The gentle art of blaming

I rely on Judith Curry of Climate Etc to alert me to useful and provocative essays, articles and books, and she recently wrote a new essay herself, which you can read here. I think that the core element of her essay is the proposition that blaming gets in the way of doing anything sensible about whatever the problem is thought to be. Or, putting it another way, that the goal of the blamers is the immediate punishment of the offenders, not searching for a solution to the imagined problem. She uses material from the pandemic to try to find what is happening in the domain of climate change.

Inasmuch as manmade climate change is a problem, who is responsible for it? We might note at once that defenders of fossil fuels have extolled the benefits that the development of coal, oil, and natural gas have had on mankind, including improved health, increased lifespan, and expansion of material welfare. Richard Tol, an economist with a deep interest in energy issues, has shown the private benefit of carbon is much greater than the social cost of carbon. The benefits come from fossil fuels and their provision of abundant and reliable energy.

Well, you ask, who are the ones to blame for the social costs? You could start with consumers (us) and industries who want cheap electric power, the industries providing grids and the engines using coal and other fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal companies, and governments which have the authority to regulate fossil fuel emissions. To identify who is responsible we need a causal link between the problem-maker and the harm caused, the ability to foresee the harm and the ability to prevent it.  Recent developments in attribution science are seeking to identify the culpability of individual or groups of oil/gas and coal companies as related to local sea level rise, ocean acidification and extreme weather events. I had not previously heard of ‘attribution science’. Work by Richard Heede suggests that nearly two-thirds of anthropogenic carbon emissions originate from just ninety companies and government-run industries. The top eight such companies account for twenty per cent of emissions.

So there you have the villains, so to speak, but there is no evidence here to show that these emitters are responsible for specific and alleged climate-related impacts and events, like sea-level rise or ‘ocean acidification’. Dr Curry warns that ‘The science of attribution, or causality, is not at all straightforward. There are two specific issues here: whether climate models are valid sources of legal evidence for climate change attribution/cause; and also the importance of determining partial causation in the context of natural climate variability.

All this is complicated by the existence of multiple causes, and by the sheer weight of existing infrastructure. We do not have choice, as consumers, in how we get to work, for example. We do not really care how the electricity we use to move the planes and light our homes is generated, other than it is abundant, reliable, safe and economical. Likewise, if there is an efficient tram service close to us, it makes little sense to avoid using it on the ground that most of its power comes from coal and gas.

What does the pandemic tell us about these issues? The apparent and imminent arrival of vaccines suggests that the cure here has been technological, not in world-wide behavioural change, though behavioural change has worked in some places on a small scale. The search in climate science for a global attack on emissions has not worked, and appears unlikely to work. Dr Curry suggests that the cure in climate change, if one is needed, rests on problem-solving and new technologies, not in searching for villains and punishing them. We are all too involved in the use of fossil fuels for punishment to make good sense. Indeed, The fact that there is continued and growing demand for fossil fuels indicates that the issue of blame is not straightforward. A change from fossil fuels to cleaner fuels is not simple or cheap, owing to infrastructure. For electric power, this includes generation and transmission infrastructure. For transportation, this includes vehicle engines and their manufacture plus refueling infrastructure.

So putting the blame on big corporations, let alone on us the consumers, is not going to solve anything. Progress requires a focus on infrastructure, but where does that get us? It all depends on available and planned technologies, economics and public policy. In the case of Covid-19 a technological solution was always available, if not immediately, and the required elements of economics and public policy were there. To shift to climate policy, A technological solution (analogous to development of the vaccine) in terms of better electricity generation and transmission would quickly silence the climate ‘blame game’ by solving the problems to the environment caused by burning fossil fuels. Suffering from insufficient electric power or electric power that is too expensive or unreliable (analogous to the Covid lockdowns) is economically damaging and politically unviable.

Dr Curry’s conclusion appeals to me. In context of the climate debate, the lesson from Covid-19 is this… the solution is problem solving and new technologies, not blame. While isolation and austerity can be invoked for short time periods, they are not solutions. The Covid-19 blame game didn’t get in the way of finding a solution (i.e. vaccine).  However, the rush to blame the fossil fuel companies and punish them is getting in the way of a sensible transition away from the worst impacts of fossil fuels on the environment.  I am impressed by the weight of evidence pointing to the way in which we as consumers are at the heart of the problem. It seems plain to me that global action will not work. The evidence for catastrophe is too scanty, and each country sees the problem through its own spectacles. We all want electric power that is abundant, reliable, cheap and safe. But what are the priorities here? And how do we effectively prioritise them? I think my own priorities are straightforward: #1 reliable, #2 cheap, #3 abundant, and #4 safe. By safe I have in mind not CO2 emissions but smoke, particulates and other chemicals.

As Dr Curry says, it is in no sense an easy problem, and it has to be tackled on a nation-by-nation basis, not as some man-on-the-moon noble and global cause.  We will see. The Coalition Government has made clear, at least so far, that it will deal with the issue for Australia itself, and that does not mean any agreement about what is to happen by 2050, whatever anyone else says.

 ENDNOTE This my last essay for the year. I’ll send out the first for 2021 in mid January, all being well, with a few new rules. In the meantime, my best wishes to all readers for the holiday season, if the lockdowns allow your wishes. I’m sorry for the delay. I had a computer glitch, and a lot of activity here to do with my lady.

 

Join the discussion 196 Comments

  • Karabar says:

    From the second paragraph, “manmade climate change is a problem”.
    To which climate do you refer?
    How do we determine that something has changed unless we employ a metric?
    Insofar as “climate” is a regional parameter, intended for the comparison of typical weather in one region relative to another region, what is the period of this change?
    If this period is one in which humans have had an influence, rather than millions of years, what change is relevant? How is this change determined?
    In other words, what is meant by “climate change”? And if it is a problem, why is it a problem? A problem for whom?
    What “climate” do you prefer? There is a near infinite range of climates on this orb, so an individual need only to choose the region which posesses that individual’s perfect “climate”.

  • Peter Lang says:

    Is Global Warming Beneficial? Empirical Evidence

    1 Introduction

    Climate policies and actions should be justified on the basis of the economic impacts of global warming, not on the amount, rate or causes of projected temperature changes. If global warming is beneficial, as empirical evidence indicates may be the case, then policies and actions to reduce global warming are not justified.

    This post discusses empirical data of global mean surface temperature (GMST), tropical temperatures and polar temperatures over the Phanerozoic Eon (past 542 Ma), and of ecosystems productivity and the economic impact of global warming on the main impact sectors over recent times. The empirical evidence suggest the optimum GMST for life on Earth may be around 7–13 °C higher than present, and global warming up to at least 3 °C is more likely than not to be beneficial for ecosystems and the global economy.

  • Peter Lang says:

    2 GMST was much higher than now for most of the past 542 Ma

    As a first step, we need to understand the range of past global temperatures and how the current temperatures compare with them (Scotese, 2018) [1].

    Source: Scotese, 2018, p.10 [1].

    The Quaternary (last 2.6 Ma) is the second coldest multi-million year period in the past 542 Ma. The coldest was 280–260 Ma ago when GMST dropped to about 4 °C colder than present.

    The warmest period was about 250 Ma ago following the late Permian mass extinction event. GMST peaked at about 21 °C higher than present GMST, which is about 15 °C; (Pre Industrial period was ~14.1 °C). Other hot periods, and GMST differences from present, were:
    Ma BP °C
    540–460 +11.0–13.6
    440 +12.5
    420 +13.1
    385–360 +10.3–17.8
    250–35 +2.0–21.3

    For 50% of the period 250–0 Ma GMST was more than 7 °C higher than present and for 82% of that time GMST was more than 3 °C higher. These provide a perspective for considering the impacts of 2–3 °C of global warming from now.

    Next look at the charts on page 20 of Scotese (2018) [1]. Notice how the tropics to poles temperature gradients flatten as the planet warms. The chart on page 12 shows average tropics temperatures minus GMST through time. The differences range from about 6 °C during the hottest periods to around 12 °C during the coldest period. These show that most of the warming is extra-tropical, not in the tropics.

  • Peter Lang says:

    3 Optimum GMST for ecosystems

    Geological and palaeontological evidence suggests the optimum GMST for ecosystems is that which existed around the Early Eocene Climate Optimum [2] and during the ‘Cambrian Explosion’, i.e. ~25–28°C (i.e. ~10–13°C warmer than present).

    3.1 Mass extinction events

    1. Most major extinction events [3] have been due to bolide impacts, volcanism and ice ages, not global warming.

    2. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) [4] was due to warming but it was less severe than most mass extinctions. “The most dramatic example of sustained warming is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions.” [4]. The PETM occurred when GMST was above optimum for life on Earth.

    3. The Permian-Triassic Boundary mass extinction event has recently been reported to have been caused by extensive volcanism that caused acidification, an ice age and sea level regression, not global warming [5,6].

    4. Apart from the PETM there appear to have been no major extinction events that were due to global warming when GMST was below the optimum (approximately ~7–13 °C above present).

    3.2 Rapid warming

    5. Even very rapid warming is beneficial for ecosystems. Coxon and McCarron (2009) [7] Figure 15:21 shows temperatures in Ireland, Greenland and Iceland warmed from near LGM temperatures to near current temperatures in 7 years 14,500 years BP and in 9 years 11,500 year BP. Life thrived during these events.

    6. Biosphere productivity is increasing during the current warming – the planet has greened by about 14% during 35 years of satellite observations (Donohue et al., 2013 [8], Zhu et al. (2016), Greening of the Earth and it drivers [9]). GMST increased by about 0.4°C during the period analysed (1982–2010).

    3.3 Biosphere productivity is higher in warmer climates

    7. Biosphere productivity is higher at low latitudes (warmer) than at high latitudes (colder). Gillman et al. (2015) ‘Latitude, productivity and species richness’ [10]: “Contrary to the recent claims, we found strong support for a negative relationship between latitude and annual NPP of forests with all datasets, and NPP was significantly greater in tropical forests than in temperate forests. Vascular plant richness was positively correlated with NPP.

    8. Biomass density (tC/ha) is approximately ten times higher in tropical rainforests than extratropical [11].

    https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/tcmt20/2014/tcmt20.v005.i01/cmt.13.77/20140410/images/large/tcmt_a_10816421_f0002.jpeg
    Figure 2 (see previous page). Global distribution of carbon density (tons of C ha-1). (A) soil organic carbon to 1 m depth based on Harmonized World Soil Database version 1.1 [27]; (B) above- and below-ground phytomass [9]; and (C) SOC as a percentage of total carbon stocks in soil and phytomass, showing areas in dark green where SOC constitutes less than 50% of the combined phytomass and soil carbon stock (mostly in tropical moist forests), and areas in brown where SOC constitutes the vast majority of the total carbon stock (more than 75% of combined soil and phytomass carbon stocks; areas where phytomass is either naturally low, e.g., tundra, or has been reduced by disturbance or land use and land cover change, or because of the presence of highly organic soils). Areas without carbon data are shown in grey. Maps are shown in geographic projection.
    SOC: Soil organic carbon. ” [11]

    A rough calculation of biosphere and soil organic carbon density from Figure 2, charts A and B, shows carbon density decreases from tropics to high latitudes, as follows (tC/ha versus latitude):
    Soil Organic Carbon: y = -0.125x + 105
    Biomass: y = 110.31e-0.026x
    Total: y = -1.975x + 241

    9. The mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere has increased substantially during the warming from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. 2019 [12], find that the mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere increased by about 40% (850 GtC) from LGM to preindustrial times. This compares with 10%-50% (300-1000 GtC) increase from LGM to the pre-industrial inventory of about 3,000 GtC stated in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 [13]. These indicate that warming is beneficial for ecosystems.

    These points suggest that global warming is net beneficial for ecosystems when GMST is below the optimum, which empirical evidence indicates may be around 7–13 °C above present GMST.

  • Peter Lang says:

    4 Global impacts at +3°C GMST by impact sector

    Many Integrated Assessment Models (IAM) have been developed to estimate the economic impact of global warming. The three most cited are DICE, FUND and PAGE. Of these only FUND disaggregates the economic impacts by impact sector.

    The economic impact of the main impact sectors at 3°C global average temperature increase (relative to 2000) in % of world GDP as projected by FUND [14] are:

    Impact sector Impact
    Agriculture & forestry: +0.61%
    Storms (Extreme weather): -0.01%
    Sea level rise: -0.02%
    Health: -0.03%
    Ecosystems: -0.16%
    Water resources: -0.17%
    Energy consumption: -0.89%
    Total: -0.68%
    Total excluding Energy: +0.21%

    Figure 15. FUND3.9 projected global sectoral economic impact of climate change as a function of GMST change from 2000. Total* is of all impact sectors except energy.” [14]

    The above table and figure indicate that FUND projects the overall impact is positive if the energy impact sector is excluded (dashed black line). Lang and Gregory, 2019 [14] finds the energy sector impact projections may be incorrect and should be positive. In this case the impact of 3°C global warming on the world economy (i.e. total of all impact sectors) would be more positive.

    Empirical data for each impact sector (from other sources) suggests the impacts for most or all sectors may be more positive than projected by FUND.

    1. Agriculture & forestry – may be more positive due to higher productivity, including as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration [15]

    2. Storms (Extreme weather) – frequency and intensity decreases as global warming increases

    3. Sea level rise – the amount of sea level rise may be overestimated in FUND

    4. Health – various studies indicate warming is beneficial for health – e.g. 5 to 20 times more deaths from cold events than from hot events

    5. Ecosystems – paleo evidence, net primary productivity and amount of carbon tied up in the biosphere versus temperature (latitude) show that ecosystems are more productive at warmer temperatures

    6. Water resources – [ I don’t know about this one]

    7. Energy consumption – With non-temperature drivers excluded FUND projects that +3°C global warming would negatively impact the US economy by 0.8% GDP. However, Lang and Gregory (2019) [14], using empirical data for the USA, finds that 3 °C global warming would positively impact the US economy by 0.07% GDP (see Table 2). The paper infers that global warming would also positively impact the global economy.

  • Peter Lang says:

    5 Summary and Conclusions

    GMST has been more than 3C warmer than present for 82% of the past 542 Ma and up to 21 °C warmer than present. Tropical average temperature ranged from 6 °C warmer than GMST during the hottest to around 12 °C during the coldest periods.

    The optimum temperature for ecosystems is around 7–13 °C above present GMST. Global warming is net beneficial for ecosystems when GMST is below the optimum.

    The economic impact of 3 °C global warming is likely to be positive; L&G19 [14] find it may be around 0.21% of GDP.

    If global warming is net beneficial as these findings suggest, it follows that policies and actions to reduce global warming are not justifiable. Such policies are reducing global economic growth and slowing the rate of improvement in human wellbeing.

  • Peter Lang says:

    6 References

    1. Scotese, C.R. Phanerozoic Temperatures: Tropical Mean Annual Temperature (TMAT), Polar Mean Annual Temperature (PMAT), and Global Mean Annual Temperature (GMAT) for the last 540 million years. In Earth’s Temperature History Research Workshop, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History: Washington DC, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017003_Phanerozoic_Temperatures_Tropical_Mean_Annual_Temperature_TMAT_Polar_Mean_Annual_Temperature_PMAT_and_Global_Mean_Annual_Temperature_GMAT_for_the_last_540_million_years.
    2. Wikipedia. Eocene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene,
    3. Wikipedia. Extinction event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#List_of_extinction_events,
    4. Wikipedia. Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum,
    5. Baresel, B.; Bucher, H.; Bagherpour, B.; Brosse, M.; Guodun, K.; Schaltegger, U. Timing of global regression and microbial bloom linked with the Permian-Triassic boundary mass extinction: implications for driving mechanisms. Scientific Reports 2017, 7, https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43630.
    6. Penn, J.L.; Deutsch, C.; Payne, J.L.; Sperling, E.A. Temperature-dependent hypoxia explains biogeography and severity of end-Permian marine mass extinction. Science 2018, 362, eaat1327. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/362/6419/eaat1327.full.pdf.
    7. Coxon, P.; McCarron, S.G. Cenozoic: Tertiary and Quaternary (until 11,700 years before 2000). In Geology of Ireland, 2nd ed.; Dunedin Academic Press: Edinburgh, 2009; pp 356-396. http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/1983/.
    8. Donohue, R.J.; Roderick, M.L.; McVicar, T.R.; Farquhar, G.D. Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments. Geophysical Research Letters 2013, 40, 3031-3035. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/grl.50563.
    9. Zhu, Z.; Piao, S.; Myneni, R.B.; Huang, M.; Zeng, Z.; Canadell, J.G.; Ciais, P.; Sitch, S.; Friedlingstein, P.; Arneth, A., et al. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change 2016, 6, 791-795. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004.
    10. Gillman, L.N.; Wright, S.D.; Cusens, J.; McBride, P.D.; Malhi, Y.; Whittaker, R.J. Latitude, productivity and species richness. Global Ecology and Biogeography 2015, 24, 107-117. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/geb.12245.
    11. Scharlemann, J.P.; Tanner, E.V.; Hiederer, R.; Kapos, V. Global soil carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Management 2014, 5, 81-91. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.13.77.
    12. Jeltsch-Thömmes, A.; Battaglia, G.; Cartapanis, O.; Jaccard, S.L.; Joos, F. Low terrestrial carbon storage at the Last Glacial Maximum: constraints from multi-proxy data. Climate of the Past 2019, 15, 849-879. https://www.clim-past.net/15/849/2019/#top.
    13. Jansen, E.; Overpeck, J.; Briffa, K.; Duplessy, J.; Joos, F.; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Olago, D.; Otto-Bliesner, B.; Peltier, W.; Rahmstorf, S. Palaeoclimate. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 978 0521 70596-7 Paperback; 2007; pp 434-497. https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html.
    14. Lang, P.A.; Gregory, K.B. Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming. Energies 2019, 12, 3575. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575.
    15. Dayaratna, K.D.; McKitrick, R.; Michaels, P.J. Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w.

  • Neville says:

    Don, I hope you can have an easier time soon and I fully sympathise with you and your family at this difficult time.

    BTW I think this 10 minute Sky News interview with Shellenberger allows us to understand his frustration with the Green religious extremists and a number of activist scientists.
    I’m convinced that we’re on the wrong path and a proper cost benefit analysis supports this POV. Lomborg has also been on the alarmist’s case for decades and he has a much harder job in front of him now, since the election of Biden.

  • Karabar says:

    All very interesting and poignant, Peter Lang.
    However, you are dealing with temperature, which is certainly not the same thing as “climate”. The two parameters are nearly always conflated in this day and age.
    As for “global mean surface temperature”, while not daring to disagree with your sentiments, I wish to point out that it is something that is mathematically and thermodynamically impossible to compute with any accuracy. Nevertheless, if one attends to raw observations of weather; rather than the politicised manipulated, and tortured and deceitful reporting of such institiutions as Hadley, NOOA, or the BOM, it is not difficult to conclude that it is becoming cooler, as it has rather spasmodically for the past 9,000 years.
    The only metric one can apply to “climate” is a classification such as Koppen-Geiger or Trewartha. Barring change in climate to regions due to land use, it is rather difficult to find any permanaenta and significant changes in classification for any region on the globe since the end of the LIA, or at least for as long as these classifications have been tabulated. The woke term “climate change” is as nonsensical as “gender change”.

    • Peter Lang says:

      I agree that the woke term “climate change” is as nonsensical as “gender change”.

      I should have referred to temperature throughout my comments. The Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST), tropical average temperature, N and S polar region average temperatures, the temperature gradients per latitude from equator to N and S pole, and more are provided in Scotese (2018) 1. Scotese, C.R. Phanerozoic Temperatures: Tropical Mean Annual Temperature (TMAT), Polar Mean Annual Temperature (PMAT), and Global Mean Annual Temperature (GMAT) for the last 540 million years. In Earth’s Temperature History Research Workshop, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History: Washington DC, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017003_Phanerozoic_Temperatures_Tropical_Mean_Annual_Temperature_TMAT_Polar_Mean_Annual_Temperature_PMAT_and_Global_Mean_Annual_Temperature_GMAT_for_the_last_540_million_years

      However, as I said at the start of my first comment:

      “Climate policies and actions should be justified on the basis of the economic impacts of global warming, not on the amount, rate or causes of projected temperature changes. If global warming is beneficial, as empirical evidence indicates may be the case, then policies and actions to reduce global warming are not justified.”

  • Peter Lang says:

    6 References

    1. Scotese, C.R. Phanerozoic Temperatures: Tropical Mean Annual Temperature (TMAT), Polar Mean Annual Temperature (PMAT), and Global Mean Annual Temperature (GMAT) for the last 540 million years. In Earth’s Temperature History Research Workshop, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History: Washington DC, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017003_Phanerozoic_Temperatures_Tropical_Mean_Annual_Temperature_TMAT_Polar_Mean_Annual_Temperature_PMAT_and_Global_Mean_Annual_Temperature_GMAT_for_the_last_540_million_years.
    2. Wikipedia. Eocene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene,
    3. Wikipedia. Extinction event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#List_of_extinction_events,
    4. Wikipedia. Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum,
    5. Baresel, B.; Bucher, H.; Bagherpour, B.; Brosse, M.; Guodun, K.; Schaltegger, U. Timing of global regression and microbial bloom linked with the Permian-Triassic boundary mass extinction: implications for driving mechanisms. Scientific Reports 2017, 7, https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43630.

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    Thanks Don.

    The so-called Attribution of Climate-related Events (ACE) initiative has been a dodgy exercise since its creation a decade ago.

    Once upon a time changes in nature were attributed to acts of God or Satan and their disciples. Today the only game in town is to “attribute” them to so-called anthropogenic “climate change”. It can be whatever you want it to be, just as long as activist lawyers and judges like it and the developing world can use it to extort billions/trillions from the developed world via the UN Green Climate Fund.

    ACE’s inaugural meeting was held in Boulder, Colorado, 26 January 2009, at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Mesa Lab. Attendees included Myles Allen (Oxford University), Martin Hoerling (NOAA, USA), Peter Stott (UK Met Office, Hadley Centre), Kevin Trenberth (NCAR) and David Karoly (University of Melbourne).

    ACE later released a four-paragraph statement. Its mission would be: “to provide authoritative assessments of the causes of anomalous climate conditions and EWEs”,

    Three years later, Dr Peter Stott, now Hadley Centre Head of climate monitoring and attribution, and eight others again stressed the importance of reining in mavericks (sceptics) and having a unified “authoritative voice” in a conference paper.

    “Unusual or extreme weather and climate-related events are of great public concern and interest,” they noted, “yet there are often conflicting messages from scientists about whether such events can be linked to climate change.”

    “All too often the public receives contradictory messages from reputable experts. If the public hears that a particular weather event is consistent with climate change they may conclude that it is further proof of the immediate consequences of human-induced global warming. On the other hand, if the public hears that it is not possible to attribute an individual event, they may conclude that the uncertainties are such that nothing can be said authoritatively about the effects of climate change as actually experienced.” (author’s emphasis)

    Whatever you do, don’t confuse the public with chatter about uncertainties. Imagine the furore if too many folk begin to suspect that nothing “can be said authoritatively about climate change” other than that (unpredictable) change is what the planet’s climate (and weather) does and always has done.

    Source: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/02/weird-weather-shenanigans-part-i/

  • Mike Burston says:

    Best wishes to you Don. If only you were around as a mentor in my early adulthood

  • Richard Barratt says:

    Goodness me Don, this is my favourite instalment of yours on anthropogenic global warming. At the risk of jinxing it, it sounds like you might be coming around to the reality.

    I agree entirely that the unlocking of fossil fuels enabled the industrial revolution and the massive increase in global living standards. I am grateful for that to have happened. BUT, we now have the technologies available to keep abundant, cheap energy flowing that is renewable and (relatively) non-polluting, so we can save our valuable long-chain carbon molecules for useful things like intensive portable energy, pharmaceuticals, essential plastics and so on without burning them.

    As for the blame game, I agree, it’s largely unproductive, but it is understandable when vested interests promulgate misinformation in pursuit of profit, at the expense of our long term interests. It’s basically a counter-attack. If fossil fuel companies were to cease the obfuscation and disinformation, and get with the programme, which they often profess to be doing, and in many cases actually are, then we could all let it rest.

    On a personal note, my sympathy is with you Don. It’s a very difficult time.

    All the best. Love, Richard.

    • Peter Lang says:

      Richard Barret, you say: “BUT, we now have the technologies available to keep abundant, cheap energy flowing that is renewable, …”

      However, renewables are not the solution and never can be. They are very expensive when the full system costs are included. The costs increase as renewables become a higher proportion of total electricity supplied because the cost of backup and/or storage increases dramatically. I’ll post a few comments below on the nuclear option. It explains that the nuclear costs could be 10% of what they are if not for the fear created by the anti nuclear protest movement and the resulting regulatory environment. It also explains what we need to do to get nuclear prices down to where they would have been and what the benefits would be.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Thanks once again, Don, for a good summary of the modern woke world.

    I feel though, that the modern art of blaming is mostly not too gentle.

    When even science thinks that massaged data, using already-homogenised data, is preferred over the actual raw data to form the basis for our new beliefs in the wickedness of mankind, the limit that art extends to is potentially frightening.

    We become much more receptive to and accepting of “catastrophe” even when it never happens.

    Last weekend it was predicted by the MSM, using BoM “science” as a reference, that as a result of a combined king tide, atmospheric lows and strong cyclonic-type winds, SE Qld sea fronts would experience possible record sea levels.

    When it was all over and the sea surge had only reached a height of 20% of the previous “baddie” in 1974 [300 mm above king tide height as opposed to 1500 mm] the matter was not mentioned again.

    But “locals” that had only been around for a decade or two were convinced they “had never seen anything like it” and the MSM were not about to spoil the effect with a few facts.

    So putting the blame on big corporations, let alone on consumers, for something that is most likely not even happening is not going to solve anything.

    Coming up with some measurable evidence surely should be the first step into the real world.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The gentle art of blaming.

    Science uses mankind’s lack of knowledge of history to blame us for everything. When we have no data to compare with the present, just blame the human race.

    With the MSM backing them all the way, they realise what a fortune can be made from blame while manufacturing great virtue for themselves:

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/book-excerpt/2020/12/bad-science-isnt-a-victimless-crime/

  • Peter Lang says:

    1 Nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity

    Nuclear power is and always has been the safest way to generate electricity. In the USA and Europe electricity generation with coal causes 150,000 more deaths per TWh than nuclear, natural gas 40,000 more and wind 1,500 more (see Table 1 below).

    Nuclear could become the cheapest way to generate electricity. Were it not for the unwarranted fear of this technology that was generated by the anti-nuclear power protest movement starting in the 1960’s [1] (Section 3.6), nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost [1] (Table 3 bottom panel).

    The cost of nuclear power can be reduced by removing regulatory impediments. Internalising the externality costs of all energy technologies would further increase nuclear’s competitiveness and, therefore, its deployment rate and rate of cost reduction.

    The negative externalities of energy technologies can be largely internalised by taxing or subsidising them in proportion to their health impacts. The health impacts of electricity generation technologies can be internalised by either taxing technologies in proportion to their health impacts or subsidising those with lower impacts in proportion to the impacts of the technologies with the highest health impacts.

    A rough calculation suggests that, to internalise the cost of deaths attributable to electricity generation technologies in the US, generators should be required to pay compensation for the deaths caused by each technology. Table 1 presents estimates of the number of deaths per TWh attributable to electricity generation technologies, the cost per MWh and the total cost to the economy. The calculations use US$9.6 million Value of Statistical Life (VSL) [2], deaths per TWh for each technology [3,4] and US electricity generation per technology in 2019 [5].

    Table 1: Health impact of deaths attributable to electricity generation technologies in the US: deaths per TWh, cost of deaths in US$/MWh at Value of a Statistical Life, electricity generation per technology (GWh/a) and total cost of deaths per technology (US$bn).

    Technology Deaths/TWh US$/MWh GWh/a Total, US$bn
    Coal 15 144 966,148 139.13
    Oil 36 346 18,567 6.42
    Natural Gas 4 38 1,581,815 60.74
    Biofuel/biomass 12 115 58,412 6.73
    Solar (rooftop) 0.44 4.2 72,234 0.31
    Wind 0.15 1.4 300,071 0.43
    Hydro 0.005 0.048 273,707 0.013
    Nuclear 0.0001 0.001 809,409 0.001

    If each technology was required to pay compensation for the annual cost of the deaths it causes in the US, the estimated amounts each would have to pay per MWh are:

    Technology US$/MWh
    Coal 144
    Oil 346
    Natural Gas 38
    Biofuel/biomass 115
    Solar (rooftop) 4.2
    Wind 1.4
    Hydro 0.048
    Nuclear 0.001

    References (see next comment – will probably be held in moderation)

  • Peter Lang says:

    2 How to reduce the cost of nuclear power

    To reduce the cost of nuclear power the unjustifiable regulatory imposts must be removed. Once they are removed the rate of development of new technologies will accelerate. Learning rates could return to the pre-1970’s rates, or faster, so that costs reduce at 25% or more per doubling of global cumulative capacity of constructions starts.

    Add the costs of deaths per TWh to all technologies and the non-nuclear technologies will be highly disadvantaged so that nuclear would displace the other technologies even faster.
    ?
    3 Impacts of, and how best to respond to, major nuclear accidents

    Thomas, P.; May, J. Coping after a big nuclear accident. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.09.013

    Thomas, P.J. Quantitative guidance on how best to respond to a big nuclear accident. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.07.026

    • Peter Lang says:

      Waddington, I.; Thomas, P.; Taylor, R.; Vaughan, G. J-value assessment of relocation measures following the nuclear power plant accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 16-49.
      https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.03.012

      Waddington, I.; Thomas, P.; Taylor, R.; Vaughan, G. J-value assessment of remediation measures following the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accidents. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 16-49.
      https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.07.003

      Yumashev, D.; Johnson, P.; Thomas, P. Economically optimal strategies for medium-term recovery after a major nuclear reactor accident. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.08.022

  • Peter Lang says:

    4 Regarding the Linear no threshold hypothesis
    4.1 Precaution and Assumption and the Deceits of Corrupted Science

    A-Bombs, Bears and Corrupted Science; Reassessing radiation safety

    Precaution and Assumption and the Deceits of Corrupted Science

    Introduction

    The adoption of the so-called ‘linear no-threshold assumption’ (hereafter LNT), which is used to estimate cancer risks in the low-dose zone, was due to a series of difficult-to-comprehend errors, deceptions and purposeful scientific misconduct by a relatively small group of strategically placed scientific elites in the United States. These individuals included Nobel Prize winners and other high achievers in the field of radiation genetics, who not only thought they were saving humanity from the harmful consequences of all things nuclear, but were equally concerned with ensuring that grant funding to support their research would never end. While their duplicitous actions have been hidden from view for 70 years, their story has unravelled in recent years in a series of painstaking investigations of newly uncovered scientific reports, personal letters, internal memos and other materials.

    These factual errors and misrepresentations were enveloped and advanced by the error making experts to ensure the LNT assumption’s adoption across the globe. Regulators then never looked back, never thought they might be wrong or considered that they might have been misled.

    The LNT assumption subsequently led to the wholesale overregulation of the nuclear industry, playing as it did on fears that permeated society at all levels. These fears lead to vast protests, delays in plant construction, massive cost increases, cancellation of newly proposed plants, and the rather rapid strangulation of the nuclear industry, despite ever growing societal energy needs and emerging political, regulatory and scientific concerns over increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The story I tell will show that the LNT theory lacked a proper scientific foundation, that science needs to be self-correcting and that it is time to reconsider nuclear regulation.

    Calabrese, E.J.P., Mikko. A-Bombs, Bears and Corrupted Science; Reassessing radiation safety. Global Warming Policy Foundation: UK, 2020; p 28. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/06/Calabrese-Paunio-2020.pdf.

  • Peter Lang says:

    4.2 Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era?

    Abstract:

    “The linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation-induced cancer was adopted by national and international advisory bodies in the 1950s and has guided radiation protection policies worldwide since then. The resulting strict regulations have increased the compliance costs for the various uses of radiation, including nuclear medicine. The concerns about low levels of radiation due to the absence of a threshold have also resulted in adverse consequences. Justification of the LNT model was based on the concept that low levels of radiation increase mutations and that increased mutations imply increased cancers. This concept may not be valid. Low-dose radiation boosts defenses such as antioxidants and DNA repair enzymes. The boosted defenses would reduce the endogenous DNA damage that would have occurred in the subsequent period, and so the result would be reduced DNA damage and mutations. Whereas mutations are necessary for causing cancer, they are not sufficient since the immune system eliminates cancer cells or keeps them under control. The immune system plays an extremely important role in preventing cancer, as indicated by the substantially increased cancer risk in immune-suppressed patients. Hence, since low-dose radiation enhances the immune system, it would reduce cancers, resulting in a phenomenon known as radiation hormesis. There is considerable evidence for radiation hormesis and against the LNT model, including studies of atomic bomb survivors, background radiation, environmental radiation, cancer patients, medical radiation, and occupational exposures. Though Commentary 27 published by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements concluded that recent epidemiologic studies broadly support the LNT model, a critical examination of the studies has shown that they do not. Another deficiency of Commentary 27 is that it did not consider the vast available evidence for radiation hormesis. Other advisory body reports that have supported the LNT model have similar deficiencies. Advisory bodies are urged to critically evaluate the evidence supporting both sides and arrive at an objective conclusion on the validity of the LNT model. Considering the strength of the evidence against the LNT model and the weakness of the evidence for it, the present analysis indicates that advisory bodies would be compelled to reject the LNT model. Hence, we may be approaching the end of the LNT model era.”

    Doss, M. Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era? Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2018, 59, 1786-1793. http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/59/12/1786.long

  • Peter Lang says:

    4.3 Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1 – The Russell-Muller debate

    The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1. The Russell-Muller debate

    Abstract
    This paper assesses the discovery of the dose-rate effect in radiation genetics and how it challenged fundamental tenets of the linear non-threshold (LNT) dose response model, including the assumptions that all mutational damage is cumulative and irreversible and that the dose-response is linear at low doses. Newly uncovered historical information also describes how a key 1964 report by the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) addressed the effects of dose rate in the assessment of genetic risk. This unique story involves assessments by two leading radiation geneticists, Hermann J. Muller and William L. Russell, who independently argued that the report’s Genetic Summary Section on dose rate was incorrect while simultaneously offering vastly different views as to what the report’s summary should have contained. This paper reveals occurrences of scientific disagreements, how conflicts were resolved, which view(s) prevailed and why. During this process the Nobel Laureate, Muller, provided incorrect information to the ICRP in what appears to have been an attempt to manipulate the decision-making process and to prevent the dose-rate concept from being adopted into risk assessment practices.

    Calabrese, E.J. The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1. The Russell-Muller debate. Environmental Research 2017, 154, 435-451. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116309331

  • Peter Lang says:

    4.4 Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2 – How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT

    The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT

    Abstract
    This paper reveals that nearly 25 years after the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) I Committee (1972) used Russell’s dose-rate data to support the adoption of the linear-no-threshold (LNT) dose response model for genetic and cancer risk assessment, Russell acknowledged a significant under-reporting of the mutation rate of the historical control group. This error, which was unknown to BEIR I, had profound implications, leading it to incorrectly adopt the LNT model, which was a decision that profoundly changed the course of risk assessment for radiation and chemicals to the present.

    Calabrese, E.J. The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT. Environmental research 2017, 154, 452-458. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116309343

  • Peter Lang says:

    4.5 Chernobyl Accident 1986

    (Updated April 2020)
    • The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.
    • The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the environment, with the deposition of radioactive materials in many parts of Europe.
    • Two Chernobyl plant workers died due to the explosion on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation syndrome.
    • The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has concluded that, apart from some 6500 thyroid cancers (resulting in 15 fatalities), “there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident.”
    • Some 350,000 people were evacuated as a result of the accident, but resettlement of areas from which people were relocated is ongoing.

    The conclusions of this 2005 Chernobyl Forum study (revised version published 2006) are in line with earlier expert studies, notably the UNSCEAR 2000 report which said that “apart from this [thyroid cancer] increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.” There is little evidence of any increase in leukaemia, even among clean-up workers where it might be most expected. Radiation-induced leukemia has a latency period of 5-7 years, so any potential leukemia cases due to the accident would already have developed. A low number of the clean-up workers, who received the highest doses, may have a slightly increased risk of developing solid cancers in the long term. To date, however, there is no evidence of any such cancers having developed. Apart from these, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) said: “The great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.”
    https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

    Video: ‘Experts talk about the health effects of Chernobyl’
    https://youtu.be/PZUvoeIArDM

    Deaths
    2 during the explosion
    28 in the 30 days following the accident
    15 thyroid cancers since the accident
    19 more emergency workers died 1987–2004
    64 total

    WHO – ‘Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group “Health”
    https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/WHO%20Report%20on%20Chernobyl%20Health%20Effects%20July%2006.pdf

  • Peter E says:

    Thank you Don. Best wishes for Christmas and I look forward to your essay in January.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The gentle art of blaming has to be perfected when the the ever-increasingly progressive world refuses to deal with reality:

    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2020-12-11-more-progressive-refusal-to-deal-with-reality-climate-change

  • spangled drongo says:

    …..” there is no evidence here to show that these emitters are responsible for specific and alleged climate-related impacts and events, like sea-level rise…..”

    And could it be there is nothing to blame them for anyway?

    Except a little extra aerial fertiliser:

    “97.3% of Maldives islands have been either stable or growing in size since 2005.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/22/alarmism-dies-in-the-maldives-97-of-186-island-coasts-have-grown-59-or-not-changed-38-since-2005/

    • Neville says:

      Good comments SD and Lomborg’s and Shellenberger’s latest books tell us the real story.
      Their book covers are very accurate and tell us the truth about the con merchants………
      Shellenberger’s book title is “Apocalypse Never, why environmental alarmism hurts us all.”
      Lomborg’s book title is “False Alarm , How climate change cost us trillions, hurts the poor and fails to fix the planet”.
      And I’ve linked to Duvat and Kench etc studies before but good to see the latest Duvat Maldives update.
      And I’ve also linked to the young Charles Darwin’s work over 180 years ago where he worked out this coral island growth on his quick stopover on his VOYAGE OF DISCOVERY.

  • Neville says:

    Another interesting Rowan Dean “Ice age watch” video about Aussie and world beaches and SLs, erosion, storm surges etc over the years.
    The stu-pid luvvies won’t like it, but who cares?

  • Neville says:

    Amusing stuff from Sky news trying to make sense of Albo’s and Labor’s lies about net zero by 2050.
    But even Sky’s guesstimate is WAY LOW if we use the NZ govt’s claim of 5 trillion $. OZ emissions of 1.1% are about 11 times NZ of 0.1%, so 5 x 11 = 55 trillion $.
    And ZERO change to the climate or temp by 2100 or in one thousand years , even if the entire world hit NET ZERO by 2050.
    BTW the TOTAL cost of NET ZERO for all countries by 2100 would be….. 100 divided by 0.1 = 1,000 or 5,000 trillion $ AND ALL FOR NOTHING.
    See Zickfeld, The RS and NAS study and even the stu-pid lefty Conversation article.

  • Neville says:

    Has Greenland recently set the coldest temp ever recorded? And NASA also estimates that the next solar cycle could be the lowest in 200 years.
    Let’s hope they’re wrong this time because the LIA wasn’t a good time to be alive and the Dalton minimum temps would not be welcome in the NH population of 7+ billion people.
    But the SH of just 0.8 bn are only about 7% of global co2 emissions and already NET ZERO. See CSIRO Cape Grim data. If it’s going to get a lot colder perhaps we should try for much higher emissions to help our NH friends?

    https://electroverse.net/greenland-just-set-a-new-all-time-record-low-temperature/

  • Neville says:

    No shortage of low temps or snow and ice over the NH during DEC 2020.
    Some more records set and any number of articles from Electroverse to think about. Big HIPPO Al must be one of the most active and noisy con merchants for the past 100 years.

    https://electroverse.net/

  • Neville says:

    Another incredible breakthrough that will one day lower the risk of future virus pandemics and perhaps many other nasty invasions like cancer. Thanks to Matt Ridley who has the ability to dumb this down enough, so we can understand it.

    I also like the idea of storing the critical data on disc ready to go into action at very short notice. Here’s the link and part of his Spectator article.

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/mrna-vaccines-could-revolutionise-medicine/

    “WHY MRNA VACCINES COULD REVOLUTIONISE MEDICINE”

    Published on: Saturday, 19 December, 2020

    My article for Spectator:

    “Almost 60 years ago, in February 1961, two teams of scientists stumbled on a discovery at the same time. Sydney Brenner in Cambridge and Jim Watson at Harvard independently spotted that genes send short-lived RNA copies of themselves to little machines called ribosomes where they are translated into proteins. ‘Sydney got most of the credit, but I don’t mind,’ Watson sighed last week when I asked him about it. They had solved a puzzle that had held up genetics for almost a decade. The short-lived copies came to be called messenger RNAs — mRNAs – and suddenly they now promise a spectacular revolution in medicine.

    The first Covid-19 vaccine given to British people this month is not just a welcome breakthrough against a grim little enemy that has defied every other weapon we have tried, from handwashing to remdesivir and lockdowns. It is also the harbinger of a new approach to medicine altogether. Synthetic messengers that reprogram our cells to mount an immune response to almost any invader, including perhaps cancer, can now be rapidly and cheaply made.

    Katalin Karikó — the Hungarian-born scientist who doggedly pursued the idea behind this kind of medication for decades at the University of Pennsylvania before joining BioNTech — and her collaborator Drew Weissman may be the Watson and Brenner of this story. They figured out 15 years ago how to send a message in a bubble into a cell and have it read. For years they had tried putting in normal RNA and found it did not work; the body spotted it was an alien and destroyed it.

    But by subtly modifying one of the four letters in the message (replacing uridine with pseudouridine, a chemical found in some RNAs in the body anyway), they made a version that escaped the attention of the cell’s MI5 agents. Further refinements five years ago produced a recipe that worked reliably when delivered to cells inside a tiny oily bubble. The pandemic is the first time the technique has been tried in anger, and it worked: the first two Covid vaccines, BioNTech’s and Moderna’s, rely on these messengers.

    The message tells the cell to make part of one of the virus’s proteins which then alerts the body’s immune system. Once invented, the thing is like a general-purpose vaccine. You simply rewrite the message between the same opening and closing sequences, put it in the same kind of bubble, and fire it off — almost as easy for genetic engineers these days as writing a text is for teenagers. It is faster, cheaper, safer and simpler than the old ways of making vaccines.

    More conventional vaccine designs may still make a vital contribution to defeating the pandemic, Oxford’s included. And the messenger method has its drawbacks, such as the need for extreme cold storage. But in the long run, messengers probably represent the future of vaccines. Now the principle has been approved by regulators, there may be no need to go through the same laborious and expensive three-phase clinical trials every time. Faced with a truly lethal pandemic — with a 10 per cent mortality rate, say — the vanishingly small likelihood that a new messenger vaccine would be unsafe pales into insignificance. You could deploy it in weeks or days”.

  • Neville says:

    More on the climate disaster approach by Boris Johnson and the so called Conservatives in the UK.
    Matt Ridley covers so much of the corruption and endless waste of taxpayers money that will only lead to disaster and a hopeless, expensive and very fragile electricity grid.

  • Stu says:

    Sorry but I cannot stay silent in the presence of utter bull. Peter Lang pontificates on “optimal GMST’’. That is rubbish. Linking current rapid change, leaving the environment little opportunity to adapt, to some not well defined situation hundreds of millions of years ago, when I suggest there was a significantly different street scape is almost hallucinogenic. Please explain what is your agenda mr Lang.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      The whole concept of a GMST is, to borrow your word, “rubbish”. As is your description of a “streetscape” millenia ago.

      The agenda is to bring some actual reality into a debate marred by alarmist fantasy.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes stu, you are not one for observations, usually, but the known history of climate facts and evidence are very embarrassing for the CAGW religion, as you rightly observe.

      Peter has simply given you some of the extremes of Natural Climate Variability which are way beyond anything happening as a possible result of ACO2.

  • Neville says:

    I see our stu-pid donkey is back AGAIN and making no sense as usual.
    BTW here’s another list of the “worlds gonna end” BS and fraud and every single prediction was TOTALLY WRONG AS USUAL. Gosh why am I not surprised???
    OH and just the facts again and using the best sources….. the world pop in 1970 was 3.7 bn and today is 7.8 bn or 4.1 bn more in JUST the last 50 years.
    WHY WOULD YOU TRUST THESE MORONS ( AGAIN) TODAY ABOUT THEIR LATEST APOCALYPSE? Yet the Biden and Harris morons believe them on ZIP evidence and data.

    https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

    • Stu says:

      Are you rubbishing the drongo again? The point you both miss above is the ludicrous assumption (by Lang) that the climate regimes of hundreds of millions of years ago would be suitable for the currently evolved flora and fauna. The idea is just plain laughable.

      • spangled drongo says:

        And just what do you extrapolate from that, stueyluv?

        • Stu says:

          Simple. Your assumption that because it was once warmer than now all will be ok in a warmer world is fallacious. How are you going with the new momentum in USA etc for positive efforts to address the climate change issue? Crying into your soup I expect.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Thank you for that deep and meaningful commentary.

        Have you thought of looking in sub-tropical and tropical zones to check whether the hotter “climate regimes of hundreds of millions of years ago would be suitable for the currently evolved flora and fauna”?

        You know, look for actual data?

        • Boambee John says:

          PS, unlike alarmists, sceptics hold a range of opinions, not a single monolithic dogma decreed by a self-selected so-called “elite”.

        • Stu says:

          And droughts longer and more frequent in some places, other places awash with unfamiliar rainfall, mountain areas with diminishing snow fall to feed the great rivers of Asia etc. Do try and breakout of your narrow mindset once in a while. And as for the Stu-pid Drongo where in the current (i.e. today) discussion did I mention anything about wind power etc. As usual he invents a fork in the road and barrels off to oblivion. Enjoy the ride.

          Oh and by the way I loved the Rowan Dean piece. You would think he was lecturing a kindergarten class with that style, which would be appropriate. Once again he proves he is a (would be) entertainer rather than journalist. Sad really, but I guess he is making a quid with such a piss weak approach, while people like you keep supporting him.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu waffles on about the weather as though his life experience with it is nothing but predictability.

            Where has he been all his life? It’s not called natural climate variability for nothing.

            I know you never go outside but you can see all those variables through the window.

            “…..where in the current (i.e. today) discussion did I mention anything about wind power etc.”

            Are you becoming a convert now, stueyluv?

            Or just more of a hypocrite?

          • Stu says:

            “ Where has he been all his life? It’s not called natural climate variability for nothing.”. Oh mate, do you need another lesson in the difference between climate and weather? The answer would seem to be yes. What is it you suffer from, short term memory decline or something?

          • spangled drongo says:

            “…do you need another lesson in the difference between climate and weather?”

            You mean to tell us that you actually know?

            I wasn’t aware of your previous one but c’mon stueyluv, let’s hear your version of it.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “Do try and breakout of your narrow mindset once in a while.”

            Advice you should put into practice youeself.

            In an earlier thread you accepted that the global climate is the sum of many regional climates. Now you express concern that the regional climates are different.

            Well, duh!

          • Stu says:

            Come on guys you are now just being pathetic. Try mounting a serious argument.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Buy a mirror. You have never offered a serious argument here, only hysteria combined with alarmist talking points.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Now, now, BJ, be patient.

            Before the year is out I’m expecting our stu to give us his wisdom on the difference in the “climate” now and the “climate” a year ago and convince us all that inverted climate change could only ever be due to ACO2 emissions.

            Completely backed, of course, with his scintillating evidence.

            Should I hold my breath, do you think?

          • Boambee John says:

            SD

            Don’t hold your breath, purple is not an attractive facial colouring.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s another 5 min video from Prager about the S&W RUINABLES.
    How anyone could believe in this fanatical extremism is beyond belief and yet the Biden donkey is rushing to wreck the environment and destroy the US economy and electricity grid.
    And then repeat this disaster every 20 years and then have no measurable change on climate or temp by 2100 and beyond.
    OH and using NZ govts net zero calcs this would cost the US taxpayers about 690 trillion $ and all for NOTHING.

  • Neville says:

    So who or what is big green and how much money is involved? This Prager 5 min video shows us how these fra-dsters and con merchants are supported/funded by the biggest banks, companies and govts around the world.
    This funding has been highlighted by Lomborg’s team for decades, plus Jo Nova, Andrew Bolt, the GWPF, WUWT, etc as well.

    • Stu says:

      “ This funding has been highlighted by Lomborg’s team for decades, plus Jo Nova, Andrew Bolt, the GWPF, WUWT, etc as well.” Top team there.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Top team there”

        Even though you are always evidence-free, stueyluv, you occasionally blunder into great accuracy.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Like all good, true believing climate alarmists, these people have to claim that ordinary weather and climate immediately provide conclusive proof of their favourite boogeyman.

    Historical records and data show none of the disasters discussed in the article are, in fact, unprecedented:

    https://climaterealism.com/2020/12/no-weather-channel-2020-did-not-bring-unprecedented-climate-disasters/

    • Neville says:

      SD I agree that’s a good summary of the WC’s BS and nonsense, but Dr Christy refuted their entire mother load of BS and extremism in his talk to the GWPF.
      And his talk covered all time periods like early HOLOCENE Arctic ice compared to today , wildfires today and hundreds of years ago, the few people killed today from extreme weather events compared to 100+ years ago, the hot spot, models versus the actual data etc, etc.
      It was a very long list and he backed it up with proper data/ evidence and he really put their disaster claims to the test.

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

      • spangled drongo says:

        Neville, If only a patient, long-suffering world could get to hear those facts in the MSM.

        The “gentle art” might then be turned “art-up”.

  • spangled drongo says:

    I don’t think that the vaccine “solution” should ever do away with a very active enquiry into the origins of the covid pandemic.

    The gentle art needs to become a little less gentle:

    https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/china-clamps-hidden-hunt-coronavirus-origins-74963891

  • Neville says:

    BTW the increase in co2 levels from Mauna Loa NOV 2019 to NOV 2020 is 2.64 ppm and doesn’t seem to show any change, even though there should’ve been a lot less activity this year around the world.

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

  • Neville says:

    Also the CSIRO Tassie Cape Grim data shows an increase of 2 ppm over the last 12 months.

    https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data

  • spangled drongo says:

    This was the national rainfall graph up to 12 months ago. 2019 was the driest year listed [but note the increasing rainfall trend].

    It will be interesting to see the new graph when it comes out in a few days. I’ve just totaled our yearly rainfall here and it is well above average yet we had a dry year compared to many.

    2020 will support the ever-increasing national rainfall trend:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/mean-raifall-graph/11853246?nw=0

    • Neville says:

      SD that update should be available soon, but in the meantime here’s our Aussie rainfall 1900 to 2019 as an anomaly graph and much more rainfall over the last 50 years, compared to the first 50.
      The period 1922 to 1948 is very low rainfall and of course very low co2 levels over that period of 26 years.
      Northern OZ is much wetter today as is WA but SW WA is impacted by the SAM.
      NT has received much more rainfall in last few decades than earlier period. But SA is better today than earlier and Vic seems to be impacted by the SAM as well in later decades.

      http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=8

      • spangled drongo says:

        Thanks for that Neville.

        What with that increasing moisture awa the extra CO2 aerial fertiliser, we don’t know how lucky we are.

        The only problem is that, as a result, the world is greening in just one more way than is necessary.

  • Neville says:

    SD here’s northern OZ since 1900 and much more rainfall in the last 50+ years.
    And see below link for southern OZ and still better than first 50 years. Includes Tassie.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=naus&season=0112&ave_yr=8

    Here’s southern OZ since 1900 + Tassie. BTW in the 1920s to 40s south OZ had a shocker of 17 years straight below average rainfall. I’ll link later.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=saus&season=0112&ave_yr=8

  • Neville says:

    SD here’s the state of south OZ since 1900, note the 17 years of well below average rainfall from 1922.
    Yet our Flannery donkey told us that our droughts would be terrible in the future because of HIGHER co2 levels and yet co2 levels were barely 300 ppm during our much drier period from 1900 to 1949.
    Anomaly graphs for rainfall are much easier to understand and the 8 year moving average line proves the case. Rainfall above or below the average is easy to understand.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=sa&season=0112&ave_yr=8

  • Neville says:

    SD this Daily Mail online article tells us we saw much higher rainfall in 2020, including all our Capital cities and Sydney had the highest rainfall in 22 years.
    So much for the Flannery donkey’s BS and nonsense.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9101111/Every-Australian-capital-suffered-torrential-year-rain-2020.html

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks for those interesting links, Neville. Flannery, Oh Dear!

      Why is it that when so many “scientists” give us those demonstrably wrong extrapolations that our crazy world is still believing them and hanging on their every word?

      Our major institutions like BoM, CSIRO etc., as evidence-free as they are of any climate problems that are attributable to human GHG emissions, NEVER utter a word of rational scepticism.

      Their gentle art is just not science.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Honesty instead of blame would go a long way towards solving our problems.

    Graemethecat at WUWT made this very factual comment that all our politicians need to be aware of:

    “There is one simple question which never fails to reduce proponents of CAGW to silence: “What tangible, empirical evidence do you have to show that CO2 concentration controls global temperatures and not vice-versa? Output of computer models is not evidence.”

    I have never had a coherent answer to this question yet.”

    Neither has anyone else.

  • Neville says:

    BTW SD the BOM have now posted the 2020 rainfall and OZ rainfall is just a little above average.
    But QLD, TAS and SW WA have again recorded below the average for 2020.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=7

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks Neville. It will be interesting to see what the current La Nina adds to those figures for the coming year.

  • Neville says:

    SD just a comment on why don’t the media and scientists comment about some of the fra-dulent claims by other so called scientists.
    I’ve shown the big drought of 17 years in SA from 1922 to 1938 and every year was below average rainfall in that period.
    BUT Australia wasn’t much better during that long period of time because it also suffered below average rainfall drought from 1922 to 1929, then 1930 was nearly 1 inch above average and then the next 8 years were below average again.
    And if you extend the moving average line from 8 years to 15 on the graph you’ll notice that the line doesn’t touch average rainfall from 1900 to about 1970.
    Even reducing it back to 8 years only allows it to rise above average in a couple of places. Then check out the difference since early 1970s to 2020.
    Of course the 4 years from 1896 were also very bad drought years so we can add that in and that shows how extreme our Aussie droughts were over that three quarters of a century.
    Even the very wet years of 1950, 1955 and 1956 didn’t lift the line to average because the following 14 years were much drier. Here’s the graph set for 15 years MAv for Aussie rainfall 1900 to 2020.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=15

  • Neville says:

    BTW co2 levels were about 295 ppm in 1896 and about 326 ppm in 1971, during that very long period of very low Aussie rainfall I’ve linked to the BOM graph above.

  • Stu says:

    Sd, Nev and drongo, I see you are still having fun reinforcing each others crazy beliefs with dubious scientific references. It is akin to mutual masturbation. Perhaps you will reach a climax soon and we can all move forward with reality. Happy new year.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Sez stu, who is yet to produce just ONE bit of evidence to support his crazy beliefs.

      Meanwhile stu, see if you can answer the simple basic fact your whole religion is based on;

      “What tangible, empirical evidence do you have to show that CO2 concentration controls global temperatures and not vice-versa? Output of computer models is not evidence.”

      When you know you can’t you should at least remain rationally sceptical.

      Happy new year and good luck with your mental blockage.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      You lost any credibility to comment on the scientific aspects of climate change (if you ever had any) in an earlier thread, where you said, paraphrased, that it didn’t matter what the scientific reality might be, politics had won, and sceptics should accept the new reality.

      So perhaps you should go and enjoy some mutual masturbation with your political confreres. Should you ever collectively reach a climax, that might compensate for the wreckage you will leave for your grandchildren to rectify. But more likely, they will curse your memory.

  • Neville says:

    Just for the stu-pid donkey, to support my claims I always provide references and recently so much is from the BOM rainfall data record over the last 120 years.

  • Neville says:

    Another reason for the very high rainfall in the 1970s etc are strong la ninas and these usually mean higher cyclone activity .
    While la nina periods can cool the planet the waters down our OZ east coast actually become warmer allowing more evaporation, storms and sometimes cyclones during the DEC to APRIL period.
    Here’s the trend graph from BOM showing the high 1970s activity for both severe and non severe cyclones and lower activity over the last 35 years.
    NOTE AGAIN that the 2015 to ’16 season is the only season over the last 50 years that didn’t have a single severe cyclone.
    OH and note that the 1970s had co2 levels much lower than Dr Hansen’s etc future aim of 350 ppm. THINK ABOUT IT and perhaps more wakey, wakey and definitely hands off snakey? Happy new year, and all the best for 2021.

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

  • Neville says:

    Today the risk of dying from an extreme weather event has fallen by over 99% since 1920.
    But how often do we see activist so called scientists tell lies and distort this wonderful news? And then have an army of stu-pid donkeys + pollies + journalists etc who are only too willing to join in and bang their drum?
    Lomborg’s PR study should be reported widely, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/02/inconvenient-truth-climate-related-death-risk-down-99-6-over-100-years/

  • Neville says:

    Cyclone Imogen looks set to cross into QLD and heavy rainfall +flooding to be expected in some areas.
    Although it is just a CAT 1 it does remind us that this is what we should expect during la ninas and we have another 4 months of the TC season to come.
    This is an up to date link for 4th Jan.

    https://www.mysailing.com.au/latest/developing-tropical-cyclone-to-cross-qld-overnight

  • Neville says:

    I thought it’s about time we linked AGAIN to the largest study ever to attribute deaths to levels of temp around the world. This 2015 Lancet study found most deaths were attributable to cold temps 7.29% and about 0.42% to warmer temps.

    That’s about 17.4 times more cold deaths than for warmer temps. But moderate cold deaths are the real surprise and they include handy column graphs for some countries, so we can easily see difference. See 2nd link below.

    Interesting that very wealthy hot countries like Australia seem to handle very hot conditions well and probably because of widespread use of ACs. Here’s the study link and below that is the link to the column graphs for deaths from different temps.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

    https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/79cee7d6-8e9d-4659-a6cf-f334e1403498/gr2.jpg

  • Neville says:

    A Japanese team of scientists have found that a volcanic thermal plume under Greenland could add to melting of the ice sheet.
    But this has been known in this area of the planet for a long time.

    http://www.tohoku.ac.jp/en/press/greenland_plume_drive_thermal_activities.html?mc_cid=fb29760038&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

  • Neville says:

    There has been no unusual activity from cyclones around the world in 2020 and ditto for USA tornadoes.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/12/31/global-hurricane-activity-below-average-in-2020/?mc_cid=fb29760038&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

  • Neville says:

    Ten million jobs are at risk if the UK goes net zero by 2050 according to the latest research.
    On those numbers Aussies could lose 4 million jobs if we were impacted in a similar way by Labor’s net zero idiocy as well.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13650132/staggering-ten-million-jobs-at-in-red-wall-seats-at-risk-due-to-governments-carbon-neutral-pledge-research-reveals/

  • Neville says:

    Bloomberg reports that China is struggling with power supply during more very cold weather and a number of regions will be reducing power for the rest of the winter.

    Just imagine the chaos if even 2% more of their power was sourced from the S&W idiocy as even more areas suffer from the lack of coal supplies?
    Will our Labor/Greens donkeys ever wake up to the simple maths ,science and data before it’s too late?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-22/china-s-struggling-to-keep-the-lights-on-amid-high-flying-demand

  • Neville says:

    More on the UK’s crazy drive for net ZERO emissions by 2050 and the so called Social cost of carbon.
    In fact they have abandoned a proper cost benefit analysis because they don’t like the obvious answer and prefer their appeal towards a type of religious fanaticism.
    And of course ZERO change to their climate or temp or co2 levels by 2100 and beyond.
    OH and the UK emits a little more than 1% of TOTAL global co2 emissions, or about the same as OZ.

    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/johnsons-crazy-net-zero-drive-will-cost-so-much-more-than-it-saves/

  • Neville says:

    Another 2014 NATURE study finds that Australian tropical cyclones are at the lowest levels for the last 1500 years. Over the last 47 years cyclones have been at lower levels according to the Haig study and here’s the abstract.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12882

    “Australian tropical cyclone activity lower than at any time over the past 550–1,500 years”

    Jordahna Haig, Jonathan Nott & Gert-Jan Reichart

    Nature volume 12882

    Abstract

    “The assessment of changes in tropical cyclone activity within the context of anthropogenically influenced climate change has been limited by the short temporal resolution of the instrumental tropical cyclone record1,2 (less than 50 years). Furthermore, controversy exists regarding the robustness of the observational record, especially before 19903,4,5. Here we show, on the basis of a new tropical cyclone activity index (CAI), that the present low levels of storm activity on the mid west and northeast coasts of Australia are unprecedented over the past 550 to 1,500 years. The CAI allows for a direct comparison between the modern instrumental record and long-term palaeotempest (prehistoric tropical cyclone) records derived from the 18O/16O ratio of seasonally accreting carbonate layers of actively growing stalagmites. Our results reveal a repeated multicentennial cycle of tropical cyclone activity, the most recent of which commenced around AD?1700. The present cycle includes a sharp decrease in activity after 1960 in Western Australia. This is in contrast to the increasing frequency and destructiveness of Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclones since 1970 in the Atlantic Ocean6,7,8 and the western North Pacific Ocean6,7. Other studies project a decrease in the frequency of tropical cyclones towards the end of the twenty-first century in the southwest Pacific7,9, southern Indian9,10 and Australian11 regions. Our results, although based on a limited record, suggest that this may be occurring much earlier than expected”.

  • Neville says:

    Two more 2020 studies confirm that OZ rainfall from 1895 to 2020 was as good as it gets when compared to the last 1,000 years. Particularly since the 1970s and many worse mega droughts and wet periods can be found in the proxy records over that very long period of time.

    https://aappartnership.org.au/ice-cores-and-drought-risk/

  • Stu says:

    A dozen Neville posts since Jan 3 with no response. Is anybody following or care? I just checked in for the count, but have not read them as I suspect it is the usual crap. Perhaps Neville needs to get a life.

    • spangled drongo says:

      When did you ever read ANYTHING that contained any EVIDENCE, stu?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      As you are displaying your usual “head in the sand” attitude to anything with which you disagree, let me just re-post an earlier comment of mine, to remind you of your limitations.

      “Stu

      You lost any credibility to comment on the scientific aspects of climate change (if you ever had any) in an earlier thread, where you said, paraphrased, that it didn’t matter what the scientific reality might be, politics had won, and sceptics should accept the new reality.

      So perhaps you should go and enjoy some mutual masturbation with your political confreres. Should you ever collectively reach a climax, that might compensate for the wreckage you will leave for your grandchildren to rectify. But more likely, they will curse your memory.”

      Now, crawl hack into your cosy alarmist security blanket, unless you have something substantive to offer in rebuttal of Neville’s actual, you know, real, data.

  • Neville says:

    I know it’s a crime to quote proper PR studies of the real world and the links, so I’ll leave our demented donkey to his fantasies.
    What’s next, perhaps more Flannery, Gore, Kerry, Biden, AOC, Harris etc to ease our donkey’s fears?

  • Neville says:

    The ice levels in the Swiss alps were much reduced during the early Holocene and here’s the latest PR study from 6,000 years ago.
    Of course temps were much higher at that time, during the Hol climate optimum.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/07/very-inconvenient-alps-glacier-historytop-glaciologists-alps-were-ice-free-6000-years-ago/

  • Neville says:

    SLs were much higher during the HOL optimum and is just another way we understand why temps were higher during that very long period of time.
    And the previous Eemian inter-glacial was much warmer than the Holocene and SLs were much higher as well.
    Here’s a few more studies of our HOL optimum SLs compared to today.
    OH and co2 levels were about 280 ppm at that time.

    https://notrickszone.com/2017/05/08/10-new-papers-sea-levels-1-6-meters-higher-4000-6000-years-ago/

  • Neville says:

    Another interesting SL study from the Kent coast at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD. This ancient port now lies 3.2 klms inland from todays coastline. Even the BBC reported the recent finding of the ( now) inland Roman port.

    https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/richborough-roman-fort-and-amphitheatre/history/

    THE ROMAN INVASION

    “Richborough now lies 2 miles inland in the east Kent marshes, but in Roman times it overlooked the strategically important Wantsum sea channel, which divided the Isle of Thanet from Kent. In AD 43, at least part of the Roman Emperor Claudius’s invasion force of 40,000 men landed here, in what would have been a massive military operation of great complexity.

    They quickly built a defensive barrier at the invasion site in the form of two deep, parallel V-shaped ditches, with a rampart on the seaward side, running for at least 650 metres (700 yards) north–south in line with the Roman coastline. These fortifications would have defended the invasion beachhead, giving protection to ships, troops and supplies”.

  • Stu says:

    I figured that would prompt his two faithful lap dogs to join in. Victory. Why go on with the bull, it is not achieving anything when you just sing to the choir. Neville and his mates now resemble the Trump mob following the leader and the alternative “facts”.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      So you have nothing to contribute? Thought so.

      You stick with your “political” victory, we will continue to offer real evidence. When the dust settles, unless the politicians choose to go nuclear, you can offer a real apology to your grandchildren for the destruction of their futures.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee is already sinking in real evidence and is already sentencing future generations to extreme suffering.

        Boambee is a psychopath with the morals of a Trumpy.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chrissy

          Crawl back under the rock. Like Stu, you have nothing of value to offer. I have asked you tyoueron a previous thread for your scientific advice on the actions necessary to resolve the issue, youbhave not responded. Clearly, you have nothing to offer, just a waste of pixels.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chrissy

          PS, I had to go to dinner, and did not have time to ask you.

          Where and when did you obtain your psychiatric qualification? I am curious, because you have breached ethics by attempting to diagnose without personally interviewing the “patient”.

          Might I assume that you obtained it from the back of a corn flakes packet this morning?

  • Boambee John says:

    Weather seems to be fighting back against climate change.

    “Spain registered its coldest temperature in recorded history on Wednesday, January 6 with the Catalan Pyrenees logging a bone-chilling -34.1C (-29.3F).”

    May the best temperature win!

  • whyisitso says:

    It’s now 3 weeks since this post. I hope Don’s OK. It could just be the time of the year.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, I hope so, too. But he did say above that he was having a break till mid January.

    • Neville says:

      Don was expecting to complete a new post from mid Jan, perhaps that may be towards the end of next week?
      Anyway I hope he’s okay and having a break for the New year.

  • Neville says:

    Just a few more comments about rainfall in SW WA over the last 120 years. Summer rainfall has been higher since 1975 to 2020 and much better than earlier 20th century.

    Autumn rainfall has lower trend since 1970s but has enough rainfall every few years since that time to ease the pressure.

    Winter rainfall has dropped since the 1970s and another drop since about 2000.

    Spring OK up to 2013, then a drop since and 2020 just a little above average. Here’s SUMMER rainfall for SW WA since 1900.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=swaus&season=1202&ave_yr=15

    TASSIE has had lower summer rainfall since about 1998. TAS Autumn rainfall lower since 1983, but OK since 2011.

    BUT Tassie Winter rainfall has been HIGHER since 1950 and much better than the first 45 years of the 20th century.

    Tassie Spring rainfall has been lower since 2010 and then lower since about 2017. Here’s TASSIE set for Winter rainfall over the last 120 years.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=tas&season=0608&ave_yr=15

  • Neville says:

    Here are 9 essays on the so called CAGW nonsense that seems to have infected most of the world over the last 30+ years.
    What a pity that these essays will not be made available to every person on the planet and then promoted by the MSM as freely/widely as the Flannery, Mann, Thunberg, AOC, etc idiocy.
    These prominent scientists join with Lomborg and Shellenberger and do not accept that there’s a climate crisis or emergency at all.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/white-house-brochures-on-climate-there-is-no-climate-crisis/#comments

  • Neville says:

    SD I think that quote from Dr Spencer is accurate and reasonable, but it won’t suit the CAGW extremists.
    BTW their clueless ABC has belatedly admitted that the majority of Coral islands are either growing in size or are stable, via the Duvat , Kench studies etc.
    But the young Charles Darwin explained this island growth over 180 years ago, yet their ABC has just started to catch up?
    So perhaps we may hear this REGULARLY on ABC radio or TV programs soon? And oinks might fly.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/10/aussie-abc-coral-islands-are-growing-larger-despite-climate-change/

  • Neville says:

    And another new SLR study supports Dr Humlum’s work on global SLR over the last few years.
    They find that SLR since 1900 was about 1.5 mm/ year and the same rate of rise was also observed since the 1950s.
    Their 2018 study was updated in 2020 and drew the same conclusion. So where is their CAGW to be found in 150 mm or about 6 inches per century?
    Don’t forget that the BIG FELLA ( or China Joe or Mr 10%) still insists on making a declaration about a climate emergency after he takes office on 20-1-21. Unbelievable but true.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/11/new-study-sea-level-rise-rates-the-same-since-1958-as-they-were-for-all-of-1900-2018/

  • Neville says:

    I see that donkey Prince Charles is up to his usual “save the planet” BS and nonsense
    Princess Ann doesn’t agree with her stu-pid brother and has said so on a number of occasions.
    I hope the Queen lives on forever because this fool would be a curse on taxpayers within the Commonwealth countries.

    https://www.franspat.com/prince-charles-launches-7-billion-plan-to-save-the-planet/

  • Neville says:

    Even their ABC reported this morning about the low temps this year for rice growers in the MV/ Riverina.
    Farmers say the cooler temps in DEC have been a real problem and even NOV 2020 was warmer than the first month ( DEC)_ of summer.

    https://www.lls.nsw.gov.au/regions/murray/articles,-plans-and-publications/production-advice-dec-2020/shallow-water-is-best-for-rice

  • Neville says:

    More details about the UK’s EV idiocy by 2030 and more proof that only delusional fools think this is possible or desirable on any level.

    . Here’s a quote from this GWPF study by Prof Gautam Kalghatgi. He is a Visiting Professor at Imperial College London, KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Eindhoven University of Technology and the University of Sheffield.

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/07/The-Battery-Car-Delusion.pdf

    “The costs are vast Mass conversion to BEVs will require huge spending on CO2 -free electricity generation and the necessary public infrastructure for charging. In the UK, around 16 million LDVs (43% of the total) park on the street.6,8 Over 2 million public charging points, placed near where people usually park rather than at more remote charging areas, will be needed to overcome ‘charging anxiety’ and persuade people to buy BEVs. Subsidies to encourage people to buy BEVs will continue to be necesary until their up-front costs come down sufficiently. A recent paper by Toyota concluded that even in the most optimistic scenarios BEVs would not reach purchase price parity with ICEVs by 2030.7 To make things worse, at some point in the future, the government will need to tax electricity in order to recoup lost fuel tax on fossil fuels and the associated VAT, which together currently contribute over £32 billion to the public purse. The resources are beyond us There are also challenges associated with providing additional electric power to a large number of BEVs both at the micro and macro level.6,8 For example, the electricity distribution network will need to be significantly altered. There are serious questions about the availability of materials needed for battery production. For instance, to replace all LDVs in the UK with BEVs would require twice the total annual world cobalt production, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production during 2018”.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, if these true believers did what I just did, which is check the latest king tide heights against old benchmarks, they would find that king tides are at least a foot lower than they were 74 years ago and maybe they might realise that there is nothing alarming happening today with current CO2 levels than there was when CO2 levels were much less.

      That way they could discard their foolish non-solutions to their silly non-problems.

      • Neville says:

        SD I’m sure you’re correct about king tides in your area over the last 74 years, but I’m also sure that the extremists would be very hostile if you tried to explain it to them.
        Our resident donkeys yap about deniers etc every time we try and introduce a few pesky facts against their fantasies. Stu still BELIEVES in the S&W + batteries + EV idiocy in spite of the environmental and economic disaster that would result from the changeover. See below.

    • Stu says:

      What a beautiful (not) conjunction of things not necessarily related. I refer to the statement that “ Mass conversion to BEVs will require huge spending on CO2 -free electricity generation ”. You could manage such a “mass conversion” without changing the electricity source from fossils to CO2 free. The two are not necessarily linked.

      Second is the assumption that BEV’s require street side public charging points. I had not noticed any tendency for people to run around charging ICE vehicles with cans of petrol (except when having run out of fuel). The implicit assumption that the existing “fuelling” infrastructure cannot convert to electric supply is definitely simplistic.

      In similar vein the reference to LDV’s and HDV’s is similarly misleading. The bulk of LDV’s do in fact drive short distances and do not require “large batteries” for long range. And have you heard of hybrids?

      Not mentioned in the article but usually referenced in such articles is the time for charging. I would point out that such vehicles achieve an 80% charge in the time it takes for a coffee, a pee and payment. Full charge, and range, which does take longer is rarely needed.

      Finally there are BEV’s and BEV’s. This is an age of industrial disruption (you should read up on it). Right now the leader is Tesla whose innovation is not merely batteries but automobile manufacturing technology. By clever innovation they are reducing the number of components and assembly required to previously undreamt of levels. Check out their one piece body forging systems and the resultant savings. Reduced vehicle wire looming is another area of great change. Other new players are trying to follow but it is the established players that are laggards who may get caught by the coming disruption. Heavy investment in old plant, equipment and methods can be a very heavy burden to shake off. There are plenty of examples of other industries that have lead incumbents to fail the transition. The old MBA advice to “stick to your core business model” has often been shown to be fatally flawed.

      This metaphor applies equally to the trends towards reduced carbon based power. There are more fossils in the game than just the materials. But eventually the light dawns.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        ” I refer to the statement that “ Mass conversion to BEVs will require huge spending on CO2 -free electricity generation ”. You could manage such a “mass conversion” without changing the electricity source from fossils to CO2 free.”

        So which is more important, EVs or moving away from fossil fuels? You seem to suggest that if we go EV, we can keep fossil power. Or are you just confused?

        “Second is the assumption that BEV’s require street side public charging points.”

        If you read carefully, you would have understood that the issue was overnight charging. Not everyone has a garage with power.

        Life is too short to dissect the rest of your babble.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu’s typical reply displays his usual ignorance of real world problems. His confused greenie desires will require the greatest expansion of mining, manufacturing and eco-invasion in human history.

        It doesn’t even dawn on him that this expansion will mostly happen in non-western countries where it will have the least supervision and the most detrimental effect.

        Not to mention that it will also have no effect on global temperatures.

        When will the Woke wake?

        • Stu says:

          “ So which is more important, EVs or moving away from fossil fuels? ” The point is that they are related subjects but not co dependent. In other words, EV’s are going to happen big time no matter what the source of the grid power. Disruptive change is coming, not just the power source but the entire industry. If you are still in the business or have shares in outfits that make or supply exhaust pipes etc you might want to be looking around.

          “ issue was overnight charging.”. Is that so? Reality is that overnight charging is nice if you have it but not essential for EV’s. In this respect they are no different to ICE vehicles, you top up when necessary.

          I note the usual not so polite references to my posts by you and the others. Quite expected but it reflects more on your character than mine.

          Oh and how are you guys going with the Trump thing? Do you still think he will be president after January 20? The court cases are not going too well.

          Cheers chaps.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “I note the usual not so polite references to my posts by you and the others. Quite expected but it reflects more on your character than mine.”

            Almost missed this gem.

            No, it reflects on your limited understanding of practical reality.

        • Stu says:

          And SD’s comments are no more than the usual stuff from the climate change denial industry. Try and find something new.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “EV’s are going to happen big time no matter what the source of the grid power”

            Define “big time” as a share of total vehicles.

            Overnight charging is “nice to have, but not essential”.

            Unicorn farts might help too. Your connection with engineering reality is tenuous at best.

          • Stu says:

            “ Overnight charging is “nice to have, but not essential”.
            Unicorn farts might help too. Your connection with engineering reality is tenuous at best.”

            Mr self confessed genius please explain. I don’t see the engineering reality of your implied compulsory overnight charging.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “And SD’s comments are no more than the usual stuff from the climate change denial industry.”

            You mean that lifetime of observations that show that there is nothing happening with our climate that hasn’t happened many times before, when CO2 levels were much lower??

            The sort of science that our stu runs a mile from?

            Yes, it’s called EVIDENCE, stueyluv.

            Try coming up with some for once in your life.

            And also try reflecting on who is the real denier in this debate.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Any “implication” that overnight charging is compulsory was a product of your fevered brain. It is, however, likely to be essential for some users. The words have different meanings.

  • Neville says:

    GEEEEZ Stu and most of what you’ve written is just more pie in the sky and I’m sure the above Prof Kalghatgi + Shellenberger+ Lomborg etc have already answered your delusional nonsense.
    Meanwhile African countries plan to build another 1250 coal and gas plants and good luck to them for having the brains to do so.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/african-nations-planning-1250-new-coal-and-gas-power-plants-new-study-reveals/?mc_cid=98567e13ec&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

    • Stu says:

      “ I’m sure the above Prof Kalghatgi + Shellenberger+ Lomborg etc have already answered your delusional nonsense.”. No they have not actually. They ignore or skirt around any valid points against their rantings.

  • Neville says:

    This 5 minute video answers all of stu’s delusional nonsense about electric cars+ batteries + solar + wind and the environmental disaster that would quickly develop if we were stu-pid enough to BELIEVE their extremist nonsense.
    Get real and stop believing in your fantasy world, because the environmental and economic cost would be overwhelming and of course ZIP measurable change to climate or temp by 2100 and beyond.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the transcript of the above Prager Uni video.

    “Have you ever heard of “unobtanium”?

    “It’s the magical energy mineral found on the planet Pandora in the movie, Avatar. It’s a fantasy in a science fiction script. But environmentalists think they’ve found it here on earth in the form of wind and solar power.

    They think all the energy we need can be supplied by building enough wind and solar farms; and enough batteries.

    The simple truth is that we can’t. Nor should we want to—not if our goal is to be good stewards of the planet.

    To understand why, consider some simple physics realities that aren’t being talked about.

    All sources of energy have limits that can’t be exceeded. The maximum rate at which the sun’s photons can be converted to electrons is about 33%. Our best solar technology is at 26% efficiency. For wind, the maximum capture is 60%. Our best machines are at 45%.

    So, we’re pretty close to wind and solar limits. Despite PR claims about big gains coming, there just aren’t any possible. And wind and solar only work when the wind blows and the sun shines. But we need energy all the time. The solution we’re told is to use batteries. Again, physics and chemistry make this very hard to do.

    Consider the world’s biggest battery factory, the one Tesla built in Nevada. It would take 500 years for that factory to make enough batteries to store just one day’s worth of America’s electricity needs. This helps explain why wind and solar currently still supply less than 3% of the world’s energy, after 20 years and billions of dollars in subsidies.

    Putting aside the economics, if your motive is to protect the environment, you might want to rethink wind, solar, and batteries because, like all machines, they’re built from nonrenewable materials.

    Consider some sobering numbers:

    A single electric-car battery weighs about half a ton. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving, and processing more than 250 tons of earth somewhere on the planet.

    Building a single 100 Megawatt wind farm, which can power 75,000 homes requires some 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the huge blades. To get the same power from solar, the amount of cement, steel, and glass needed is 150% greater.

    Then there are the other minerals needed, including elements known as rare earth metals. With current plans, the world will need an incredible 200 to 2,000 percent increase in mining for elements such as cobalt, lithium, and dysprosium, to name just a few.

    Where’s all this stuff going to come from? Massive new mining operations. Almost none of it in America, some imported from places hostile to America, and some in places we all want to protect.

    Australia’s Institute for a Sustainable Future cautions that a global “gold” rush for energy materials will take miners into “…remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven’t yet been disturbed.”

    And who is doing the mining? Let’s just say that they’re not all going to be union workers with union protections.

    Amnesty International paints a disturbing picture: “The… marketing of state-of-the-art technologies are a stark contrast to the children carrying bags of rocks.”

    And then the mining itself requires massive amounts of conventional energy, as do the energy-intensive industrial processes needed to refine the materials and then build the wind, solar, and battery hardware.

    Then there’s the waste. Wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries have a relatively short life; about twenty years. Conventional energy machines, like gas turbines, last twice as long.

    With current plans, the International Renewable Energy Agency calculates that by 2050, the disposal of worn-out solar panels will constitute over double the tonnage of all of today’s global plastic waste. Worn-out wind turbines and batteries will add millions of tons more waste. It will be a whole new environmental challenge.

    Before we launch history’s biggest increase in mining, dig up millions of acres in pristine areas, encourage childhood labor, and create epic waste problems, we might want to reconsider our almost inexhaustible supply of hydrocarbons—the fuels that make our marvelous modern world possible.

    And technology is making it easier to acquire and cleaner to use them every day.

    The following comparisons are typical—and instructive:

    It costs about the same to drill one oil well as it does to build one giant wind turbine. And while that turbine generates the energy equivalent of about one barrel of oil per hour, the oil rig produces 10 barrels per hour. It costs less than 50 cents to store a barrel of oil or its equivalent in natural gas. But you need $200 worth of batteries to hold the energy contained in one oil barrel.

    Next time someone tells you that wind, solar and batteries are the magical solution for all our energy needs ask them if they have an idea of the cost… to the environment.

    “Unobtanium” works fine in the movies. But we don’t live in movies. We live in the real world”.

    I’m Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, for Prager University.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Good, sensible stuff Neville. Here’s some more of the same for stu to read:

      “Meanwhile, here is a worrying trend. Energy consumption in the West is stalling and in some sectors, such as electricity, falling sharply. No one really believes that efficiency accounts for all of that. What is going on?

      In effect, the West has outsourced its energy consumption to China. Xi Jinping’s announcement in September that China will be carbon-neutral by 2060 was merely a cheap headline-grabber. In the same speech he announced that China’s emissions will rise until 2030 and, implicitly, remain high for quite some time thereafter. It’s 30 years from 2030 to 2060. That was news.

      China will hoover up and employ as much of the world’s fossil fuels as possible in the next few decades. Naïve divestment campaigns will simply play into Chinese hands. If Harvard sells its fossil investments, someone will buy them. Who?”

      http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-folly-of-renewable-energy/

    • Stu says:

      Notice the typical bait and switch argument in use with “ It would take 500 years for that factory to make enough batteries to store just one day’s worth of America’s electricity needs.”. To bolster his rubbish argument he jumps from, “lets move to renewables” to “we have to store the totality of daily US electricity needs in battery storage”. Give us a break. The rest of his arguments are similarly flawed except for those like you that continue to wear blinkers and swallow the kool-aid undiluted. Yes, his arguments sell well to simple folk.

  • Stu says:

    Ah yes Prager U. Here is a quote regarding this “media” outfit. “ PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American media company that creates videos on various political, economic, and philosophical topics from an American conservative perspective. The organization was co-founded by Allen Estrin and talk show host and writer Dennis Prager. The organization relies on donations, and much of its early funding came from fracking billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.”

    Further “ The organization depends on donations to produce its content. Much of the early funding for PragerU came from hydraulic fracturing (fracking) billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks. Two members of the Wilks family are on PragerU’s board. The next-largest donor is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Other donors include the Morgan Family Foundation, Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, Donors Trust, and the Minnesota-based Sid and Carol Verdoorn Foundation, led by former C.H. Robinson CEO Sid Verdoorn.

    As of 2018, the organization reportedly had a $10 million annual budget, of which it spent more than 40% on marketing. In 2019, PragerU raised $22 million and expects to receive $25 million in 2020. PragerU consistently spends more on Facebook advertising than major political campaigns and national advocacy groups. It ranks among the 10 biggest political spenders on the platform.”

    In other words it is a political organisation. Typical of many such outfits in the sick United States. I can accept that its right wing doctrine on a wide range of subjects matches yours closely. But if you want to believe it follows academic rigour in it’s pronouncements, good for you, just don’t try and ram it down our throats as beyond question.

    • spangled drongo says:

      I wonder if it ever occurs to stu that it’s the message that is paramount?

      The problem with messages is that they contain irrefutable EVIDENCE, hey stu?

      Something you just are not up to dealing with.

      Like all alarmists, you can’t debate the facts so you have to shoot messengers instead.

      Pathetic!

      • Stu says:

        “ The problem with messages is that they contain irrefutable EVIDENCE”. Are you really sure about that? I remind you that there are vastly more messages from acknowledged experts in the field than the rubbish tin scrapings you continually serve up. But you stick with your story, the sensible folk understand your reactionary delusions. And we know that what you keep proposing is irrelevant.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Well, if the evidence is not irrefutable, now is your personal opportunity to refute it. Not by waving your hands and babbling about “vastly more messages from acknowledged experts in the field”, but by detailing it. Start with the need for vast expansion of mining just for extra wind and solar generators, we can get to the batteries later.

          Don’t just wave your hands, do something.

      • Stu says:

        “Like all alarmists, you can’t debate the facts so you have to shoot messengers instead.“. No just dodgy media sites propagating bullshit, quite a difference. I said nothing about the “scientist” quoted, just the motivation and dodgy funding of the promoters.

        • spangled drongo says:

          When are you going to stop waffly messenger-shooting and produce one little bit of EVIDENCE to support your claim of CAGW?

          If you can’t do that, everything else you say is meaningless.

          • Stu says:

            NASA, NOAA, BOM, UK MET etc and

            The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:

            Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
            Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
            Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
            Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
            Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
            Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
            Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
            Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
            Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
            Académie des Sciences, France
            Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
            Academy of Athens
            Academy of Science of Mozambique
            Academy of Science of South Africa
            Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
            Academy of Sciences Malaysia
            Academy of Sciences of Moldova
            Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
            Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
            Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
            Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
            Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
            Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
            African Academy of Sciences
            Albanian Academy of Sciences
            Amazon Environmental Research Institute
            American Academy of Pediatrics
            American Anthropological Association
            American Association for the Advancement of Science
            American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
            American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
            American Astronomical Society
            American Chemical Society
            American Chemical Society
            American College of Preventive Medicine
            American Fisheries Society
            American Geophysical Union
            American Institute of Biological Sciences
            American Institute of Physics
            American Meteorological Society
            American Physical Society
            American Public Health Association
            American Quaternary Association
            American Society for Microbiology
            American Society of Agronomy
            American Society of Civil Engineers
            American Society of Plant Biologists
            American Statistical Association
            Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
            Australian Academy of Science
            Australian Bureau of Meteorology
            Australian Coral Reef Society
            Australian Institute of Marine Science
            Australian Institute of Physics
            Australian Marine Sciences Association
            Australian Medical Association
            Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
            Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
            Botanical Society of America
            Brazilian Academy of Sciences
            British Antarctic Survey
            Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
            California Academy of Sciences
            Cameroon Academy of Sciences
            Canadian Association of Physicists
            Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
            Canadian Geophysical Union
            Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
            Canadian Society of Soil Science
            Canadian Society of Zoologists
            Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
            Center for International Forestry Research
            Chinese Academy of Sciences
            Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
            Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
            Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
            Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
            Crop Science Society of America
            Cuban Academy of Sciences
            Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
            Ecological Society of America
            Ecological Society of Australia
            Environmental Protection Agency
            European Academy of Sciences and Arts
            European Federation of Geologists
            European Geosciences Union
            European Physical Society
            European Science Foundation
            Federation of American Scientists
            French Academy of Sciences
            Geological Society of America
            Geological Society of Australia
            Geological Society of London
            Georgian Academy of Sciences
            German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
            Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
            Indian National Science Academy
            Indonesian Academy of Sciences
            Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
            Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
            Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
            Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
            InterAcademy Council
            International Alliance of Research Universities
            International Arctic Science Committee
            International Association for Great Lakes Research
            International Council for Science
            International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
            International Research Institute for Climate and Society
            International Union for Quaternary Research
            International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
            International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
            Islamic World Academy of Sciences
            Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
            Kenya National Academy of Sciences
            Korean Academy of Science and Technology
            Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
            l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
            Latin American Academy of Sciences
            Latvian Academy of Sciences
            Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
            Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
            Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
            Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
            National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
            National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
            National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
            National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
            National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
            National Aeronautics and Space Administration
            National Association of Geoscience Teachers
            National Association of State Foresters
            National Center for Atmospheric Research
            National Council of Engineers Australia
            National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
            National Research Council
            National Science Foundation
            Natural England
            Natural Environment Research Council, UK
            Natural Science Collections Alliance
            Network of African Science Academies
            New York Academy of Sciences
            Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
            Nigerian Academy of Sciences
            Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
            Oklahoma Climatological Survey
            Organization of Biological Field Stations
            Pakistan Academy of Sciences
            Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
            Pew Center on Global Climate Change
            Polish Academy of Sciences
            Romanian Academy
            Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
            Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
            Royal Astronomical Society, UK
            Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
            Royal Irish Academy
            Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
            Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
            Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
            Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
            Royal Society of Canada
            Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
            Royal Society of the United Kingdom
            Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
            Russian Academy of Sciences
            Science and Technology, Australia
            Science Council of Japan
            Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
            Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
            Scripps Institution of Oceanography
            Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
            Slovak Academy of Sciences
            Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
            Society for Ecological Restoration International
            Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
            Society of American Foresters
            Society of Biology (UK)
            Society of Systematic Biologists
            Soil Science Society of America
            Sudan Academy of Sciences
            Sudanese National Academy of Science
            Tanzania Academy of Sciences
            The Wildlife Society (international)
            Turkish Academy of Sciences
            Uganda National Academy of Sciences
            Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
            United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
            University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
            Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
            Woods Hole Research Center
            World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
            World Federation of Public Health Associations
            World Forestry Congress
            World Health Organization
            World Meteorological Organization
            Zambia Academy of Sciences
            Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

            So, over to you, show me a counter list.

          • spangled drongo says:

            You haven’t got a clu, stu.

            A million messengers don’t mean a thing.

            Provide one message from any of them with supporting empirical EVIDENCE!

          • Stu says:

            SD, “ Provide one message from any of them with supporting empirical EVIDENCE!”.
            Come now my little friend, that is a complete cop out. Pleasevgo to all those sites and check then come back. Your approach is standard denialism gone amok. Next you will be asking me to prove there are no gods. Same nonsense.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Next you will be asking me to prove there are no gods.”

            So, you finally admit it’s just your religion?

            We’re finally getting somewhere.

            But you are a joke.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            A truly magnificent list, particularly for those who favour science by voting. Did you compile it yourself?

            Regardless, what you were asked for is the actual empirical evidence (which does NOT include the dodgy output of computer models). How about you put some effort into that?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          ” I said nothing about the “scientist” quoted, just the motivation and dodgy funding of the promoters.”

          Has the possibility ever entered your mind that the promoters of ruinables might also have selfish motivations, and that they would rapidly depart the scene if all the available subsidies were withdrawn?

  • Stu says:

    BTW Nev, your hatred of batteries shows your inability to think outside the dots. Utility scale battery systems are not just about backup. They are used to even out the supply cost (to the provider) by providing the means to store cheap power at certain times of the day to offset expensive power at other times. This cost smoothing is significant and applies no matter what the actual source of the grid power. It is not just about renewables and EV’s etc, but you stick with your narrow view.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      You are partially correct, that battery operatirs will prefer to store power while it is cheap. However, they will sell it into the grid while it is expebsive to make the biggest possible profit, not to even out the price. They are building the batteries to maximise their profits, not provide savings to consumers.

      • Stu says:

        I did not say the price would necessarily be lower to the consumer, another whole issue. The point is that big batteries have a major role even with coal fired power. And with battery deployment comes further development and improvement, which spins off into the renewable field that you are so implacably opposed to.

        And that dear sir leads into the next great industrial disruption. The upheaval of existing utility supply and cost arrangements. Tesla make more than cars, watch this space.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          My problem with ruinables is that, AT THEIR PRESENT STATE OF DEVELOPMENT, they cannot provide the reliable, continuous power necessary for an advanced economy. I have said this before, but your short tetm memory does not seem adequate for you to recall that.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “The point is that big batteries have a major role even with coal fired power.”

          And yet, strangely, they were not needed until ruinables came along, and the (very essential and expensive) need for Frequency Control and Ancillary Services arose. I wonder is there a connection, and their other uses are just more cream on the ruinables cake?

  • Neville says:

    SD our stu-pid donkey isn’t interested in our REAL PHYSICAL world or real science or real data, he prefers his fairy stories that only exist between his ears.
    Don’t forget that even Shellenberger BELIEVED this idiocy for decades , but at least he eventually had the decency to admit he was wrong and tell the world there was no chance of an apocalypse, or climate crisis or climate emergency or…..
    Lomborg also started as a strong believer but after checking all the data he ( + his expert team) settled on his luke warm position and also admits that CAGW is a false alarm.
    Our resident donkeys have no shame and like Dr Christy says that when you present the proper real world data they just YELL LOUDER.
    The lay person knows this if they just spend about 5 minutes checking HUMAN well being or advancement over the last 200 or 100 or 50 or even 20 years.
    And this advancement has even continued during the 21st century, just check the data since 2000. And the planet has been GREENING over the last 30+ years because of the extra co2 in the atmosphere.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Dr Christy says that when you present the proper real world data they just YELL LOUDER.”

      Exactly, Neville. Or in stu’s case, above, he chooses to litter this blog with over 200 cli-sci “experts”.

      It never occurs to him, as Einstein said, that it only needs one statement of evidence to prove a claim is wrong.

      And that none of his 200+ “experts” can provide that evidence.

      Next time he will produce twice as many to strengthen his argument.

      LOL!

      • Stu says:

        “ It never occurs to him, as Einstein said, that it only needs one statement of evidence to prove a claim is wrong.”

        Ok what is your one statement? And who made it?

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Ok what is your one statement?”

          The one statement is EVIDENCE to support your claim and prove me wrong.

          And you have to, but never can, provide it.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          I thought that at least a little scientific understanding might seep into your brain over time, but apparently not.

          Science advances by challenges to a null hypothesis. In this case, the null hypothesis is that the climate has been changing for millenia, due essentially to natural variation, augmented in recent years by some human influence.

          The Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis is that the human influence now predominates. It is up to the proponents of that hypothesis to provide the evidence to support this claim.

          Over to you genius. What is the alarmists’ “one statement”? Surely at least one of those many august institutions has laid it out clearly and simply?

          • Stu says:

            Oh come now little BJ. You know better than that. AGW does not fit in a little box with a binary switch (do you know what that is?). Both sides have the same problem. The difference is the observations and experiments that lead the majority (almost total) of scientists to conclude that the evidence points to almost certainty that things are accelerating and due to human influence. Those scientists have the scientific integrity to provide a probability figure for that, around 95%. Claiming 100% is deemed unseemly and not scientific. But on your side there is simply a bland, “no it is all bullshit claim”, while providing no “evidence” that your counter claim is true, just vague and very fluid timeline based claims with 100% certainty that it is all “natural variation”. Please try harder.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Comprehension fail yet again. I specifically mentioned human influence under the null hypothesis.

            Please describe the experiments that “prove” to 95% probability that human influence now predominates over natural variation. At least one of those august scientific institutions should have described it.

            Try harder.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “Both sides have the same problem”

            No, Silly Stu, both sides do not have the same problem. It is incumbent on the side challenging the null hypothesis to provide the evidence to support its claim, so stop waffling and get on with it.

      • Stu says:

        “ he chooses to litter this blog with over 200 cli-sci “experts”. Once again another devious switch and misinterpretation. They are not 200 experts, they are hundreds of world recognised scientific organisations representing thousands and thousands of experts. It is one thing to claim to be the reincarnation of Galileo, but quite another to actually have something earth shattering and correct. How is your sunspot theory going?

        • spangled drongo says:

          “… they are hundreds of world recognised scientific organisations representing thousands and thousands of experts.”

          Is that a fact, stueyluv?

          Have you any record of even one of those “thousands and thousands of experts” coming up with any measurable EVIDENCE to support your [and their] CAGW religion?

          As they say in the classics; put up or shut up!

          Why must you keep waffling when you have nothing to say?

          • stu says:

            “ As they say in the classics; put up or shut up!”

            DITTO

          • spangled drongo says:

            What can you do with someone like our stu who is so obtuse that he doesn’t understand that he is the one making the claim of catastrophe.

            Let me hold your hand while I spell it out again for the umpteenth time.

            When you are screaming doom, stueyluv, you need EVIDENCE to back your bed-wetting. I, otoh, merely claim that our current weather and climate are no different to anything that has previously occurred when CO2 levels were much lower. And thus well within the bounds of natural climate variability.

            There is endless science with measurable data of the early Holocene that show higher sea levels, tree lines in higher latitudes, tree stumps underneath glaciers etc., proving that climate then was warmer than today.

            If you think otherwise then you must provide evidence.

            But in spite of my not having to put up, I never stop providing this evidence to you that there is nothing happening today, climate-wise that is any different to the past.

            You, otoh, have NEVER offered one skerrick of empirical evidence to support your catastrophic claims.

            It’s more than high time you stopped being such a hypocrite and put up or shut up.

          • Stu says:

            Oh mr SD, Oh come now little BJ. You know better than that. AGW does not fit in a little box with a binary switch (do you know what that is?). Both sides have the same problem. The difference is the observations and experiments that lead the majority (almost total) of scientists to conclude that the evidence points to almost certainty that things are accelerating and due to human influence. Those scientists have the scientific integrity to provide a probability figure for that, around 95%. Claiming 100% is deemed unseemly and not scientific. But on your side there is simply a bland, “no it is all bullshit claim”, while providing no “evidence” that your counter claim is true, just vague and very fluid timeline based claims with 100% certainty that it is all “natural variation”. Please try harder.

          • spangled drongo says:

            You mean those climate models, stueyluv?

            Yes, we know.

            They are as corrupt as any aspect of cli-sci.

            They are not empirical evidence and can never be compared with any observations and measurements.

            Please try harder.

        • Boambee John says:

          No, Silly Stu, both sides do not have the same problem. It is incumbent on the side challenging the null hypothesis to provide the evidence to support its claim, so stop waffling and get on with it.

          • Stu says:

            So perhaps we could start with you outlining the actual form of the climate change null hypothesis that you think is most useful. Meantime I suggest that climate change is perhaps the best example yet for adopting a Pascal’s wager approach given the importance of the issue and the intransigence of a very small section of the science community and camp followers such as yourself (BTW I do not imply you are gay, merely using a figure of speech and punctuation can be so important sometimes)

          • Stu says:

            So perhaps we could start with you outlining the actual form of the climate change null hypothesis that you think is most useful. Meantime I suggest that climate change is perhaps the best example yet for adopting a Pascal’s wager approach given the importance of the issue and the intransigence of a very small section of the science community and camp followers such as yourself (BTW I do not imply you are gay, merely using a figure of speech and punctuation can be so important sometimes)

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            I actually did that earlier, but to help you with your short term memory problem, let me copy what I wrote then.

            “Science advances by challenges to a null hypothesis. In this case, the null hypothesis is that the climate has been changing for millenia, due essentially to natural variation, augmented in recent years by some human influence.”

            Now, your actual, measured, empirical evidence to prove that human influence is now dominant please.

  • Neville says:

    BTW I’m afraid that a lot of people trust our media and a lot of the scary stories we’re bombarded with on a daily basis and I found this out yesterday when I had to correct a few otherwise sensible group of friends.
    I told them that CV-19 killed about 909 people in OZ in 2020 and 820 of that number died in VIC or about 90% of the total.
    I also told them that normal flu cases were very low in 2020 and deaths from normal flu + CV-19 combined were only about 50% of deaths from flu in NSW in 2019. Unbelievable but true.
    It took a while but in the end I think I convinced most of them before I left, but I hope most of them would have the good sense to check the data for themselves. Here’s the NSW link and see normal flu deaths and graphs for 2020 and previous 5 years from page 24+.

    https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/covid-19-surveillance-report-20210102.pdf

    • Stu says:

      Yes, they have done a great job minimising the spread of the virus and limiting deaths. Had we followed the Bolt/Jones model we could have been right up there in the world league tables like the UK and USA

      • Neville says:

        Yes all states except Vic have done a great job, but our TOTAL deaths would’ve been at least 760 less without the clueless disaster from the Andrew’s Labor govt.
        And Bolt and Jones stressed that we had to have the best contact tracing and maximum protection for the elderly and other vulnerable groups.

  • Neville says:

    So here’s more of my lay person’s thoughts about their so called CAGW and I challenge these claims by asking some verifiable, and very obvious questions.
    Why doesn’t global SLR show a higher trend now than over the 20 th century? Co2 levels were then about 300 ppm. See numerous recent PR studies + Dr Humlum’s 1 to 1.5 mm/year.
    Our two largest ice reservoirs on the planet (99% of planet’s ice) showed either a higher warming rate (Greenland- Vinther et al) in the early 20th century and Antarctica has not warmed at all since 1979. See UAH V 6.
    In fact the Ant peninsula has cooled since 1998. See BAS study ,Turner.
    According to Dr Christy their models show far too much warming ( except the Russian model) compared to observations and the so called HOT SPOT doesn’t compare to satellite observations.
    Why have Polar bear numbers increased five fold since the 1950s?
    Deaths from ALL EXTREME WEATHER events have dropped by 99% since 1920, although the population has increased by 6 billion over the last 100 years and 4.1 bn since 1970. THINK ABOUT IT.
    Of course human life expectancy has increased to about 72 years across the planet and much higher in wealthy OECD countries.

  • Neville says:

    CAT 1 cyclone Kimi has formed off the Nth QLD coast and could move inland today.
    But how long before some dingbat Labor or Greens pollie blames the Coalition govt AGAIN for these entirely NATURAL weather systems?

    • spangled drongo says:

      But-but-but Neville it could become a CAT 2 before it crosses the coast!

      The BP at Cairns is a shocking 1005 Hpa and the wind is gusting to 10 knots!

      And what about TC Imogen the other day?

      This CAGW is SIRRIUS stuff!

  • spangled drongo says:

    Here’s some evidence of early Holocene warmth that the stus of this world need to take into account when making silly claims.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/17/proof-of-warmer-earlier-climate-swiss-geologist-studies-10800-year-old-tree-trunk-under-alps-glacier/

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that temp graph from a 2015 study of the Alps. Note the much warmer HOL optimum the MED W P and the very cold LIA and then some warming to the present day.

    https://i2.wp.com/notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Glacier-Weisseespitze.png?ssl=1

  • Neville says:

    Even the normally clueless Guardian can tell right from wrong sometimes as is the case here comparing the destroying of NATURAL forests for wood pellets to replace coal. But really this is just more lefty lunacy on steroids.
    This has to be one of the looniest ideas to ever surface over the last 30 years, but still the stu-pid lefties lap it up. When will these ignorant donkeys wake up?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/14/carbon-neutrality-is-a-fairy-tale-how-the-race-for-renewables-is-burning-europes-forests?mc_cid=2b43d598c3&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

  • Neville says:

    Another top post from Willis where he follows the “wandering water” around the planet.
    Little wonder that Australia has periods of droughts and flooding rains and always will have in the foreseeable future.
    Check out the data that Willis has transformed into videos so we can more easily understand the planet’s chaotic changes year on year.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/19/wandering-water/

  • Boambee John says:

    China is increasing coal production. Obviously they did not get the message that coal mines are “stranded assets”. Perhaps Chris and Stu should form a delegation of two, travel to Beijing, and carry placards to that effect in Tienanmen Square, to let Premier Xi know?

    Be careful of passing tanks.

Leave a Reply to whyisitso Cancel Reply