The July Off-Topic Thread

By July 1, 2018Other

As attentive readers will know, I am not well — specifically, a compression fracture of the spine at T8. These ailments will generally cure themselves  in time (six to eight weeks), but they are extraordinarily painful, and there are powerful painkiller to reduce the pain. Unfortunately, they have powerful side-effects, too, and one of them is a general dopeyness that is frightening. Moreover, they affect fine motor control too, and I can’t stand for long (I stand to use the computer). For all these reasons, I am finding it difficult to keep the website running. We’ll see how well I do it over the next month or so.


How did it happen? Nobody knows, and there was no ‘precedent event’. Age? Osteoporosis? Possible yes to both. Not fun, I can attest to that.

Join the discussion 188 Comments

  • Hasbeen says:

    Why on earth do you stand up to use the computer?

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Many people do, and I am one of them. Why do I do it? It’s good for my back. I stand and sit alternately. Many people stand to read newspapers, too. It just isn’t as uncommon as you imply.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    My sympathy. The older I get, the less I like it.

  • spangled drongo says:

    I’m very sad to hear that, Don. Back pain is dreadful. All the very best for your speedy recovery.

  • Neville says:

    Very sorry to hear about your back troubles Don. I’ve had my share over the years and the pain can be very annoying to say the least. I hope you have some relief soon and a full recovery ASAP. All the best.

  • JimboR says:

    Pauline Hanson on company tax cuts:

    Where do we get these people from?

  • JimboR says:

    First Turnbull is telling people who they can shag, and now the Senate’s resident troll is at it:

    Libertarian? Not always it seems.

    Where do we get these people from?

  • Chris Warren says:


    Sorry to hear of your spinal compression fracture.

    I hope your pain management is making you as comfortable as possible and, no doubt, the specialists are providing the best management advice they can.

    There is light at the end of the tunnel.


  • Mike Burston says:

    Get well soon. I can empathise with your discomfort

  • beththeserf says:

    Back pain, ugh! Speedy recovery, Don. Don’t give up the blog. I repeat, don’t …

  • MD says:

    Best wishes, and looking forward to your next essay whenever you can manage it

  • stu says:

    Sorry to hear about your condition, which sounds very debilitating. Get well soon, all the best.

  • Boambee John says:

    Take it easy, Don, and get well before trying to do too much.

    An off topic thread can keep us occupied in the meantime.

  • Boambee John says:

    “Bryan Roberts
    July 1, 2018 at 10:59 am
    My sympathy. The older I get, the less I like it.”

    Still beats the alternative!

  • margaret says:

    That’s no good – get well soon.

  • Neville says:

    Coal is set to become our number one export earner again, yet we have our banks refusing to invest in this booming commodity.
    And while non OECD countries line up to use our coal we must rely on idiocy like S&W at home here in OZ. Currently we generate just 0.8% of our TOTAL energy from the S&W disaster.
    Of course no measurable difference to temp in 2040 or 2100 and the same result when we factor in the clueless Paris COP 21 mitigation fairy tale.

    • spangled drongo says:

      On top of that stupidity, Neville, we have our universities promoting and researching the idea of communities investing in renewable power stations [wind farms, solar farms] in their local areas and telling the locals how good a deal it is and how much they can expect in subsidies.

      They just don’t tell them how this middle class welfare then forces the overall price of electricity higher for the poor people in order to achieve those returns.

      Or that when the subsidies expire as is happening now in Germany that the community is not only faced with a worthless asset but those non-functioning plants become a huge pollution liability.

      There have been dysfunctional and failed windfarms in the western US since the ’70s and if these centres of cli-sci were honest there would be numerous studies based on the evidence of and reasons for, this failure.

      But the last thing we will get from these groupthink cli-scis is factual science.

  • JimboR says:

    Looks like Brexit negotiations are proceeding well….

  • Tezza says:

    Best wishes, Don. Even doped up with painkillers, you’d be sharper than the average analyst! Get better soon.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Read it and weep, stu, jimb, blith et al.

    Looks like consensual cli-sci has taken a bit of a dive in 2018.

    254 new scientific papers cast doubt on ACO2 as the climate control knob:

    “The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.”

    “In just the first 6 months of 2018, 254 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.”

    • spangled drongo says:

      He sure got this wrong, baz:

      “In positions of power we remain a very white, relatively well-paid male nation (and I speak as one of that group).”

  • spangled drongo says:

    How’s the back progressing, Don?

    Hopefully you are getting some sleep. All the best.

    A Noisy Pitta trotted out of the undergrowth at my feet yesterday and grabbed and ate a juicy worm in full view on the track.

    Brilliant colours.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Will we finally get some facts on the “data” behind Mann-made global warming:

    “Arizona Appellate Court decides Hockey Stick emails must be released”

    “Dr. Schnare described the status of this case and its importance. “We did not take this case only to obtain the history of a very controversial period of time in the climate wars. We also took this case to cast sunlight on how public universities work, how they contribute to the formation of public policy, and how professors behave within the policy arena.”

    Or will the groupthink climategate continue:

  • David says:

    Wishing you a speedy recovery

  • spangled drongo says:

    The straw ban is a straw man:

    Plastic is one of the marvels of civilisation.

    It is people who litter who are the problem.

    What will the lefties ban next?

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Tony Abbott’s Bob Carter lecture and he makes a lot of sense. We should get out of their Paris con trick and fra-d, because we would save billions $ and of course the outcome wouldn’t make a scrap of difference anyway.
    Thanks to Dr Hansen for his exposure of their BS and fra-d agenda in 2015.

  • Peter S says:

    Return as soon as you can Don. Your essays are always a breath of fresh air.

  • Neville says:

    More common sense from Dr Roy Spencer, looking at the data to check warming over the USA over different periods of time.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, Neville, when you realise that we have only warmed 0.6c +/- 0.2c in the last 120 years during which we have gone from dirt roads to 20 lane freeways, the world population has increased 1,000% and the thermometers are all kept where development is greatest, I think we could make a good case for ACO2 actually causing cooling.

      Or are we just witnessing the Gaia effect of the increase in population simply overcoming the onset of the next ice age?

  • David says:

    …. and back on topic. Sydney just had it warmest July day on record. And in a non el nino year at that. Just saying

    • Chris Warren says:


      Exactly right but it would be best to post linksto sources for such comments lest the usual anti-climate trolls startup.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Exactly right but it would be best to post links to sources for such comments….”

        If davie is endowed with the knowledge of how ACO2 causes climate change, blith, but refuses to post the link explaining it all, maybe you could.

      • spangled drongo says:

        More indication of the lies and “catastrophe” of global warming:


        Global warming poses a threat to future world coffee crops with rising temperatures and drought likely to force some producers to seek higher and cooler land


        Global warming projections as presented by IPCC will cause a strong decrease in the coffee production in Brazil.

        But now:

        Costa Rica has sold 102,139 bags during the first three months of the 2017/2018 harvesting season, up 19 percent versus the same period a year ago.

        Brazil to harvest a record crop and lift global supplies to a large surplus.”

        The scare got big headlines. Will the reassuring reality now get the same?

        Or will you enuresistics just use the extra moisture to spout more of the same?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Well blith and davie, sceptics are also happy to use ever increasing concrete, asphalt, traffic, general population etc., as an indicator of ever increasing temperature and call it AGW, too.

      But now tell us how this is caused by ACO2?

      This is the bit we are sceptical of and have been waiting 30 years for the explanation that never comes.

      But trooly? Have you really got a link that you are keeping from us sceptics that explains this?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Or could blith and davie possibly be confused with this?:

      ” AUSTRALIAN cities are 5C hotter compared to surrounding areas because of a phenomenon known as the ‘Urban Island Heat’ effect that could eventually turn them into death traps.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Cli-sci comedy continues:

    “My crystal ball model says Noctilucent clouds, which we have almost no data on, must be man-made!”

    “This is pure crystal ball science that starts with errors and ends with extrapolations. Researchers are fooling themselves using words like “results”, “indicator” and “significant” as if this was an actual experiment.”

  • David says:

    And all time temperature records also set in California this July also.

    A high temperature is weather but a record high is climate change

  • […] the bad news. I’ve written briefly about this before, but the fuller news is worse. Over the past six weeks I have had increasing pain in my back, not […]

  • spangled drongo says:

    James Hanson has admitted for the first time that data used to promote his climate change theory was false and fra*dulently manipulated by Al Gore to suit an agenda:

    • Stu says:

      OMG, IF “” is your trusted source, game over. No cred whatever.

      • spangled drongo says:

        At least they shoot the message before the messenger, stu.

        Whereas you shoot the messenger only, without any evidence.

        • Stu says:

          Calling out a really dodgy source is not exactly an ad hominem attack. Check it out. They are the source of numerous anti vacc, chemtrail, hillary pedophile conspiracy theories etc. basically on par with Alex Jones and Info Wars, no cred whatever. A junk source, I am sure Don would not give them any time. Find the same reference to Hansens words elsewhere and I will take notice.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Please deal with the article you criticise.

            It was reporting a report by Christy and Michaels which was perfectly true.

            If you have any evidence to the contrary, state it.

            Don’t blither.

            Deal with the message.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Remember the good old days when electricity was ~ $30/MWh

    We’re only ~ 50% higher in Qld but SA today, spot price was at the max of $14,000/MWh.


    Imagine how much those submarines are going to cost:

    • Stu says:

      In classic troll mode you are comparing apples and asteroids, average consumer price and spot price paid by the suppliers not the same thing at all.

      • spangled drongo says:

        You don’t savvy much, hey stu?

        Read that link again.

        Those were a comparison of the states’ prices per MWh at 12.05 yesterday.

        Does it possibly occur to you that the more often there is a spot price of $14,000/KWh the more it makes industry unviable?

        Not to mention anxiety and unaffordability for the average consumer.

        Do I spot ignorant denial here?

        Or are you still out shooting messengers?

  • spangled drongo says:

    It’s the “ease of story telling” that counts.

    Not lack of facts, or a particular bias [koff].

    What does it remind you of?:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Looks like the Peter Ridd problem is widespread:

    “Once scientists are silenced, narratives can be fully unhooked from any expectation that they be put to the test of evidence.

    Last spring at the Evergreen State College, where I was a professor for 15 years, the revolution was televised—proudly and intentionally—by the radicals. Opinions not fitting with the currently accepted dogma—that all white people are racist, that questioning policy changes aimed at achieving “equity” is itself an act of white supremacy—would not be tolerated, and those who disagreed were shouted down, hunted, assaulted, even battered.”

  • Chris Warren says:

    Spencer has provided the latest satellite data at:

    The North Pole is warming at a trend rate of 2.5° per century, but most warming is in the local ocean which is almost 3°.

    The South Pole shows no change.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Near where we live the BoM has installed a new automatic weather station and it is very interesting to monitor and compare temperatures, rainfalls etc.

    What is interesting is the amount of variation in the data.

    It appears to periodically lose data, sometimes for hours, and today, even though it was raining, it was not recording any.

    I drove up to the AWS to make sure it was raining there because I couldn’t believe what it was telling me and sure enough it was. Just not recording it. The other day it was recording rain when it wasn’t raining.

    I wonder what else it does when it shouldn’t and vice versa.

    AWSs should generally be more reliable than human attended stations but I feel that when they go awry they really stuff up.

    I can see why BoM don’t want anyone to audit them.

    If this AWS is any indication, they make plenty of errors.

    • David says:

      Citizen scientists poking around the BOMs Stevenson Screens.
      I hope someone from BoM served you a cup of tea and a biscuit.

  • Neville says:

    The Bolter asks why people care so little about the facts before they express an opinion. It doesn’t seem to matter to these donkeys even though they offer their opinion before they actually understand anything about the subject.
    Krudd and Shorten are prime examples of left wing fools who want to waste endless billions $ on so called CAGW for a guaranteed zero return on the investment.
    And Shorten looks like becoming the PM after the next election, unbelievable but true. Here’s the video link to one of the best summaries I’ve seen on these stupid fools.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, Prof Richard Lindzen made the following acute observation about a book that supports your argument:

      A case study in groupthink
      How science can shed new light on the most important ‘non-debate’ of our time
      Christopher Booker

      “Namely, how do otherwise intelligent people come to
      believe such arrant nonsense despite its implausibility, internal contradictions, contradictory
      data, evident corruption and ludicrous policy implications. Booker convincingly
      shows the power of ‘groupthink’ to overpower the rational faculties that we
      would hope could play some role. The phenomenon of groupthink helps explain why
      ordinary working people are less vulnerable to this defect. After all, the group that the
      believers want to belong to is that of the educated elite. This may have played a major
      role in the election of Donald Trump, which depended greatly on the frustration
      of the non-elites (or ‘deplorables’, as Hillary Clinton referred to them) with what they
      perceived to be the idiocy of their ‘betters’.”

    • spangled drongo says:

      And there I was, marg, thinking you had been paying attention:

    • stu says:

      Hi guys, I am still following the story here and was not going to bother to comment further given the reluctance to acknowledge, or even read the real science. However I thought an alternative path might be to get back to the basics of climate change denial and there is a huge amount of published material on the subject. Basically, it all comes back to conspiracy theory, as I have alluded to before with the similarities to anti-vac theories, tobacco, 9/11, the moon landings etc.

      Therefore I give you the following quote from an Oxford research Encyclopedia article. Have a read if you dare, it is offensive to your position.

      “An overwhelming percentage of climate scientists agree that human activity is causing the global climate to change in ways that will have deleterious consequences both for the environment and for humankind. While scientists have alerted both the public and policy makers to the dangers of continuing or increasing the current rate of carbon emission, policy proposals intended to curb carbon emission and thereby mitigate climate change have been resisted by a notable segment of the public. Some of this resistance comes from those not wanting to incur costs or change energy sources (i.e., the carbon-based energy industry). Others oppose policies intended to address climate change for ideological reasons (i.e., they are opposed to the collectivist nature of the solutions usually proposed). But perhaps the most alarming and visible are those who oppose solutions to climate change because they believe, or at least claim to believe, that anthropogenic climate change is not really happening and that climate scientists are lying and their data is fake.

      Resistance, in this latter case, sometimes referred to as climate “skepticism” or “denialism,” varies from region to region in strength but worldwide has been a prominent part of a political force strong enough to preclude both domestic and global policy makers from making binding efforts to avert the further effects of anthropogenic climate change. For example, a 2013 poll in the United States showed that almost 40% believed that climate change was a hoax.

      Climate skeptics suggest the well-publicized consensus is either manufactured or illusory and that some nefarious force—be it the United Nations, liberals, communists, or authoritarians—want to use climate change as a cover for exerting massive new controls over the populace. This conspiracy-laden rhetoric—if followed to its logical conclusion—expresses a rejection of scientific methods, scientists, and the role that science plays in society.

      Skeptic rhetoric, on one hand, may suggest that climate skepticism is psychological and the product of underlying conspiratorial thinking, rather than cognitive and the product of a careful weighing of scientific evidence. On the other hand, it may be that skeptics do not harbor underlying conspiratorial thinking, but rather express their opposition to policy solutions in conspiratorial terms because that is the only available strategy when arguing against an accepted scientific consensus. This tactic of calling into question the integrity of science has been used in other scientific debates (e.g., the link between cigarette smoking and cancer).

      Opinion surveys, however, support the view that climate change denialism is driven at least partially by underlying conspiratorial thinking. Belief in climate change conspiracy theories also appears to drive behaviors in ways consistent with the behaviors of people who think in conspiratorial terms: Climate change conspiracy theorists are less likely to participate politically or take actions that could alleviate their carbon footprint. Furthermore, some climate skeptics reject studies showing that their skepticism is partially a product of conspiratorial thinking: They believe such studies are themselves part of the conspiracy.”

      The source is

      The full article os worth reading. This is just the abstract.

      have a nice chat amongst yourselves.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Seeing as your enuresis has got the better of you, stu, instead of ranting and calling rational people deniers, try putting forward one small bit of empirical evidence to support your claim.

        Sceptics are always prepared to admit that there could be some part of that less-than-1c warming since the end of the coldest period of civilisation that could be due to extra CO2 emissions but no climate scientists have been able to establish anything definite let alone measure anything.

        Making up computer model theory based on assumptions that are wrong and getting wronger is not only a lack of proof but displays their complete lack of empirical evidence.

        When they can produce anything measurable [as opposed to assumption] do get back to us.

        In the meantime anyone with an open mind would be aware that that slight warming, which is only half the rate of Nat Var, indicates that ACO2 could just as easily be producing cooling as warming.

        • Stu says:

          Ha ha, you did not read it did you. I did not call anyone, rational or not, a denier, I simply quoted an academic paper. If the shoe fits etc. ‘
          As for evidence, there is so much solid stuff out there, I wont waste my time, you won’t read it anyway, right!

          • spangled drongo says:

            Whether you speak it yourself or use others to do your abusing for you, stueyluv, it amounts to the same ranting.

            The fact that the “experts” even have to speak like that shows how impoverished their “science” is.

            “As for evidence, there is so much solid stuff out there…”

            Well what are you waiting for?

            Produce something solid, something empirical.

            Or are you confused about your solids too?

          • stu says:

            You have been slow to realise that my participation in this charade has not been for your benefit, but in the hope that some other folk, even Don, might be directed to the reality of science and away from the belief in the pseudo science of climate change denial.

            Regarding the “proof” you clamour for, this is not a science laboratory. However, try this. But this is for the other readers that are hopefully out there not you. Although it s written a simple manner so you might be able to follow it.

            Way back to 19th century physics it has been known that CO2 has certain properties when it comes to absorption and emission of radiation. And then people realised that the reason the earth is habitable at all is because it has an atmosphere with the right composition to sustain an average temperature that sustains life. The atmosphere is very thin and gets colder as you rise, have you been up a mountain or in an airplane? It is like a blanket.

            The holocene has been a period when the earths climate has been in balance with the incoming radiation. Prior eras of great change were caused by small changes in the earths orbit and inclination. Those changes, over very long periods caused the ice ages to come and go. The system is complex with many slow interconnections that produce ups and downs in the climate over time such as the much quoted El Nino/Nina and the PDO etc. However lots of diligent scientists working over a long period have studied these processes and the climate and concluded that the changes going on are not caused by those things.

            In 100 years the burning of coal, oil and gas has put back into the air the carbon that took 100 million years to sequester. As CO2 is a proven GHG that has had an impact on the balance of the earths climate. We still have the same input of solar radiation but the reflexion of part of that has been reduced, leading to heating of the air and oceans. Eventually it will find a new equilibrium. The problem is that in the meantime the heat is changing the temperature and places like Siberia and the Arctic ocean are starting to release the great reservoirs of Methane that have laid dormant for a very long time. Methane is even worse that CO2, though less long lived. The scientists are concerned about hitting a tipping point of runaway change as has happened way back in geologic time.

            CO2 in the atmosphere has not been as high as it is now for several million years, long before humans walked the planet. The deposits of coal and oil etc are testament to a very different climate way back that produced the raw materials that could be laid down and turn into those fuels. One of the sleights of hand used by deniers is to point to fairly recent (geologically speaking) tendencies for CO2 to follow temperature change rather than the reverse. That would be a fine argument if we were still in a natural cycle. However it is not valid to assume that what changed things in the past will cause change now. The climate reacts to forcing and we have introduced a major and unnatural forcing over a very short time span. Go and check, the sun has been stable, vulcanism has been on the low side etc. What has changed has been CO2. As for tree rings in the Arctic, “so what” and by the way have you seen the news on the unprecedented fires burning in the arctic?

            Meantime people like yourself have been duped (unless of course you are actually one of the dupers) by vested interests into contributing to “doubt” so as to delay action. Check the revelation this week of the clandestine funding of the IPA by Australia’s biggest mining player. Why are Gina and the IPA so keen to keep that quiet. Similar story in USA with the Heritage Foundation and the UK’s GWPF.

            So grandpa, what will you say to the kids in twenty years or so when things are clearer, when they ask “which side were you on in the climate wars”. It is notable that it is the younger generation who are onside with the case and who have more to risk than the old farts who won’t be around to account for their actions.

            And if you want “facts” go and read the science. Go to all the national academies of science, all the universities, NASA, NOAA, the Met Offices around the world or even now the National Farmers Federation who are a late starter. Or follow the precepts of the people described in that article I sent you on denial and conspiracy theory. And perhaps you can explain, assuming you are a duper, how come the US Republican Party went from being an early activist in this field to being the party of denial and the one that has turned the debate from being about the science and bi-partisan to the now horribly partisan divide of today. Locally we have our own players like Abbott, Jones etc in this space. All decrying what would have to be the biggest, most organised conspiracy in history if it was a con, which it most definitely is not.

            One of the interesting things to watch is the continuing improvement in cost efficiency of alternative energy. The coal lovers are losing because of $$ in USA, the jobs of the Kentucky miners are not coming back. Here the vaunted Galilee Basin mines will create a net loss in jobs as older less mechanised mines close in the Hunter and Bowen, it is all just a matter of time. Cars will evolve rapidly to fully electric, powered by solar and thermal coal initially spelling the end of the oil cartels.

            The debate is moving on from “is it real” to “what do we do about it”, “how do we stay competitive globally” etc. Fossils ranting on blogs are irrelevant.

          • spangled drongo says:

            You once again demonstrate that you have no measurable evidence to put forward but plenty of hysteria based on assumption.

            When we have experienced a KNOWN warming at 10 times the current rate and sea level rise of a KNOWN 120 metres that prevented the aboriginals from leaving Tasmania not that long ago yet you claim that we have seen nothing like this tiny amount of current warming which includes an absence of SLR, it confirms your complete denial of natural climate variability awa factual history.

            You foolish people of the catastrophic warming persuasion are not only your own worst enemies but by brainwashing kids at impressionable ages [IOW teaching them WHAT to think instead of HOW to think] you will end up indoctrinating most of them to their own severe disadvantage.

            All based on your evidence-free religion.

            But thanks for confirming what we already knew.

            And please keep your well displayed ignorance to yourself.

          • stu says:

            Ah, forgive me, I see the error of my ways. I should have realised straight away how strong your case was and how credible your sources, while I only relied on mainstream science and actual climate scientists, silly me. So I will now shut up. But please before I go completely can you give me your proof on the effect of the chem-trail efforts by the US government to manipulate the climate and of course their efforts to control hurricanes with massive energy bursts, we really should know more. Cheers.

          • spangled drongo says:

            You should understand that there is plenty of speculation and conjecture coming from both sides of the debate but what is abundantly clear is the sceptics have the empirical facts on their side.

            Your speculative blither on methane is a case in point.

            This is actually what mainstream science says:

            What the IPCC says about methane

            “The report of Working Group I of the IPCC’s AR5 gives explicit guidance about the risk created by methane emissions. You can read a hundred alarmist articles about methane and global warming — and never see this information.
            1.Models’ projections of the growth in methane levels range from small to large.
            2.These projections have come down in each IPCC report.
            3.Methane levels have increased more slowly than in any of their projections.”

            “However, new research led by Princeton University researchers and published in The ISME Journal in August suggests that, thanks to methane-hungry bacteria, the majority of Arctic soil might actually be able to absorb methane from the atmosphere rather than release it. Furthermore, that ability seems to become greater as temperatures rise.”

            IOW, cli-sci just doesn’t know and won’t admit to negative feedbacks but that doesn’t stop the stus of this world from blithering and bed-wetting.

            Actually failing to solve a non-problem that is based on GCMs that are based on alarmist speculation, assumption and conjecture is a futile exercise in so many ways.

            It is hard to comprehend how any rational person would give it the time of day.

            But not only do they do this but in pursuing this religion they seek to wreck the world in the process.

      • Don Aitkin says:

        Stu, you’re new (no rhyme intended), and you use my name a bit. This website has a lot of readers, not all of whom are captivated by global warming or climate change. It seems to me that you ‘believe’ the science you want to believe, and regard everything that is counter to it as ‘climate change denial’.

        I have been studying this area now for more than ten years, and what I think about it is set out all over the website, in particular My Perspective. I haven’t changed my views much in that time. The scientific basis for the notion that a catastrophe is coming, and that we need to deal with it through greatly reducing the emissions of CO2, not just here but everywhere in the world, is in my view weak. That we are still arguing about it all is not because there are nasty deniers, but because it is so easy to show that drought, floods, fires, frozen days and the rest have all happened before, and will likely happen again. Your contributions are your take on what you think you know. That’s fine. As far as I am concerned, whether or not you contribute is up to you.

        I had never heard of the Oxford Research Encyclopaedia on Climate Change. OUP is a big publishing enterprise that does lots of things which it hopes will make money. It is not some kind of gold standard, but a British corporation. Its reputation derives in part from its publication more than a century ago of the OED, and as a vehicle for Oxford academics to publish their books, which it does successfully. Hans van Storch is a well-known ‘alarmist’, and the whole tenor of what I read in the article you provided, and in searching around in the site, is that this is a convinced ‘warmist’ platform. I don’t use the term critically. I’m sure that Hans van Storch would agree that he is raising the alarm, and the time for action is now, and so on.

        But it is not in any way dispassionate or useful as a site in which one can find helpful directions for people who do want to understand whether or not anything of real consequence is happening to the climate of the world. That you think it is puzzles me, but there you go.

        By all means keep on saying what you think. That is in part what the site is for. But please excuse me if I do not respond any further.

        • stu says:

          Nice to see you back in print, all the best. Yes I have referred to you, as owner of this site, and as someone I dealt with years ago in a different (ARC) context. You would not remember me at all but I recall you kindly from that time.

          As per your last para I expect no response but felt compelled to respond to you anyway.

          My position, as frequently stated is not one of “belief” but adherence to published science. Even you and your co-travellers have to admit that the bulk of published data runs counter to your ten years of observation (as a non scientist).

          Today sadly I wasted time watching Monckton spouting about fraud etc and his “proof” that warming comes from the sun and not the various feedbacks etc involved in the very elaborate climate models now relied on. Woopee do, guess where all heat comes from on the earth. The issue is what happens to the heat arriving here. Monckton has not got a clue. Actually I look forward to hearing how his fraud claims go in the Swiss courts. Probably something like what will happen with the case of Ridd v JCU, but of course we all know that the law often has little to do with fact and lots to do with presentation.

          Have a read of this article about the petroleum industry involvement with this process to get an idea of where I am heading.

          Sadly you along with many others have been taken for a ride to benefit the pockets of the perpetrators. Have a fun ride.

          I am confident that current and future trends in climate will prove the case of science correct (it already has) and your position will prove to be an embarrassing failure to grasp facts.

          Face the truth, the science has moved on, it is a done deal, all that is left is the posturing of opposed ideologies no matter what off centre sites like this one profess. Sadly most of us here will probably soon shuffle off from this world but our kids and grand kids will face the future head on. At least my offspring know where I stand on the issue. The late 21st century will deride current climate deniers for their role in slowing a meaningful response. The luddites of science and climate. To quote your hero, “sad” really.

          • spangled drongo says:

            And there I was, thinking that stu was only going to get back to us when he had some evidence.

            But of course, he lives by belief alone.

            The only “done deal” is our stu.

          • Don Aitkin says:


            You comment: ‘My position, as frequently stated is not one of “belief” but adherence to published science. Even you and your co-travellers have to admit that the bulk of published data runs counter to your ten years of observation (as a non scientist).’

            Other readers have asked you what ‘published science’ in particular you adhere to, and I do the same. You don’t refer to anything. The gold standard for the orthodox position rests on the scientific book (WG1) that is part of each IPCC assessment. I’ve read them all, carefully. I can understand about 90 per cent (though Jimbo disagrees, but then he doesn’t know me or anything much about me), and if I need help with the rest I have lots of scientist friends and a couple of brothers who can help me.

            I assume you have read the documents, which from my perspective do not deal dispassionately with natural variation, but focus heavily on the supposed role of ACO2 as the control knob of the planet’s climate. So,

            (1) Can you tell me where the WG1 papers show conclusively that the control knob hypothesis is soundly based? I cannot find such a paragraph or section.

            (2) Can you tell me how the scientific papers deal with the obvious problem that the rise and fall of global temperature in the first half of the 20th century almost completely mimics that in the second half of the century? We know that the GHG emissions were much smaller in the first half, so they could not have caused the rise. What did? If it was natural variation, why didn’t that have some effect in the second half?

            These are the sorts of questions that sceptics ask. If there are answers that are good ones, then they would reduce my scepticism.

          • stu says:

            The published work is so extensive that I don’t know where to begin to list it so will not try. Suffice to say it is agreed by every national science academy, met bureaux, university researchers etc and as stated is so overwhelming that true climate scientists ow consider the case closed and are moving on to look at effects, timing, magnitude and mitigation etc. The breadth of studies covers everything from atmospheric physics, weather, cryosphere studies, paleo studies, biology whereas the bulk of the anti view concentrates in a narrow area (CO2) and relies on distractions which are usually wrong, such as that a one degree warming so far experienced is insignificant and therefore a further one no problem. That simplification, which ignores regional, eg Arctic, temperature variations which have been shown to be much higher.

            To refer to the qualifications placed on the predictions by IPCC as showing a lack of proof is erroneous. To get a final paper signed off there requires endless negotiation and qualification such as “high certainty” is standard scientific practice. In reality much of the prediction has been shown to be over cautious and understating the problem.

            In the case of proof, have a gander at the latest Monckton interview on Youtube where he has “proven the models wrong” and is taking the IPCC to the Swiss Courts for fraud. I look forward to that, meantime where is his unpublished paper and the “proof”.

            Right now I have to cut short and attend to weightier matters by going sailing and making good use of the days wind which unlike this space is pretty reliable. If I find the very long list of published material that I have misplaced I will post it, but meantime just go and look at CSIRO, BOM to name two and see what you find. Even the National Farmers Federation have finally got and board and recognised climate change as an issue to address through carbon measures.

            PS I thought that earlier comment that your ten years may have given you great insight into the politics of the issue more than the science seems bang on the money.

        • Chris Warren says:


          “Weak” is a subjective term that seeks to beg the question.

          You state:

          “The scientific basis for the notion that a catastrophe is coming, and that we need to deal with it through greatly reducing the emissions of CO2, not just here but everywhere in the world, is in my view weak.”

          Is the science of GHG absorption of infra red wave lengths “weak”?

          Are the measurements of increasing GHG’s “weak”?

          Are satellite measurements of warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere, “weak”?

          Is every august scientific organisation across the globe “weak”?

          By all means – stay away from weak facts and dualing anecdotes, but this does apply to the official science.

          What do you think will happen if GHG’s continue to increase forever?

          • spangled drongo says:

            What is really “weak” blith, apart from your facts on data, is your understanding of Nat Var awa your personal observations.

  • spangled drongo says:

    -7c in Qld this am.

    Don’t mention ze vor [mink]!

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Climate change-induced march of treelines halted by unsuitable soils”

    Ah, so that’s it?

    I always wondered about moving treelines, like SLR, why isn’t it happening?

    While we can blither about SLR because nobody takes the trouble to study it, treelines, while remote, are much more obvious and incriminating evidence.

    “The tree line issue has been a thorn in the side of the climate alarmists since Russian Scientist Rashit Hantemirov tried to explain Arctic Dendrochronology to the Climategate scientists.

    According to reconstructions most favourable conditions for tree growth have been marked during 5000-1700 BC. At that time position of tree line was far northward of recent one.

    There are no evidences of moving polar timberline to the north during last century.”

    But this new paper has an alibi for that inconvenient truth; it’s the soil!

  • Neville says:

    Yes SD tree lines and SLR are a real problem for the extremists trying to drum up alarm for their CAGW nonsense.
    And in today’s OZ Lomborg backs up Abbott and claims that so far more co2 has been a net benefit for humans.

  • spangled drongo says:

    I wonder if any academics from ANU will attend:

    “Controversial activist Lauren Southern says multiculturalism will inevitably fail unless 50 per cent of the population believes in western culture alone.

    The Canadian arrived today ahead of her speaking tour in Brisbane wearing an “It’s okay to be white” shirt.

    Ms Southern, who is an outspoken critic of illegal immigration, Islam and elements of the LGBTI community, is in town for her speaking tour on “free speech”

    If I were any other ethnicity then I could say I’m proud because that’s how our culture is … but if I’m white, and I say I’m proud, the media will go nuts.”

  • JimboR says:

    Now here’s a $5 million donation to fund a study centre at the University of Sydney that we can all get behind…..

  • Neville says:

    The MacDonald et al 2000 study found that early Holocene temps were much higher ( up to 7c) than today and trees then grew up to the present Arctic coastline.

    Today this once boreal forest area is just tundra and ice, yet people like Mann claim that present day temps are historically very high. Of course this fool also uses data upside down to support his dubious claims. (see Steve McIntyre)

    Here’s the abstract of their study and the link.

    Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils are used to document Holocene treeline history across northern Russia (including Siberia). Boreal forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P. Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of northern Russia. Treeline advance on the Kola Peninsula, however, appears to have occurred later than in other regions. During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern. The development of forest and expansion of treeline likely reflects a number of complimentary environmental conditions, including heightened summer insolation, the demise of Eurasian ice sheets, reduced sea-ice cover, greater continentality with eustatically lower sea level, and extreme Arctic penetration of warm North Atlantic waters. The late Holocene retreat of Eurasian treeline coincides with declining summer insolation, cooling arctic waters, and neoglaciation.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The king tide last night at the Brisbane Bar was 2.74 metres.

    Lower than the old 9 footers of the 1940s.

    How much melting ice does it take to do that?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Trump is the leader of the only country doing what the mad green/left demand yet still they revile him:

  • spangled drongo says:

    I haven’t heard this on the News:

    “Both Parkes and Cowra in New South Wales have set new all-time coldest minimum temperature records today with the mercury dropping to -6.6 and -5.8 degrees respectively. Both sites opened back in 1958.”

    Thanks to Andrew Bolt

  • Neville says:

    East Greenland snow pack was too deep for shore birds to breed this spring. In fact a percentage of the adult birds are finding it difficult to survive and are under weight.

    • spangled drongo says:

      But guess wot’s to blame, Neville:?

      “Senner fears this nonbreeding year in eastern Greenland could herald an alarming trend. Climate models predict the Arctic atmosphere will hold more moisture as global temperatures rise, he notes. A wetter atmosphere means more snow in winter and spring, potentially causing late snowmelt to interfere with shorebird reproduction. He says the bird populations should be resilient to a single poor breeding year like 2018 but worries what might happen if this year’s catastrophe becomes standard. “Even though things aren’t normally as extreme as the current situation in Greenland,” he says, “this is the kind of thing that seems to be happening more and more frequently across the Arctic”—which is probably bad news for birds.”

      These people have to be “collegial” and stick to the CAGW groupthink mantra no matter what.

      It’s only colder because it’s warmer.

      Oh dear!

      • Stu says:

        You really don’t understand the difference between weather and climate do you? Fortunatly it appears that few people follow this thread so your non scientific pronouncements do little harm. You should go and play on Tony Abbotts scientific blog pages where you will find full agreement.

        • spangled drongo says:

          When you are determined to believe in a completely unfalsifiable theory like that, you need to go and read up on some Karl Popper.

          But it is you groupthinkers who are denying the facts of climate and weather.

          When there was a lot less ice about in 1903, 1958 etc., can you possibly conceive that natural climate variability might have something to do with it?

          • Stu says:

            You are Trumpian in your pronouncements, turning reality on it’s head. It is the deniers who “believe” in their position while the rest of us merely follow the science, not a position of belief.

            What else do you believe? Probably that the earth is flat, vaccinations cause autism, chem trails are a government plot, the holcaust did not happen etc. you can probably add some more.

            All good sport though, eh!

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, there is good advice to assist people like you. It goes thus:

            “It is better to keep quiet and let people suspect your stupidity than to speak up and prove it.”

            You offer no evidence, only criticism.

            Do you deny what I just said above WRT previous warming?

            Do you also deny there is known and scientifically accepted greater warming throughout previous millennia of this present Holocene when the GHG theory simply could not have applied or been responsible?

            This isn’t belief, this is known and acknowledged fact from both sides of the scientific debate.

            If you have any evidence to refute these facts please provide it.

            Otherwise it is smarter for you to take the above advice.

          • Stu says:

            No, you don’t get it. My side of the argument has unprecedented scientific reasearch backing it up and I could not possibly do justice to that trove of information and cross disciplinary study here, go read it yourself. Meantime you show me the academic papers (published in first or second line journals – not pay to play) that support your argument. Cherry picked weather data does not prove your point. Just as a hot summer does not prove global warming, a cold winter does not prove the reverse. It is the trend line that matters. History is going to judge you harshly. If by some tiny chance we are found to be wrong (in a few decades) we will be merely laughed at, on the other hand when your argument is found to be false you will be condemned for ignoring the evidence and destroying the future.

          • spangled drongo says:

            If you have all that “unprecedented scientific reasearch backing it up” then it should be no trouble for you to come up with some evidence to refute my statements.

            If you are not aware of what everyone knows about the US Submarine Skate surfacing at an ice-free North pole in 1958 or that Roald Amundsen sailed his little wooden boat through the NW Passage in 1903 or that the Vikings grew crops in Greenland 1,000 years ago which can’t be done today, all of which proves that temperatures were warmer when there were little or no human emissions thereby refuting the ACO2 theory, you seriously need to improve your knowledge.

            This is very basic climate knowledge all caused by natural climate variability and you shouldn’t be living in denial of it.

            You really need to study the history of climate during the Holocene period awa previous interglacials. Google is your friend.

            I think you may find when you broaden your climate studies that your “unprecedented scientific reasearch backing it up” is only groupthink based on GIGO GCMs.

            When you are up to speed, get back to us.

          • stu says:

            No, no, no. You will have to do better than that. Amundsun’s voyage was not 1903 but 1903 -1905. A voyage around the coast in a tiny shallow draft vessel over a long period is not evidence of an ice free arctic. As for the Skate, presumably you are aware that the definition of ice cover in the arctic is 15% or more of ice in an area. Meantime the PIOMAS figures for ice volume show a dramatic decline over recent decades to an unprecedented minimum and shrinking.

            As for earlier periods of ice and temperature variance you, appear to assume that CO2 is the only driver of climate. In the past there are known drivers of climate change besides carbon. The climate reacts to forcing and we are now providing the major forcing.

            I notice that again you argue groupthink when it is in fact you denialists, contrarians, naysayers, cultists etc who are the group thinkers.

            Sorry, I left off evolution and heliocentrism from my previous post, you must surely adhere to one or more of those tropes, which one or more do you adhere to, please tell? They all have some connection with CCD except of course for the infusion of carbon fuelled funds for the current argument. Go read “the merchants of doubt”.

          • spangled drongo says:

            And here is that less-than-1c- global warming since the end of the little ice age which is around half the rate of natural climate variability for the same period:


            Now, come back with some evidence that proves me wrong.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “A voyage around the coast in a tiny shallow draft vessel over a long period is not evidence of an ice free arctic.”

            Oh, dear! What has a shallow draft to do with proving the existence of ice? Logic, anyone?

            Try supplying some evidence to refute these facts, stu:

            How previous warmER periods were not Nat Var, and

            The most recent millennium 1000 – 2000 AD has been the coolest 1000 year period of the entire Holocene epoch.


            And don’t forget!!!

            The message, not the messenger.

          • Stu says:

            To fully comprehend the message it helps to have information on where the messenger is coming from.

            Meantime you appear to completely disregard the advent of the anthropocene and the unfolding of the 6th extinction. Clinging to past events from long ago with poor data and rates of change way below present levels is less credible than the totality of modern science with its greater precision and widespread acceptance. As said before it is not possible in a blog to lay out all the strands of the different fields of science that prove the case, go read them yourself.

            But of course you wont. On the other hand I have read all those things you point to and they don’t hold water. Again, too hard to lay out all the objections in a blog post, go read the knock offs by credible scientists.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “To fully comprehend the message it helps to have information on where the messenger is coming from.”

            If it is supported by credible evidence, only the message is necessary.

            Even the alarmist “scientists” admitted they had to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and Michael Mann promptly did so by manufacturing a hockey stick using very limited and doubtful proxies and then spliced them onto instrumental records when those proxies went in the other direction. How’s that for cherry picking.

            He is still fighting court cases over it and refuses to supply full background information.

            Is this the type of messenger you are referring to?

            Credible evidence of those early Holocene warming periods is irrefutable! EG, higher sea levels in the past at old sea ports that are no longer on the sea, are common.

            They even found the place where the Roman fleet landed to invade England and while this area of the south coast is sinking and the site was expected to be beneath the sea, it has been found well inshore, proving that sea levels are considerably lower than 2,000 years ago.

            That is absolute, empirical evidence. The best there is. Don’t deny it.

            99% of the world’s species are extinct. They are doing a lot better in your “anthropocene” than they have in many past periods.

            But how on earth does that indicate whether or not there may be a small part of our less-than-1c-warming due to ACO2???

            I have read most of your so-called claims and they are assumption-based prediction, hand-waving and groupthink.

            If you have any link to the proof of your GHG theory that is based on fact and observation, please supply it.

            And then you can cease your own hand-waving.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Presumably this is a second effect of having extra water vapour in the atmosphere.

      Here is the trend.

      This is caused by increased evaporation which occurs only when water temperature increases.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Do you think if it keeps up it might break the drought, blith?

      • Neville says:

        Chris how warm was the water during the Holocene climate optimum? Don’t forget this Hol Opt lasted for many thousands of years, see my link to MacDonald study that also supports the much higher SLs ( 1.5 metres) on OZ east coast just 4,000 years ago. See my link to Catalyst ABC.
        Then tell me how you would reduce the planet’s co2 levels and what difference it would make?
        Also show us a timeline to reduce levels to Hansen and McKibben’s 350pm. Good luck with China, India and the rest of the NON OECD countries.

  • Neville says:

    More 2018 studies showing a much warmer Arctic region during the Holocene optimum, supporting MacDonald’s 2000 study. Co2 levels then were about 260 to 280 ppm and today would be about 410 ppm.

  • Neville says:

    Another recent study has found that increasing Co2 has a cooling effect in the higher elevations of central Antarctica.

    In fact there has been no warming in this area since 1957.

    Here is the abstract and the link.

    CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since
    pre-industrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial
    surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As
    the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave
    emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However,
    this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For
    this region, it is shown that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or
    even negative. Moreover, for central Antarctica an increase in CO2
    concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which
    cools the earth-atmosphere system. These unique findings for central
    Antarctica are in contrast to the well known general warming effect of
    increasing CO2. The work contributes to explain the non-warming of central
    Antarctica since 1957.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Interesting stuff, Neville. And when they get to understand it better they may be able to show that ACO2 is causing cooling everywhere.

      If, as the IPCC working groups have claimed, we have only warmed at less than half the rate of Nat Var since the end of the coldest prolonged period in the history of civilisation which end also coincided with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, then there is as strong a claim for cooling as there is for warming.

  • Neville says:

    A poll in the OZ finds that 48% of Aussies would be prepared to ditch the Paris agreement if it meant cheaper energy prices. 38% are opposed and 14% are undecided,
    Labor and Greens voters are more in favour of Paris while the Coalition and One Nation voters are strongly against the Paris mitigation fantasy. The Paris mitigation fantasy is very easy to understand yet it seems that most of the people involved in this fra-d cannot understand simple first grade maths. Unbelievable but true.

  • spangled drongo says:

    A great letter to the Geological Society of London from members past and present reminding them [again] that science needs to be applied to the current groupthink:

    • stu says:

      An interesting article, yes. No real mention of the fields of expertise of the authors but we will let that pass. Taking just one point, the Hiatus, have a read of this article and the one it is based on in Nature.

      Starting a time series for temperature which is at a significant high point (1998 an El Nino) is not a great place as it will bias the data. Better to look at the temperature data for a longer period including before 1998 and out to now and then draw a trend line.

      the rest of the points raised can be answered in similar fashion but as I have said before and you never comment on, there is just too much good data and published science out there to bother repeating it here. It is easily found.

      I note you and the people you quote also like to go on about “just 1 degree C” etc. You seem to have no comprehension of the significance of the average global temperature is which is convenient because it neatly ignores the significant (5 plus) occurring in the arctic, particularly the Canadian arctic and the early loss of snow cover. The latter is contributing significantly to a loss of Albedo in that region causing further warming. By talking of just 1degree makes it all seem trifling to the uninformed and perhaps that is the intention.

      By the way did you see the announcement that the largest contributor in 2016 and 2017 to the Institute of Public Affairs ( a major purveyor of anti climate change group think) was Gina Rinehart although IPA tried to keep that hidden till it came out in a legal case brought by her daughter. In both years IPA claimed to have got the bulk of their funding, it appears falesly, from individual memberships. They may have some explaining to do. Oh, they also get a chunk from their counterpart in the USA, the Heritage Foundation. Perhaps your blog handle is a sign that you have a link to that far country so will not be surprised, tell me if I am correct. (Spangled banner in case I am being too subtle).

      • spangled drongo says:

        Here’s your warming in the Arctic. A lot more ice than there was when Frobisher and Davis were up there 450 years ago in wooden ships that would go nary an inch to windward:

        “Since the end of August 2016, Greenland’s surface has gained 1.15 trillion tons of new ice, which is more than 50% above normal.”

        • stu says:

          Aw shucks, I thought you did not like data derived from models. Also notice how Heller or is it Goddard (confusing how he uses two names) has parked the two graphs next to each other but offset on the y axis to make it look like 2018 is way higher. Sleight of hand to deceive or just an honest mistake? Go read the data from the source, a different story. Let’s see what GRACE data comes up with when updated.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Aw shucks, I can’t help myself. I just can’t leave those messengers alone!

            Are you now denying the DMI ice data?

            And GRACE know that until they come up with better reference frames their data is very doubtful.

          • Stu says:

            In a word, YES. Not the actual DMI data, just your and Goddards interpretation. ?

          • spangled drongo says:

            Do you have any idea of how DMI [awa other ice data publishers] get those lines to all start at the same point each year?

            Argument out of ignorance?

            While you have no idea, you just KNOW it must be wrong because of the messenger?

            It’s called mindless groupthink, stueyluv.

          • stu says:

            Yes I do. And by the way do you understand how much of their data is tied up with info from GRACE? And never mind their lines lining up, “what the”, you have not responded to me pointing out how Goddard, sorry Heller has deliberately (oh it could be an honest mistake but I doubt it) misaligned the y-axis on the two graphs he has co-located to back up his miscalculations, classic stuff from a denialist.

            Have another look at it. How did the 1981-2010 mean suddenly jump, how did 2011-12 get so realigned. Oh I know they tell us, reworking of the MODELS etc. Oh yes model based info, not that I have any problem with that, but you guys usually do. But Goddard is now comparing apples and oranges. He could have at least got the marked scales right. Try again. Go back to the original DMI paper. You will find the following words. “Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

            And don’t quote Ridley at me. I am wary of the climate views of people who own coal mines ore at least have a mine on their land from which they draw sustenance. Of course he denies that compromises his view. Maybe he is right. But he is not a scientist and certainly not a climate scientist.

            No need to rush a reply, I have better things to do with my day, but will get back to the thread tomorrow, have a nice day.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Instead of criticising Tony Heller, please show where and how his net calculations are wrong, stu.

            Are you denying there has been a huge increase in ice?:


          • spangled drongo says:

            ” And by the way do you understand how much of their data is tied up with info from GRACE?”

            That’s why you have to be a bit sceptical of their overall figures and you are foolish to believe their “Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

            Meantime DMI have been saying for some time:


          • stu says:

            Do you actually read the articles you point to. The Daily Caller article goes on to say :

            “DMI notes Greenland’s ice sheet “snows more than it melts,” but adds that “calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet.”

            “Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance,” according to DMI. “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

            oh well.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “And don’t quote Ridley at me. I am wary of the climate views of people who own coal mines ore at least have a mine on their land from which they draw sustenance.”

            What a pathetically precious petal you are stu.

            The only reason you know that is because he told you himself.

            But when you can’t shoot his facts, what’s left but to shoot him.

          • stu says:

            Regarding Ridley, there is plenty of material debunking his position. Here is one that responded to his GWPF lecture in London. This was written by Dana Nuccitelli of the Guardian.

            “The lecture was delivered by writer Matt Ridley, and predictably, as is the norm for Ridley, the first three-quarters of his talk indeed misrepresented the scientific evidence. While Ridley doesn’t deny the most basic aspects of human-caused global warming, he is a self-prescribed “lukewarmer;” a group that falls into the category of Stage 3 climate denial.

            Ridley’s lecture is a 5,600-word Gish Gallop that would require a novel to fully debunk. However, he condensed his main arguments into four key points that are easily refuted:

            He says “Why do I think the risk from global warming is being exaggerated? For four principal reasons.
            1. All environmental predictions of doom always are;
            2. the models have been consistently wrong for more than 30 years;
            3. the best evidence indicates that climate sensitivity is relatively low;
            4. the climate science establishment has a vested interest in alarm.”

            We’ve solved previous environmental problems, so let’s not solve global warming?
            Ridley’s first argument against the dangers of global warming is incredibly ironic. He claims that we have nothing to worry about because previous “environmental predictions of gloom” were wrong. But the reason his cited predictions of danger didn’t come to fruition, in most cases, is because we took action to stop them.

            For example, Ridley lists acid rain and cancer-causing pesticides among his purported “exaggerated” environmental concerns. Many pesticides that were widely used in the 20th century are indeed carcinogenic, and their agricultural use was banned under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Acid rain caused by sulfur pollution was also a widespread problem until it was similarly addressed, for example through the Helsinki Protocol and a cap and trade system in the US whose economic benefits have outweighed its costs by a factor of roughly 100.

            Proposed solutions to global warming involve international agreements and cap and trade or other pollution pricing systems – the same mechanisms that successfully solved these previous environmental threats. Yet Ridley remarkably uses those threats as examples in his argument against taking similar steps to address the threats posed by climate change. It defies logic.

            Climate models have been remarkably accurate
            I’ve written a book focused on the accuracy of climate model predictions, and in December I’ll be presenting a talk on the subject at the annual American Geophysical Union conference. In fact, the most recent research shows that climate models are even more accurate than previously thought. So, were I not familiar with Ridley’s long history of misrepresenting climate science, I would have been surprised that climate model accuracy is one of the main premises of his argument against climate concern.

            To make his case, Ridley relies on material from a few scientists like John Christy, presented not in peer-reviewed journals, but instead for example in Congressional hearings. Recently, as John Abraham wrote, climate scientists published a paper explaining the errors in those presentations. Models have also accurately predicted other key climate changes, for example in ocean heat content. There is simply no factual basis to Ridley’s argument against climate model accuracy.

            Ridley’s climate sensitivity cherry picking
            Joanna Haigh, Royal Society fellow and council member, told DeSmog UK of Ridley’s of third key argument:

            Ridley claims not to dispute the science, he then disputes climate sensitivity estimates with selective citations.
            This is a nice way of saying that Ridley cherry picks the evidence he prefers and ignores the rest. Cherry picking is one of the five telltale techniques of science denial. Being a self-described “lukewarmer” like Ridley generally means believing that the climate is relatively insensitive to the increased greenhouse effect, and that climate change is therefore of little concern. In his talk, Ridley claimed:

            recent attempts to measure the sensitivity of the climate system to carbon dioxide using real data nearly all find that it is much lower than the models assume.
            This claim is nonsense. There have been a few papers suggesting a relatively low climate sensitivity, and several subsequent studies have found those papers to be flawed. There have also been other studies “using real data” – for example, measurements of cloud and humidity changes – suggesting that the Earth’s climate sensitivity to the increased greenhouse effect is relatively high. It’s also important to note that were Ridley right about low climate sensitivity, it would only buy us perhaps a decade or two before the worst climate change consequences hit.

            In short, Ridley cherry picks the few papers that support his preferred position, neglects to mention that subsequent research has identified flaws in those studies, and ignores the vast body of research contradicting his beliefs.

            Conspiracy theories
            Ridley’s fourth key argument, and a theme throughout his talk, exemplifies another telltale sign of science denial – conspiratorial thinking. He accuses climate scientists of having “vested interests,” of delaying publication of their results (refuted by the accused scientists here), of deleting and “mysteriously…adjusting” inconvenient data, and so on. The easiest way to reject inconvenient data and expert conclusions is to declare that they’re somehow biased. It’s not unlike fellow climate contrarian Donald Trump’s claims that the presidential election is rigged against him. Whether it be an election or an argument, if the other side cheated and conspired, then you didn’t really lose.

            But there is no conspiracy. Ridley and GWPF want to risk humanity’s future on their belief that climate change isn’t dangerous. The problem is that their belief is premised on misleading, cherry picked, faulty, and conspiratorial arguments. As the Royal Society noted, by misrepresenting the scientific evidence, GWPF undermined the legitimacy of its policy views.

          • spangled drongo says:

            It seems that the extra atmo CO2 is having some cognitive impairment after all.

            You may have read that DC article but fail to get that it is listing those gains to show the turnaround in previous claimed losses from both NSDIC and DMI blurb.

            And please, if you want to use alarmist sites as evidence to refute anything, supply a link.

            And there are equally thousands of scientific papers that back Ridley’s opinion that the small amount of warming that is occurring for whatever reason may not only be a non problem but may be the only solution for our burgeoning population.

            As it is well within the bounds of natural climate variability that has occurred during the last 80 centuries and all the groupthinkers’ inaccurate climate models are based on assumed positive feedbacks [which have never been established and are extremely unlikely otherwise we would not be here] it is pointless to take precautions that create many more serious problems than they solve.

            “Climate models have been remarkably accurate”

            Not according to some scientists:

            “This is a devastating indictment of climate model performance,” Michaels and Knappenberger write. “For periods of time longer than about 20 years, the observed trends from all data sources fall beneath the lower bound which contains 95 percent of all model trends and in the majority of cases, falls beneath even the absolute smallest trend found in any of the 102 climate model runs.”

            When climate scientists cannot work out or agree if WV, clouds etc are a positive or a negative feedback what hope have they got of working out climate sensitivity with any great accuracy.

            However, as time passes the prediction is reducing considerably as agreed by both sides of the debate.

            However much you alarmists choose to deny it.

            And BTW, your own cherry picking leaves Ridley in the shade.

            How can you possibly argue that when we have been warmer in the past with lower CO2 levels and cooler in the past with higher CO2 levels that we are now on the brink of destruction?

            You could sure do with some of Ridley’s rational optimism not to mention his logic.

          • stu says:

            Just to pick one of your crazy ideas. “How can you possibly argue that when we have been warmer in the past with lower CO2 levels and cooler in the past with higher CO2 levels that we are now on the brink of destruction?” How far back do you want to go?

            You assume that climate responds only to Carbon. Actually the climate responds to forcings, and in the past that has included slight shifts in orbit and inclination of the earth, plus changes in solar output. It just happens that now the only variation that seems to be forcing things is CO2. So what happened way back with CO2 levels, may or may not be relevant to what is happening now so quoting the old levels is not really relevant. And more recently we put back in the atmosphere carbon that took 100 million years to sequester in just 100 years. No problem at all. You never did answer, are you a creationist, but never mind.

            Any how, I have determined that this blog, and certainly your contribution to it is all very anti driven with no consideration of alternative points of view, therefore a total waste of my time. I did follow each pf your references and cross checked them and they did not stand up. I did persist in the hope that some followers here may be open to scientific argument, and maybe they are out there, but in terms of the blog, it is a waste of my time.

            So farewell, enjoy your mutual back scratching. I look forward to perhaps catching up with you on a sailing boat at the north pole in a decade or two in mid summer. Meantime enjoy your mutual delusions and anti science double speak. Have fun. It has been fun arguing but I have better things too do with my time.

            Oh and don’t forget. If my side is wrong nothing much will change, we will just be wrong. But if we are right, and actions to avert crisis are delayed, you and your side will be pilloried by history. Sleep well.

            See ya.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Yes, it’s called natural climate variability, stu.

            And if you don’t believe it’s the main player we really can’t help you,

            But here are some past Holocene facts that will apply for the future for you to consider as you walk out the door that may help you cope with reality:

            “In every warm era, glaciers retreat, ice sheets melt and sea levels rise. Coastal land, ports and settlements are lost under the rising seas but tundra, grasslands and forests expand. Some corals manage to grow as fast as the seas rise, but others are drowned in deep water. The warmth drives more carbon dioxide from the seas, plants thrive, deserts shrink and humans are well fed.

            Glaciologists have drilled and analysed many of today’s glaciers. They have been surprised to discover that, outside of Antarctica and Greenland, no glacial ice older than 4,000 years has been found. For example, the Fremont Glacier in Wyoming half-way towards the Equator is only a few hundred years old.”

            Like many in our midst, you just need to open your eyes and observe, you are bedwetting unnecessarily.

  • Neville says:

    This review of Steven Pinker’s new book is well worth the time to understand where the world has come from after the enlightenment and the industrial revolution.
    We are very lucky to live in the present but we should never forget the past. I must admit I’m a little concerned about an abandonment of religion and a belief in God, but I too would much rather live in a secular Nordic country than Saudi Arabia or Iran. So although I’m a non believer I would call myself Agnostic rather than an Atheist.
    Pinker and Matt Ridley are friends ( have recently debated together) and he broadly agrees with Ridley’s research about the past compared to the post Ind Rev world and he is optimistic about the future.

  • Neville says:

    BTW here is Dr Matt Ridley’s lecture at the Royal Society in 2016 and the transcript that now includes all graphs and charts etc. Well worth 40 minutes of your time.

  • spangled drongo says:

    While it seems that today, with only a small increase in atmo CO2, there is a certain amount of cognitive impairment, alarmists will be relieved to read the following:

    “From time to time, concerns emerge in the global warming debate that rising atmospheric CO2 is directly harming human health and/or impairing cognitive performance. The present review highlights research examining the latter of these two claims, finding that, even at values more than 36 times the present CO2 concentration of the atmosphere there is no discernible CO2 effect on human cognitive performance or decision making…”

    • Neville says:

      Well SD that’s good news for Submariners who live and work for weeks at a time breathing air with Co2 levels of 8,000 ppm or more. And some Greenhouse workers breathe air with similar Co2 levels during working hours.

  • Neville says:

    The AMO could be on a shift from warm phase to cool phase and if this were to occur we may expect temps to pause or perhaps fall in the NH. Who knows, so I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

  • Neville says:

    Could Stu or Chris tell us what we should do about their so called CAGW? And tell us the result if we followed their advice? And when would we see a reduction in temp and by how much?
    Of course they’ll have to ignore all the real world data from the IEA and EIA and convince the NON OECD countries to play ball. So come on you blokes give us your answer?

    But don’t forget that the HAD 4 data shows a trend of just 0.55 C / century warming over the last 168 years. There’s the link to York Uni data tool. Oh and Concordia Uni study shows just 0.7 C of warming since the Ind Rev and OZ’s sinful contribution is a staggering 0.006 c ( 6 thousands of 1 C)

    Here’s a hint you would need to ban all fossil fuels ASAP, meaning no more exports and no more coal, gas or oil to be used here either. It still wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to our 0.006 C contribution since 1800 but would probably make the fanatics feel a lot better.

  • spangled drongo says:

    We better hurry up with that faculty of Western Civ. It won’t be here much longer:

    “Australia, It Vanished While We Slept”

  • Neville says:

    This is an interesting comment from Ken Gregory (at Climate Audit) on the latest 2018 study by Curry and Lewis of climate sensitivity to increased Co2 emissions.

    If most of the warming was natural up to 1950 , it is hard to understand what we are worried about. The graph he displays showing Roman WP, Med WP and Current WP shows little change in N America ext tropics temp trends for those 3 warm periods for the last 2,000 years.

    Of course the Minoan WP preceded the RWP, but is not shown, but the Dark ages and LIA cooling periods show up on the graph. And no adjustment is made for the UHIE and some studies estimate that up to half of the post 1950 warming is due to UHIE.

    Could the so called “cost of carbon” be very low or negative and should we therefore be taking a much more sensible approach to so called climate sensitivity? Here’s the link to the Curry & Lewis 2018 study and Ken’s comment below.

    Ken Gregory
    Posted Apr 26, 2018 at 9:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “Thanks for this analysis, Judith and Nic.

    Your analysis assumes that all of the warming since 1869 was caused by greenhouse gases and that there has been no natural warming, and the HadCRUT4 temperature dataset is unaffected by the urban heat island effect (UHIE).

    Earth climate history shows an obvious millennium temperature cycle as show by this graph of extra-tropical North America (ETNH)temperature proxies.

    The temperature rise from 1869 to 1900 is all a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age (1400 to 1700) as humans could not have had any effect on climate during this period. The temperature rise from 1900 to 1950 is almost all natural, as the CO2 rise was insignificant. This shows that your assumption that the earth was in temperature equilibrium in 1869 – 1882 is false, and that a significant portion of the temperature rise was natural.

    The global temperatures vary by only 80% of the ETNH according to HadCRUT4. The global natural recovery from the Little Ice Age since 1900 is estimated at 0.084 °C/century based on the millennium cycle from the graph and the global adjustment. This reduces the calculated equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) by 0.23 C.

    Numerous papers have shown that the UHIE contaminates the instrument temperature record. A study by McKitrick and Michaels showed that almost half of the warming over land since 1980 in instrument data sets is due to the UHIE. A study by Laat and Maurellis came to identical conclusions. A study by Watts et al presented at the AGU fall meeting 2015 showed that bad siting of temperature stations has resulted in NOAA overestimating US warming trends by 59% since 1979. A study by Dr. Roy Spence also shows that about half the warming over land is UHIE. The UHIE over land is 0.14 °C/decade, or 0.042 °C/decade on a global basis since 1979. The UHIE
    correction over the period 1980 to 2008 is 0.11 °C. Making the conservative assumption that there was no UHIE before 1980, this reduced the ECS by 0.20 C.

    Correcting the Lewis & Curry ECS estimate for the preferred base and final periods, the ECS is reduced by 0.43 C from 1.50 C to 1.07 C.

    Using the most recent version of the FUND integrated assessment model, assuming a 3% discount rate, emissions in 2018 and ECS = 1.50 C, the social cost (benefit) of carbon dioxide is +US$1.36/tonne CO2. However, using the corrected ECS of 1.08, the social cost (benefit) of carbon dioxide is US$-20.06/tonne CO2.

    Using a more realistic discount rate of 5%, the SCC for 1.5 C and 1.08 C is US$-0.28/tonne CO2 and US$-10.61/tonne CO2, respectively. The negative signs means that the benefits of emissions exceeds the costs of emissions.

    FUND is the world most detailed, evidence-based integrated assessment model.

    Rather than imposing carbon taxes, fossil fuel use should be subsidized by US$10 to US$20/tonne CO2”.

  • Neville says:

    It looks like we won’t have the internet in 15 years according to this latest study. SLR of one foot every 15 years will drown everything or so they say.
    And if you believe that you’ll believe anything. Current trend is about 1 foot per century and other scientists consider that to be on the high side.

  • Neville says:

    I’ve discovered spurious warming over land for the RSS V4 data-set. This trend line is ridiculous compared to all the data-sets at the WFTs site. RSS land only is the yellow trend line.
    Note that UAH V 5 and 6 land only are still fairly close, as they are for land+ ocean. But why hasn’t RSS 4 been called out on this spurious warming trend?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Would you prefer homogenised, adjusted or just plain fiddled?:

  • spangled drongo says:

    The price of free speech:

    The promoters of a tour by Milo Yiannopoulous were charged $50,000 by Victoria Police so that his audience could be safe, relatively so, while hearing him speak. Last night in Melbourne, the promoters of two more speakers, Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, also were billed $68,000 for exercising the most fundamental liberty of them all: free speech.

    • spangled drongo says:

      More details on the price of free speech:

      • stu says:

        SD, one last question before I depart this hallowed space. What exactly is your relationship to the illustrious ex-Senator Malcolm Roberts?

        • spangled drongo says:

          I have never met Malcolm Roberts but I know he has the philosophy of an engineer to solving problems.

          Unlike you ,stu, who is happy to accept “consensus” as evidence and absolute proof of problems, Roberts, like me, likes to look a little deeper.

          People like Roberts deal in and solve hard science problems all their lives, are experts in what they do and that is the reason our society has worked so well in the past.

          But you groupthinkers are doing your best to destroy that with your completely unscientific, hysterical assumptions that form the basis to invalidated climate models.

          When you know what you are talking about you can offer solutions, until then at least be honest and admit that you simply don’t know.

  • Neville says:

    And now we have an accelerating spiral hockeystick. Complete BS of course but this is the same dingaling that they’ve chosen to head up the next ( AR 6) IPCC climate report. Unbelievable but true.
    BTW SD that was a good reply to Stu , but you’re probably wasting your time.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, Neville, just more of the specially developed Fakery at the Bakery that these professional alarmists are famous for.

      As Spencer points out, this way people will even bed-wet over normal temps.

      Heaven for our stu and blith.

      But to think that the IPCC is filled with deceivers like this doesn’t say much for the chances of coming generations to handle serious energy problems in a pragmatic way.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Tony Thomas nails it:

    The Extinction of Honest Science

    The temperature rise of about 0.8 degC in more than 100 years is not only non-scary, it’s been immensely beneficial for feeding the globe’s burgeoning population.

    More details of the Fakery at the Bakery.

  • Neville says:

    Here is the BOM timeline of the SOI starting in 1876 . A lot of very bad droughts and floods over the last 140 odd years. El nino and La nina years are shown. Just drag the horizontal bar to show all years.
    At the moment we are in a neutral phase of ENSO but could have a weak el nino on the way. IOD also looks like little chance of turning negative this year. It’s a pity, but who knows?

  • Neville says:

    Roger Pielke jnr had a lot of trouble trying to get Obama and his Science expert???? Holdren to look at data and evidence about their CAGW nonsense.
    He won the day and now even the RS concedes that Global wildfires today may not be as bad as past centuries.

  • spangled drongo says:

    This shows how much we care about Australia:

    How can Australians be so conned by a supermarket that doesn’t support Australian brands or industry?

    Dick Smith lamented recent Roy Morgan research that stated Aldi was now the most trusted brand in Australia.

    “Entrepreneur Dick Smith has today shocked the retail industry by announcing he will close his eponymous Dick Smith Foods business, claiming that the rise and rise of German discount supermarket chain Aldi in Australia has “basically destroyed us”.

    In an interview with The Australian, Mr Smith said he had no choice but to close the Australian-sourced products business which he started nearly two decades ago, which has donated all of its $10 million-plus in profits to charity.

    “We’re now at a point where the only way we can get sales is make a loss,” Mr Smith said in the interview. “Right now, we’re making a profit which we give away. But I can say within two years, we’ll go broke.

    “It’s very, very sad. I’m depressed about the whole thing. Aldi have basically destroyed us.”

  • Neville says:

    It’s only a few years ago that the Guardian was telling us we could expect more cold and wet summers in the UK.
    What a mob of jokers they are, this is more like witchcraft and superstition as they try and pin the blame on that increase of one in ten thousand parts of the atmospheric addition of co2. Of course it just couldn’t be natural variability could it?
    Don’t forget it’s been much colder and warmer in the past and for very long periods of time, so our slight modern warming shouldn’t alarm anyone.
    And our modern warming comes after the coldest period ( LIA) for the last 10,000 years.

  • Chris Warren says:


    Over 100 dead and the worst fires in records in Greece is not natural variation.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Neither is enuresis, blith.

    But how about evidence?

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Liberal journalists and activists are frustrated over the lack of media outlets linking recent natural disasters and extreme weather events around the world to man-made global warming.”

    The blitherers and bed-wetters of this world think it is essential for all MSM to bend the stories to include the CAGW schtick:

    “All over the world, heatwaves are getting longer and more intense because of rising global temperatures.

    This is the surest and deadliest impact of our collective failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    As journalists, we *must* do better to connect the dots.”

    I mean, if cli-sci can do fakery at the bakery so well why can’t the MSM? bed-wetters

  • spangled drongo says:

    Some science especially for our blith:

    “Global warming means a global fall in wildfires”

    • stu says:

      SD, just letting you know I am still following the thread, purely for the amusement it generates of course. You guys really crack me up with your lack of scientific rigour. Meantime no chance of me responding with anything scientific as I realise that when dealing with true deniers it is impossible to cut through the cognitive dissonance. Climate denialism is quite like religion, that which is believed on lack of evidence is hard to knock down. Keep it up though, as it is a great read every day or so and just keeping up with all the articles you point to is time consuming, but worthwhile as it hones the skills of picking up the flaws in the logic and general unscientific conclusion drawing etc.

      • spangled drongo says:

        I’m so relieved you are still paying attention, stu.

        There’s hope for you yet.

        BTW, have you come up with anything empirical yet to support your belief?

        Be sure to let us know when you have.

      • Chris Warren says:

        It is best to filter-out Drongo comments with suitable reader software. Drongo produces nothing but Murdoch press canards.

        • spangled drongo says:

          It’s even better to supply something empirical yourself, blith, rather than your regular evidence-free, computer-predicted, consensus-adjusted religious conjecture.

          Try leading stu down the paths of righteousness with some ground-breaking evidence for a change.

          It’s been a long time coming.

          Mind you, the next time you or anyone does, will be the first.

          • stu says:

            Let me try a different tack. The intensity of your argument on CO2 and climate seems to spill over into related but not necessarily linked areas. For example you seem very supportive of conventional fuel systems and hostile to alternatives. In the process you overlook the negative aspects of those fuel systems, such as water table degradation and earth tremors through fracking, the agricultural land disruption caused by open cut coal mining, the mess of oil spills etc. and on the other hand you appear totally opposed to the development of alternative energy sources. Strange indeed. What happened to the free market. Oh yes, the climate change arena is a classic failure of the market. A failure to account for the externalities.

            Another classic denier point us the “temperature has barely increased 1 degree C, so what”. That is a classic piece of non science. In fact one degree average for the planet is very significant and is represented by wide variations depending on location. The arctic in case you had not noticed is warming much faster than anywhere else, with disturbing effects on a planetary scale.

            In short your arguments are classics from the denier (fossil fuel initiated) sphere. You never give space to the idea that, leaving climate out of the argument, renewable energy is now developing cost benefit gains that work against coal and oil on economic arguments alone. Somewhere in the past you supported the line that the developing nations of Africa had to have cheap oil, gas and coal power or forgo development. Pardon me but crap on that argument. In places where they have never had serious electrical distribution grids, just like with phone networks, they are skipping that stage and going straight to distributed systems.

            Similarly it is weird that the entire denier sphere has a closed mind to the economic opportunities presented by the transition to new energy production, distribution and consumption systems. Keep making horse drawn carriages and horse whips all over again eh.

            The bulk of denier folk lore has been promulgated by interests with a financial stake in the status quo. People such as the Koch brothers in USA and fossil funded “think tanks” such as the Heritage foundation and locally the IPA. These clearly ideologically driven outfits are promoting the negative case for personal gain. The question then arises, are people such as SD merely dupes in this process or are they beneficiaries and pursuing their dangerous memes for personal gain. In the Australian context it is not too hard to find the financial drivers behind much of the media punditry.

            Of course some people genuinely buy into these conspiracy theories just like the anti-vaccination crowd, the fake moon landing cadre among others. For them there really is no hope, they are fringe dwellers destined to be mocked by history.

            Once again, the sheer volume of serious science on this subject is so great that there is no question as to the validity of the argument. All the work falls to the deniers to try and prove their point , they are the ones with a “belief”, the rest just follow science.

            Where is there a set of published research that explains seriously what has been happening to the global climate in recent decades in terms of purely natural forces, vulcanism, sunspots, ocean currents, el Nino etc. There is none. The only explanation is that our actions over 100 plus years are overwhelming the natural cycles. If someone denies that they are either seriously immune to logic or fundamentalist christian of the “man is to puny to challenge gods creation” fraternity.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Our holier-than-thou stu thinks that the scientifically accepted 0.8c of warming since the end of the LIA which coincided with the beginning of the IR around 200 yago is a “a classic piece of non science”.

            What is truly “non science” is stu’s woolly POV.

            Here is some measured Holocene Nat Var science to clear your confusion, stu:


            And if you would care to observe the bigger picture that actually shows cooling for the last 5 million years:


            So now tell us, stueyluv, what percentage of Nat Var you think current global warming is.

            And then you may be able to demonstrate why ACO2 could not just as easily be blamed for cooling as warming.

            And then rationally explain your global groupthinkers’ rhetoric that all the worlds problems you list above are totally due to this tiny bit of trace gas.

            And don’t forget to supply measured evidence.

            But when you fail to do so please admit it and stop bed-wetting.

          • stu says:

            Enough said really, you prove my point completely. Cheers

          • spangled drongo says:

            Yes, when you can’t refute any of it, it’s more than enough to show your complete lack of evidence, science and rationality.

  • JimboR says:

    You’ve gotta’ love how those coal-loving RWNJs from the IPA madly start back-pedalling once they run for office. It’s hard to know what Georgina believes about anything any more… perhaps her position while at the IPA was simply to please her master, Lady Rinehart… that’s what researchers do, right Don? And Lord Downer wonders why the Mayo serfs are so ungrateful….

  • JimboR says:

    DA: “I have been studying this area now for more than ten years”

    And that might count for something, but for the fact that every time you go solo on the physics or maths you demonstrate you’re yet to master the basics. At best I’d say you’ve been studying the politics of climate change for more than ten years, and you’ve certainly mastered that. You’re yet to make a dent in the science.

Leave a Reply