climate: Life as a climate striker in Venezuela

    This article was published on: 06/20/19 4:46 PM

    By Dannalice Anza

    Being a climate striker in Venezuela is very complex; many people question why they should support this campaign if our country is going through such difficult times, times in which living their day-to-day life has become a complicated task. The truth is that the world finds itself in a critical historical moment, and if we don’t act now, there won’t be a future. Our generation is called to transcend the day-to-day and to act now or to remain silent forever. It’s our generational challenge. A challenge that we are assuming from all corners of the world. There are no borders when it comes to defending the environment.

    The dominant model of civilization is becoming less and less sustainable each day, and that is why we demand that the world’s leaders take action; that is why we demand that they confront global change. Right now, the decision lies in the hands of a few, but the real power resides in the organization of the people, in the essence of the people, and that is why we will continue with campaigns to awaken the conscience of society.

    Although Venezuela does not have a huge impact on greenhouse gas emissions when compared to industrialized countries, global warming is something that affects us all, and climate change has neither limits nor borders. That is why all the countries of the world are affected. In 2016, the increased intensity of the El Niño phenomenon led to an extreme drought, which affected the national electricity system, the distribution of potable water, and agricultural activity.

    In Venezuela, we have our own dynamics; we only take to the streets and organize climate strikes when the international agenda calls for massive strikes in all the cities of the world. However, environmental activism is consistent with activities to address internal environmental problems, and different types of activities are always being carried out: training, conservation programs, promoting sustainable development, etc. There are various organizations that fight for the environment with different objectives, but always with the common goal of preserving the life on this planet. This is the true fight, because the planet will continue being the Earth, with or without living beings.

    I want to be part of a generation that has the strength and energy to drive the necessary transformations, a generation that promotes the process of transformation for the benefit of all expressions of life on Earth. We must defend the most defenseless; the planet Earth is not only the home of the human species, but also the home to many forms of life that we must respect. We are not alone in this home. One time, I read: “we are turning the Earth into a place uninhabitable to the noblest of its inhabitants”. I always remember that sentence, and with that in mind, I have decided to keep the struggle for the environment alive.

    What gives me hope? Our planet is a very dynamic and complex system, with a great capacity for resilience. I believe that we are still in time to avoid the unleashing of the many other problems that would limit our living conditions to a much greater degree.

    Follow Dannalice on Twitter at @dannaliceanza

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      After much searching you have found one Venezuelan climate striker.

      Who admits that “our country is going through such difficult times, times in which living their day-to-day life has become a complicated task.”

      Could those difficulties have come as a result of stupid government policies that destroyed the economy?

      Still, in its present state, Venezuela seems likely to contribute little to global warming in the future. Just a pity about all those Venezuelans who lost their jobs, died because a collapsing health system could not care for them, starved or became refugees. Do they count as climate refugees?

      Anyway, it’s for the good of Gaia, isn’t it? To make an environmental omelette, one must be willing to break a few eggs.

      For the children (those who survived the economic collapse, that is)!

Leave a Reply