The November Off-Topic Thread

By November 1, 2017Other

Here it is again, the safety valve for those who want to spread the word, but the word is not about the current topic…

Join the discussion 116 Comments

  • Ray says:

    I have not been able to access the emailed text, and refuse to use Facebook or any alternative medium. Unless you continue to email your updates, I will not be a reader.

  • This is the first of the Revivalist series.

    For some reason I ran one of the others last month, something in it may must have been topical.

    Welcome to the first Revivalist – Summer edition 2003. This section of the site covers the arts, letters and history of ideas, and pays tribute to people who in some cases have been forgotten or overlooked.

    The site was created in 2002 based on articles which I wrote about Karl Popper, Bill Bartley and F A Hayek for the Age Monthly Review in the 1980s. It is called the Rathouse in honour of the Rathaus or Great Hall in Vienna which was the venue for some of the proceedings of the Popper Centennial Conference in 2002.

    My late wife Kilmeny Niland created the site, and then she did one for herself which I have put i the slot for “website” in submitting this comment. Enjoy!

  • spangled drongo says:

    Our blith is terribly concerned about this graph:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Some men jokes for marg:

    One day my housework-challenged Husband decided to wash his Sweatshirt. Seconds after he stepped into the laundry room, he shouted to me, ‘What setting do I use on the washing machine?’

    ‘It depends,’ I replied. ‘What does it say on your shirt?’

    He yelled back, ‘Brisbane Broncos!’

    And they say blondes are dumb…


    A couple is lying in bed. The man says, ‘I am going to make you the happiest woman in the world…’

    The woman replies, ‘I’ll miss you…….’


    ‘It’s just too hot to wear clothes today,’ Jack says as he stepped out of the shower. ‘Honey, what do you think the neighbours would think if I mowed the lawn like this?’

    ‘Probably that I married you for your money,’ she replied.


    Q: What do you call an intelligent, good looking, sensitive man?

    A: A rumour


    Dear Lord,

    I pray for Wisdom to understand my man; Love to forgive him; and Patience for his moods.

    Because, Lord, if I pray for Strength, I’ll beat him to death.



    Q: Why do little boys whine?

    A: They are practising to be men.


    Q: What do you call a handcuffed man?

    A: Trustworthy.


    Q: What does it mean when a man is in your bed gasping for breath and calling your name?

    A: You did not hold the pillow down long enough.


    Q: Why do men whistle when they are sitting on the toilet?

    A: It helps them remember which end to wipe.


    Q: How do you keep your husband from reading your e-mail?

    A: Rename the email folder ‘Instruction Manuals’


    While creating husbands, God promised women that good and ideal husbands would be found in all corners of the world …………… then He made the earth round, and laughed and laughed and laughed.


    Got any women jokes, marg?

  • Chris Warren says:


  • Chris Warren says:

    Now that the September 2017 record temperature has been experienced when there is no El Nino or sunspots, all the foundations for politically-engineered denialism have been kicked away.

    So far I have not seen any explanation for the recent record heat from the usual pundits – unless I missed it?

    Anyway – the long-term warming trend is now confirmed as shown here:

    So what happens if the CO2 concentration continues to increase for the next 100 years?

    • Don Aitkin says:

      You do jump quickly, Chris. First one month means nothing. Second, HadCrut suggests that the el Nino episode is over, and we are back to early 2014. Have a look:

      • Chris Warren says:

        I agree that one month means nothing, EXCEPT when it is a notable ‘record’. That is why I co-cited the 50 year trend.

        Each needs to be read in the context of the other.

        In fact the relatively short period 2014 to 2017 also means little – given the 50 year trend.

        In any case, the September record temperature is not in the HadCRUT4 data as this dataset is not as strongly linked to atmospheric CO2 as is the data from the TLT channel.

        But the real need is for some explanation of the number of records that are occurring in recent decades now the El Nino and sunspot theories have been falsified in practice.

        The September record is not the only record that has come to attention.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          You could have said all this in 1940, when there had been a pronounced increased in temperature fort twenty years, but without a corresponding rise in CO2. I don’t think there is much argument about a long-term increase in temperature since 1850, or even earlier. The issue is attribution. If CO2 is responsible for the recent increase (1980/90s), what caused the similar increase in the first half of the 20th century? How do we know? No one has dealt with that except by assertion.

          • Chris Warren says:


            This is false:

            “… in 1940, when there had been a pronounced increased in temperature fort twenty years, but without a corresponding rise in CO2.”

            During the 1940’s the rise in atmospheric carbon was .33 GT/C per year [1.2 GT CO2].

            During the 1950’s it doubled to .7 GT/C pa.

            During the 1960’s it doubled again to 1.8 GT/C pa.

            All data is from

            The only good news is that the period of doubling has lengthened. The rise in carbon over last 10 years (2004-15) is 4.49 GT/C.

            Although 2015 increase was the highest on record at over 6GT/C

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Chris, the rise in temperature was the twenty-five years or so leading up to 1940.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Now all you have to do blith, is to tell us how much is due to ACO2 and how much is due to nat var.

      Hint: check the Suyts graph above. Or check the big picture:

    • David says:

      I can remember in about May. April 2016, Don was promising that a strong La Niña was on the way and that the then temperature records of 2014 and 2015 would decline soon. Anyway 2016 was a global record and 2017 will probably come in between 2016 and 2015. Awkward that.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Anyway 2016 was a global record…”

        Only if you, like blith, ignore the big picture above, davie.

        Which shows it’s been warmer every thousand years previously and in previous interglacials.

        All when CO2 was lower than at present.

      • Don Aitkin says:

        David, you do like wasting people’s time. I’ve searched both April and May 2016, and the closest I can come with, as a comment by me about la Nina is this one, from 5 May 2016:

        ‘The current el Nino has produced higher temperatures for many parts of the world, including Canberra, where all four months this year have had higher-than-average temperatures. The el Nino is subsiding quickly, and it may be followed by a cool la Nina, with rain. It may not. We will see. But these conditions are aspects of our weather.’

        If you actually do have a reference that supports your slur, you might produce it. Otherwise I will stick to what I said then: temperatures may decline, and we will see. In any case, the SOI is an example of weather, not climate. I am not a soothsayer, unlike all those who are prophesying doom unless we abandon fossil fuels.

        • David says:

          “…and it may be followed by a cool la Nina, with rain. It may not”

          Well as it turns out,

          1. The record el Nino did not subside quickly
          2. It was not followed by a cool el Nina
          3. Global temperatures have continued to rise.

          But I do agree, that you are not much chop at temperature prediction.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            None of what I said there was a prediction. You really don’t think before you write, do you. Like Yogi Berra, I try to avoid predictions, especially about the future.

          • David says:

            None of that is a prediction, perhaps, but your claim that the la nina was subsiding “quickly” was factually incorrect.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Oh dear, David you are trying. I had said that it was the el Nino that was subsiding, not a la Nina.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Judith Curry has published a most interesting account of sea-level rise in the context of a new US report on climate. It’s all worth reading, including the arguments in the Comments section.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    And another also from Judith Curry. And follow the links:

    I was going to write that you couldn’t make this sort of stuff up. But in fact Michael Mann is sort of suing a couple of people, and the cases may have been heard while I am still alive (the process of justice seems to take a long time, even in North America). But here is the start of the new one:

    ‘Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson has filed a lawsuit, demanding $10 million in damages, against the peer-reviewed scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) [link to published paper] and a group of eminent scientists (Clack et al.) for their study showing that Jacobson made improper assumptions in order to claim that he had demonstrated U.S. energy could be provided exclusively by renewable energy, primarily wind, water, and solar.’

    What has the world of science come to? The suit looks totally silly to me. Surely his correct response is to lodge a further paper showing that he was right all along. Science is not best done either through appeals to consensus or through law suits.

    • Neville says:

      Don this shows how desperate these fools are and Mann is still the prime example of this group who are trying to close down debate. Obviously they are not a true scientist’s bootlace.

  • Neville says:

    Dr Pat Michaels uses data and evidence to pull apart the latest and much promoted US NCA report.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    To a recent essay, a reader wondered whether we were as voluntaristic a society as our predecessors in the 1950s. I thought there were more groups to belong to now. At a Churchill Fellowship function this evening I met a CF whose area was post-traumatic stress recovery, and he said there about 3,000 groups in Australia in this area alone! The problem was they were all asking for volunteers and for money from the Government, which wanted some sort of logic, order and collaboration from the groups, which was proving to be be difficult.

  • Chris Warren says:

    It is always good to put denialists back in their nicotine, RSI, asbestos, box;

    Kate Auty’s report cited by Don in another thread gives an insight on the impacts of Global Warming in Canberra. Presumably similar reports are available for other jurisdictions?

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Gave an insight? Really? What was it? The impact of global warming on Canberra so far has been nil. Lots of predictions about the future. Yet it’s nearly thirty years since Hansen pronounced doom, doom and doom, unless we did what he said, but there have been no impacts on Canberra that anyone can discover. A hot day or two, maybe. There have been lots of them in the past, too.

      • Chris Warren says:

        The report clearly lists impacts in Canberra at page 9 and 10.

        The heading is:


        Quite a list I think that needs to be understood.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Poor ol’ blith doesn’t get that if you ban all the old high temps, begin again at the coolest possible time and then fudge on with regular “adjustments” that rational people don’t always believe the “science”.

          But while he is not too sure about those early temps he is convinced that the 0.2c warming this century is the real thing.

          And quelle surprise! Our blith thinks that more subsidies as suggested by Kate Auty are the answer to a self-imposed problem:

          And I wonder what her rationale is for this weird statement:

          “We all know there’s a thing called climate variability … but to refer to climate change as climate variability is just scientifically and intellectually dishonest,” she said.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Heavens, Chris — did you actually look at what the supposed impacts were? There aren’t any other than hot days, as I wrote, plus some most dubious claims. The writer says that among the impacts are a ‘significant decrease in frost days’. Unfortunately that was written before this year’s extremely cold autumn and winter.

          Or this one: ‘Scientific studies have linked these extremes to climate change’. Now which studies are these? And I ask because I don’t know of a single study that has shown conclusively ANY link between extreme weather and climate change. Indeed SREX, from the IPCC, specifically said that you could not make this connection. It is said all the time, nevertheless, and in this report. But I do not believe that there are any properly conducted scientific studies that have shown this connection, and the reasons are obvious. There are too many variables, and no one yet has been able to distinguished the ‘signal’ of anthropogenic climate change from everything else..

          Another claim: we now have more extreme fire weather. But ‘fire weather’ is not a simple function of temperature, and there have been calamitous fires since Europeans arrived in this country (and of course before they came).

          Just because there is a headline there is not necessarily any news after it.

          • Chris Warren says:


            The impacts in Canberra cited by the Report were not “hot days”. They were record hot days. Specifically, impacts were:

            “hottest daytime temperatures on record”
            “record for the longest March heatwave”
            “record of four consecutive days above 39 degrees”
            “night-time temperatures are warming more rapidly than daytime temperatures”
            “a significant decease in frost days”
            “doubling of heatwave days since 1950”
            “since 1970, there has been an increase in extreme fire weather”

            The extra rate of warming during the night is interesting as this can only occur if the atmosphere has become more insulating.

          • JimboR says:

            “Another claim: we now have more extreme fire weather. But ‘fire weather’ is not a simple function of temperature”

            Of course! It’s a chaotic system full of probability distribution functions. Nobody is ever going to be able to say “my CO2 readings today tell me there’s going to be a bushfire next Thursday”, and those that try do their cause no good.

            “and there have been calamitous fires since Europeans arrived in this country”

            And there have been fatal traffic accidents where all drivers had a BAC reading of 0. Why do we mess with BAC limits for drivers? Because alcohol increases the _probability_ of having an accident. There are plenty of drunks driving around out there not having accidents, just as there are plenty of record breaking heatwaves that don’t break out into bushfires.

          • dlb says:

            Chris says:

            “The extra rate of warming during the night is interesting as this can only occur if the atmosphere has become more insulating.”


            From Section 2.3.1 of the report:

            “During 2011–2015, the weather in the ACT was generally warmer in the daytime than the long-term climatological average (1961–1990). Night-time temperatures during the four years were near average or below average”

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Hot days, even record hot days, Chris, are phenomena of WEATHER. We are used to hot days, and there have been a lot of them in the past, too. They are not, by themselves, an indiction of ‘climate change’, and even supposing they were, they don’t come with an attribution sticker on them.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Canberra’s hottest days, choose your favourite, were in 1939 and 1968.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Ye god’s, how much cherry-picking can a koala bear?

            1968 was a El Nino year and you cannot represent typical weather or underlying climate by picking out a single year.

            Any way for all our cherry pickers – go for it, there are plenty of options here:


            I assume 1939 was an El Nino year as well – this would be consistent.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Don, when are you gonna realise that it’s only climate if it’s hot and recent.

            Ancient hot [if it managed to slip through without suitable adjustments] is simply cherry picking!

            Cli-Sci is not Hi-Fi.

            It’s usually either Bli-Sci or Sci-Fi.

  • Neville says:

    Here is Lomborg’s intelligent response to a green totalitarian fanatic who thinks we should forget about democracy and change to a dictatorship to mitigate their so called CAGW. To finish Lomborg also offers a much cheaper and sensible solution to any climate problems we may encounter in the future.

    Why do these crazy people get so much support in the leftist media?

    Bjørn Lomborg
    · Yesterday at 06:33 ·

    “Prominent environmentalist proposes a climate dictatorship because democracy is just not willing to do his policies.

    “The gall of this argument is staggering. It is even more staggering that the Swedish newspaper bringing this large interview today does not clearly mark the viewpoint as extreme and unreasonable. Instead, they seriously have their political analyst muse about whether a climate dictatorship is really necessary, and ending with a conclusion of ‘yeah, possibly.’

    The claim comes from Jørgen Randers, professor of climate strategy at BI Norwegian Business School. His main claim to fame is as co-author of the 1972 Limits to Growth book, which scared a generation to believe we would run out of all resources and kill humanity with suffocating air pollution. Time magazine headlined their 1972 story on the book: “The Worst Is Yet to Be?” and it began: “The furnaces of Pittsburgh are cold; the assembly lines of Detroit are still. In Los Angeles, a few gaunt survivors of a plague desperately till freeway center strips, backyards and outlying fields, hoping to raise a subsistence crop. London’s offices are dark, its docks deserted. In the farm lands of the Ukraine, abandoned tractors litter the fields: there is no fuel for them. The waters of the Rhine, Nile and Yellow rivers reek with pollutants. Fantastic? No, only grim inevitability if society continues its present dedication to growth and “progress.””

    Of course, their scare scenarios were almost entirely wrong. You can read more in my Foreign Affairs article and my short summary in Project Syndicate below.

    Now Professor Randers — correctly – tells us that democracy is unwilling and unable to pay the exorbitant amounts that he and many other environmentalists are asking us to pay. Surveys of willingness to pay for climate policies show most people in the US are willing to pay $180 per household or $70 per person. In China, the average willingness to pay is $30 per person per year. (They would all rather use it on education, health, poverty alleviation etc.)

    Yet, the current Paris promises will cost each American $500 per year, each European $600 and each Chinese $170. Of course, most Americans and Europeans are unlikely to elect leaders that will actually incur a much larger cost than most people are willing to pay.

    Moreover, these promises will not *solve* global warming – indeed, they will together achieve almost nothing: By the UN’s own estimate, the Paris Treaty will reduce emissions by less than 1% of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2°C and yet cost $1-2 trillion per year by 2030, mostly in reduced GDP growth. So Paris will deliver far less than what most people expect, yet will cost much more than most people are willing to pay.

    Of course, most smart people would be against paying lots for achieving little or nothing. If anything, this suggests that democracy works just fine.

    But Randers instead takes this unwillingness to spend fortunes on little benefits as an argument for ending democracy. ‘if people don’t want my preferred solution, then people are stupid, shouldn’t be allowed to decide their fate, and we should install a climate dictatorship instead.’ The argument literally seems to be: If I can’t have my way in a democracy, I want my way with a dictatorship.

    That is hardly a good argument. It is also phenomenally expensive: Look at the costs to achieve the sort of climate policies that Randers and many others are advocating. If the EU fulfils its promise of cutting emissions by 80% in 2050 (which is the most ambitious climate policy in the world today), the average of the best peer-reviewed models show that the cost would run to at least $3 trillion per year, and more likely double that – meaning $6,000 for each EU citizen per year. Of course, few will vote for that.

    Moreover, asking for a dictatorship neglects one of the main reasons for democracy: *how do you ensure that the dictator does what is good for you?* Throughout history, many have asked for dictatorships, but when they got it, it turned out that the dictator didn’t do what they hoped – and then how do you change your leader?

    Look at China, which unfortunately is held up by many environmentalists as a green ideal. It gets 86% of its total primary energy demand from fossil fuels (International Energy Agency data, latest from 2014, extrapolated to 2017). How is that ultra-green? It gets just 12% from renewables (the last 2% from nuclear). Even in 2040 with all its Paris goals fulfilled, the IEA estimate that China will get 16% of its total energy from renewables (and most of this will still be hydro and biomass, with just 4.2% from wind and solar PV). How is this seen as ultra-green? Remember, China got a higher share of its total energy from renewables (mostly because it was incredibly poor) *every year of the last century* than it will in 2040.

    But the most depressing fact is that instead of focusing on these incredibly ineffective policies that will cost a fortune but do little to fix climate, there are many other ways that would do much more good.

    First, we should increase spending on green R&D – if we can innovate the price of future green and reliable energy down below fossil fuels, everyone will switch.

    Second, we should focus on cheap and effective adaptation, which in the long run will avoid most of the extra damages of climate impacts at very low costs.

    Third, we should recognize that the main vulnerability for climate is poverty: if you’re poor, you will much harder hit by climate change (and, of course, hit harder by pretty much every other challenge, as well). Thus, if we lift people out of poverty, we will likely help them much more against future damages from climate –- and help them much, much more period. It is not surprising, that when the UN asked almost 10 million people around the world what they wanted us to focus on, they asked for education, health, and nutrition. And placed climate at the very bottom of their list of priorities.

    Increasing green R&D, adaptation and much more focus on poverty alleviation is something that most people would vote for. It is efficient, morally good and much, much cheaper.

    And (although I can’t believe I really have to point it out)

    we could keep our democracy.”

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, you can see why these crazy alarmist doomscreamers couldn’t possibly have people like Lomborg democratically calling the shots.

      With increased green R&D he could just possibly come up with a solution!

      And then where would they be?

      It would set their predictions of doom back centuries.

  • Neville says:

    Yet another new Chinese study has found that cold spells are a much greater killer than heat waves. This just supports all the other studies around the world, culminating in the recent huge Lancet study.
    Tony Abbott was correct when he pointed out that a warmer world could be beneficial for humanity.

  • David says:

    “None of what I said there was a prediction. You really don’t think before you write, do you. Like Yogi Berra, I try to avoid predictions, especially about the future”

    Actually when you make a statement like “The el Nino is subsiding quickly, ” you are in fact making a prediction.

    Your statement implies (in words) that that the change in the el Nino divided by the change in time is decreasing. This can be expressed mathematically as follows

    delta el Nino / delta time < 0

    Look at the denominator -time- This relationship implies that an increase in time (aka the future) is predicting a decrease in the el Nino.

    So you are not correct when you claim that none of what you said was a prediction.

  • spangled drongo says:

    They might be stupid and completely unscientific but at least this believer is honest about the method:

    “World needs ‘brain washing’ on climate change, Jerry Brown says at Vatican”

    Read more here:

  • David says:

    “Though CO2 levels have been rising for a century, temperature has not done so: one of the warming periods in the 20th century seems to have been at the beginning of the century, when the human production of CO2 was much smaller than it is now. You will also recall that temperatures seem not to have increased since 1998, though the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone on increasing. Two other correlations are much stronger. One is the relationship between solar energy and temperature, while the other is between ocean movements and temperature” (Aitkin 2008)

    That was a “courageous” statement, Don. Not a qualifier in sight. So do you have any evidence for your claim that correlations between solar energy and temperature are “much stronger” than the observed correlation between CO2 and temperature over the 20th century? Perhaps you could post a data link so we can and tyre-kick your claim. Once you locate that evidence and share it with the Free World, this whole troublesome AGW saga could be put to rest. I can see the headline now “Canberra retiree, and part time climate scientist, debunks AGW”.

    So where are those references? Check the spare bedroom, and bottom of the sock draw. If they don’t turn up, ask the Mrs. She might have put them somewhere safe.

    • Neville says:

      David here AGAIN is Dr Phil Jones’s 2010 BBC chin wag where he admits that there is essentially no stat sig difference between the four warming periods since 1850. He was then the head of the HAD centre etc.
      I’ve checked the difference and it is about 0.016 c per decade from highest to lowest trend. Since then ( just 7 years) they’ve adjusted their data-set again and again , but Don is correct about the 1910 to 1940 trend compared to the later trends as at 2010.
      Co2 levels in 1910 would have been less than 300ppm and not much more in 1940 and in 1860 to 1880 ( first warming trend) it would’ve been about 290 ppm.
      BTW UAH V 6 still shows no stat sig warming since 1994 or about 23 years or nearly a quarter of a century.

      • David says:

        Nev, re-read what I wrote. What I take issue with is Professor Aitkin’s unsupported claim from

        “Two other correlations are much stronger [than Co2]. One is the relationship between solar energy and temperature, while the other is between ocean movements and temperature” (Aitkin 2008)”

        But credit where credit is due. At least you supply a reference. So look at Questions D & E and Dr Jones’s response, in the reference you supply. [my comments in parenthesis]

        “D – Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

        ….. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.”

        [“flat” as in not a strong correlation with the temperature increase 1975-1998.]

        “E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

        I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”

        [ i.e. not due to changes natural causes e.g. “solar energy” or “ocean movements. “Solar changes” and “ocean movements” are NOT stronger correlates with changes in temperature over the last 100 years, than CO2. ]

        Think about this, Nev. Prof Curry has spent a big portion of her career hypothesizing about the mythical temperature correlate “Factor X” . Do you think she would bother if there was empirical evidence that “solar energy” or “water movements” were stronger correlates than CO2. These are exactly what she has been looking for all her professional life.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Davie, I don’t know where you live or what you particularly take notice of but in the period 1975-1998 there was a big change in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.

          Not one true cyclone crossed the east coast of Australia south of the Tropic of Capricorn after 1976 whereas there had been half a dozen every year prior to that.

          There was a noticeable change in the trade wind strengths across the Pacific and a few of us sailors were onto the change and we reckoned we could take advantage of the International Offshore Rule and design and build a yacht that could win an international series by stealing a march on the other competitors who may not have been so aware.

          We built this yacht to suit the lighter breezes, copped the penalty for the greater sail area etc., delivered it to Hawaii and won every race on handicap as well as line honours.

          We won all those races because of climate change, davie.

          But I’ll let you into a little secret: it had nothing to do with ACO2.

          It was a sudden shift that happened almost overnight and went on for decades.

          When trade winds change and go lighter like that, it has an incredibly warming effect. If you don’t believe me just check the difference in Qld’s temps in the last few days due to those trades re-establishing themselves.

          Some people notice what’s happening around them while others prefer to read sandwich boards and be brainwashed.

        • Neville says:

          David I’ve linked to many PR studies ever since I started to comment on Don’s blog and I’m convinced that natural variability answers most of the scary stories manufactured by the pollies and the media.
          We can pick most of their so called CAGW icons and nat var easily covers most of the changes. Deaths from extreme events, SLR, polar bears, Antarctica + peninsula, Arctic sea ice, Greenland, droughts, floods, wild fires, etc can mostly be explained by nat variability.
          Perhaps we should again link to more of the new PR studies that cover all of the above icons that support our case. But I’ve linked to so many in the past so I don’t think it will influence the true believers at all. Evidence and data should win the day but this doesn’t seem to interest the dedicated CAGW campaigner.

          • David says:

            Nev I have read your links many times. And so often you misinterpret their results. I can recall several papers you linked to, which reported warming in some regions in Antarctica, that interpreted as debunking AGW. And you have done this even when the authors themselves make no such conclusion. .

          • Neville says:

            David I’d like you to link to where I was wrong about Antarctica. As you should know Antarctica has not warmed for nearly 40 years and the peninsula has been cooling for nearly 20 years. See latest
            Brit Ant survey studies and others.
            Here’s UAH V6 data showing temp for regions since DEC 1978. SP region shows no warming for the last 39 years. Just another reason I have doubts about co2 being the primary driver of temp and so called CAGW. Peninsula cooling is certainly a problem for their theory because this was supposed to be one of the fastest warming areas of the planet.
            When the AMO changes to the cool phase the Arctic and Greenland will probably cool for a couple of decades and that will again further challenge their co2 primary driver theory.


  • Neville says:

    Here’s a few more facts that might help some people here. Bill McKibben and Dr Hansen etc calculate that we should aim to keep co2 at 1990 levels or about 350 ppm. See the site below.
    Since 1990 the OECD countries have only increased emissions by about 10% at most. And the US is nearly back to 1990 levels even though it has a much larger population. Its emissions are only about 10% higher than they were in 1973, even though the pop has increased by over 50% in the last 44 years.
    The non OECD countries ( China, India etc) have increased emissions by about 90% since 1990 and this will continue to blow out until 2040 and beyond. The EIA expects co2 emissions to increase by another 34% by 2040. I hope this helps.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Please stop posting fake news.

      If you used a reputable source you will have known that US 1990 emissions from fossil fuel and cement was:

      1398 MtC/year, and in 2016 it was 1450 MtC/yr. This is an increase of over 3%.

      While there has been a fall since a peak in 2007, this reflects the fact that significant US emissions have been transfered to other nations as carbon emitting industries have shifted to low wage regimes.

      And of course Trump is making everything so much worse.

      Why not give us the same information for Australia?

      • Neville says:

        Chris I was correct and here is that paragraph AGAIN just for you. ( NOTE— the US is NEARLY back to 1990 levels) .” Since 1990 the OECD countries have only increased emissions by about 10% at most. And the US is nearly back to 1990 levels even though it has a much larger population. Its emissions are only about 10% higher than they were in 1973, even though the pop has increased by over 50% in the last 44 years”
        Yes there has been a tiny increase of just 3% in the last 27 years and about 10% in the last 44 years. That’s why I said “nearly” comparing 1990 to 2016. I was correct and you are wrong.
        So tell us about OZ emissions and the pop in 1990 and 2017.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Over 3% increase is not “near”. If we get continual increases of over 3% again and again, we end up with a climate catastrophe.

          The level of population is not relevant to this scientific fact.

          • Neville says:

            Chris I think I’ll have to give you up as a lost cause. I thought you might be starting to wake up about the COP 21 con and fra-d, but alas you just resort to the same old silliness and simple lack of logic and reason. But here’s Lomborg’s PR study AGAIN, although we know that even this tiniest reduction in temp will not happen at all, because non OECD emissions will continue to soar for many decades into the future.
            Just try and understand the emissions to come after hundreds more coal plants are built. The NY Times estimates up to 1600 new plants to be built in developing countries. What is it you don’t understand about these simple facts?


          • spangled drongo says:

            “The level of population is not relevant to this scientific fact.”

            Neville, poor ol’ blith is in his usual state of denialist delusion.

            When even professional alarmists can’t grasp that their acknowledged possible 1c of warming that has occurred in the last 3 centuries since the end of the LIA and the start of the ind rev during which time our pop has increased over 1,000% would indicate that ACO2 is very likely a climate coolant, what hope is there for a rank amateur like our blith?

            When this warming is recorded by thermometers that are mainly situated where this 1,000% increase has actually taken place, to only have a warming of this tiny amount really indicates to any rational person that nothing much is happening.

            This, of course, is completely supported by sea levels.

            The rest is piracy, politics, propaganda, blithering and bullsh1t.

      • Neville says:

        Just for Chris. The pop of OZ in 1990 was 17.1M and is now 24.7 M or 1.4 times greater than 27 years ago. Here’s latest ABS data link.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s David’s reply up page——–

    “Life expectancy is clearly lower as you move towards the equator.”

    My reply. David the main correlation with higher life expectancy is access to cheap reliable energy. China had a very low LE up until they started to use fossil fuels in a big way and since then their life expectancy has increased to about 76 years of age, or only 5 years behind the wealthy OECD countries. BTW China now gets the highest percentage of it’s energy from coal, in fact much higher than other developed countries.

    Also Singapore is very warm and is only about 150 Kls from the equator, yet has a very high life expectancy of 82 or similar to very cold first world Nordic countries. Access to cheap reliable power and development is the answer to a healthier, wealthier population.

    • David says:

      Not withstanding Singapore and some other exceptions clearly life expectancy decreases as you move toward the equator. Within Australia life expectancy decreases as one moves North to the equator and Queensland has lots of coal.

  • Neville says:

    The pop of China in 1950 was about 0.54 bn people but today that has grown to 1.4 bn. In 1950 their life expectancy would’ve been about 53, but today this has increased to 76.
    This increase of 0.86 bn people and the increasing life expectancy of China is a remarkable achievement and is very fast compared to all other sick and poor countries since the start of the Ind Rev covered by Dr Rosling’s study I’ve linked to before.
    In the first 100 years the Life EX increased from high thirties to the high forties or an increase of about 10 years. Every country was poor and sick in 1810, but the use of fossil fuels completely changed everything in just 200 years. I’ve watched debates on you tube and most people accept that true modern Homo-sapiens have been around for about 200,000+ years and up to the start of agriculture these people lived a very short and brutal life.
    Even by 1,000 AD the average life expectancy was probably around 30 years of age. The Ind Rev changed everything very quickly but the change from now on should yield even faster results. India is the next big cab off the rank and I look forward to see whether they can at least equal China’s incredible miracle . Who knows?

  • Neville says:

    There has been widespread loss from late frosts in the lower Mallee and Wimmera etc in Vic. I just listened on the ABC country hour and some farmers have even lost high % of chick peas, other legumes, wheat etc.
    Early Nov frosts are very unusual and most farmers usually feel confident after the start of Nov. Last year we had a very wet winter due to rainfall via the strong negative IOD from the Indian ocean. The last big drought that broke in 2010- 11 saw a positive IOD last for about 18 years and of course added to the severity of the drought. Of course the Murray flooded last year as well.
    But even last year parts of SA wheat country saw some unlucky farmers suffer from late frosts even after above average winter rainfall. Just more natural variability that farmers have to cope with I suppose.

    Here is the link to solving part of the cause of historical droughts over SE OZ. Very easy to follow and just a pity that silly Flannery held so much influence over Labor pollies, the media and other fools during this period. This is from CSIRO and UNSW.

    • Chris Warren says:

      How many times has it been now that Neville has posted links without reading them properly.

      As the researchers noted:

      “To make matters worse, this period has coincided with a trend towards higher average air temperatures over the land, which may be linked to human-induced climate change.”

      No-one is overly concerned about natural variations – it’s the “human-induced climate change”.

      You need to identify the two as done here;

      • spangled drongo says:

        “No-one is overly concerned about natural variations – it’s the “human-induced climate change”’.

        I challenge blith to explain how much warmer his graph is to the natural warming of 1,000 years ago.

        When the world’s population was around 5% of today’s and we consumed no fossil fuels.

        I bet you can’t, blithluv.

      • Neville says:

        Gosh Chris I didn’t notice that line— SARC. It also MAY NOT be linked to their AGW. Who knows, but the study certainly adds to our knowledge about some of our very bad droughts since European settlement.
        But I can link to very long drought studies that show that OZ droughts over a long period of time were much worse than the last couple of hundred years. And co2 levels then were about 280 ppm and SST were higher than today in some of the studies. You’ll also find that the AGW attribution line seems almost mandatory for some of these studies.

  • David says:

    Neville @ November 14, 2017 at 7:51 am

    “David I’d like you to link to where I was wrong about Antarctica. As you should know Antarctica has not warmed for nearly 40 years and the peninsula has been cooling for nearly 20 years.

    Nev what do you smoke.? Look at the data you sent me. Go to the last row “Trend” 25 of the 27 time series you sent me show warming (i.e. +). One shows non change and one shows cooling (i.e. -) . These data clearly indicate global warming.!!!!!

    • Neville says:

      David the trend line for UAH v 6 shows zero for SP region since DEC 1978 and the peninsula has been cooling since 1998. It varies from month to month but overall there is no warming trend and by DEC 2017 that would be for 39 years.

  • David says:

    Nev say you had a rash to 95% of your body. So you go to the Dr and she does some tests and tells you that you have the measles. She then writes you a script. But you do not like the taste of the medicine. So what do you do? Find some part of you body with no rash and ague that you can not have the measles because the soles of your feet are rash free.

  • JimboR says:

    Lock up your Labradors… same sex marriage is happening. All those fringe benefits the NO campaigners promised us lay at the bottom of the slippery slope better happen, or I’ll be wanting my money back.

    88% of you old codgers voted… pretty impressive for a voluntary survey. Not that many followed Don’s lead and fed their survey papers to the worms.

    • dlb says:

      88% of old codgers voted, yet the young-uns were more apathetic.
      Perhaps being stuck at the bottom of the slippery slope has something to with it?
      No traction in obtaining jobs and home ownership.
      Or perhaps they don’t understand prepaid envelopes and post boxes?
      They might have been better represented if they could vote on their smart phone.

  • JimboR says:

    Far from needing protection, it seems most florists and cake makers are lining up for a slice of the predicted billion dollar small business boom.

  • spangled drongo says:

    ‘Sherlock Holmes warned that “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”’

    A good critique and summary of what’s happening at the cli-fest in Bonn in spite of the alarmism that reigns supreme there:

    “….while many stations in the vast frigid area of Siberia were closed for economic and other reasons. The net result was that cold temperature data disappeared from more recent records – thereby creating artificial warming trends, the very warming that alarmists predicted, desired and needed for political purposes.

    Today, we have virtually no data for approximately 85% of the Earth’s surface. Indeed, there are fewer weather stations in operation now than there were in 1960.

    That means HadCRUT4 and other surface temperature computations after about 1980 are meaningless. Combining this with the sensitivity (accuracy) problems in the early data, and the fact that we have almost no long-term data above Earth’s surface, the conclusion is unavoidable:

    It is not possible to know how or whether Earth’s climate has varied over the past century and a half. The data are therefore useless for input to the computer models that form the basis of the IPCC’s conclusions.”

  • Neville says:

    David you are wrong about Qld Life Ex compared to other states. Tas is the coldest state but has a lower L Ex than all states except the NT. Of course the hotter NT and Qld have a much higher % of Aboriginal people as has WA and to a degree NSW. The later data for NT males shows the highest increase in Life Ex over the last 10 years. Certainly a very encouraging result over such a short period of time.

    Old, NT and WA all have hot climates compared to Tassie. But OZ overall rates very high compared to most countries and certainly rates higher than the much colder NZ. This is the latest data from the ABS.


    In 2014-2016, the Australian Capital Territory had the highest life expectancy at birth of all states and territories for both males (81.3 years) and females (85.2 years). Life expectancy at birth was lowest in the Northern Territory at 75.6 years for males and 78.7 years for females. These were 4.8 years and 5.9 years lower than the life expectancies for Australian males and females respectively.

    Table 1.1 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH, Sex, States and territories – 2004-2006 and 2014-2016

    State or territory of usual residence


    Increase over 10 years













    New South Wales


















    South Australia






    Western Australia












    Northern Territory






    Australian Capital Territory












  • Neville says:

    Here is the co2 Science summary of the 2017 Olivia et al study of the Antarctic peninsula. This supports other studies that find cooling here that claimed previously that this was one of the “fastest warming areas of the planet”.

    The Antarctic Peninsula: No Longer the Canary in the Coal Mine for Climate Alarmists

    Paper Reviewed
    Oliva, M., Navarro, F, Hrbácek, F., Hernández, A., Nývlt, D., Pereira, P., Ruiz-Fernández, J. and Trigo, R. 2017. Recent regional climate cooling on the Antarctic Peninsula and associated impacts on the cryosphere. Science of the Total Environment 580: 210-223.

    Climate alarmists generally contend that current temperatures are both unnatural and unprecedented, as a result of global warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions; and they claim that this “unnaturalness” is most strongly expressed throughout the world’s polar regions. In this regard, they often point to warming on the Antarctic Peninsula (typically the Faraday/Vernadsky station) as the proverbial canary in the coal mine, where over the past several decades it has experienced warming rates that are among the highest reported anywhere on Earth.

    However, in recent years two studies have challenged this assessment. Carrasco (2013) reported finding a decrease in the warming rate from stations on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula between 2001 and 2010, as well as a slight cooling trend for King George Island (in the South Shetland Islands just off the peninsula). Similarly, in an analysis of the regional stacked temperature record over the period 1979-2014, Turner et al. (2016) reported a switch from warming during 1979-1997 to cooling thereafter (1999-2014). And now, in 2017, we have a third assessment of recent temperature trends on the Antarctic Peninsula confirming that the canary is alive and well!

    As their contribution to the debate, Olivia et al. (2017) report in the journal Science of the Total Environment how they “complete and extend [the study of Turner et al.] by presenting an updated assessment of the spatially-distributed temperature trends and interdecadal variability of mean annual air temperature and mean seasonal air temperature from 1950 to 2015, using data from ten stations distributed across the Antarctic Peninsula region.” And what did that assessment reveal?

    In describing their findings, the eight European researchers write “we show that [the] Faraday/Vernadsky warming trend is an extreme case, circa twice those of the long-term records from other parts of the northern Antarctic Peninsula.” They also note the presence of significant decadal-scale variability among the ten temperature records, which they linked to large-scale atmospheric phenomenon, such as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Southern Annular Mode. Perhaps most important, however, is their confirmation that “from 1998 onward, a turning point has been observed in the evolution of mean annual air temperatures across the Antarctic Peninsula region, changing from a warming to a cooling trend,” especially over the last decade (see figure below). This cooling has amounted to a 0.5 to 0.9 °C decrease in temperatures in most of the Antarctic Peninsula region, the only exception being three stations located in the southwest sector of the peninsula that experienced a slight delay in their thermal turning point, declining only over the shorter period of the past decade. It is also pertinent to note that, coincident with the above findings, Olivia et al. cite independent evidence from multiple other sources in support of the recent cooling detected in their analysis, including an “increase in the extent of sea ice, positive mass-balance of peripheral glaciers and thinning of the active layer of permafrost.”

    In light of all the above, the evidence is clearly mounting against those who point to warming on the Antarctic Peninsula as proof of CO2-induced global warming. For in the most incredible manner, warming trends that were once among the highest recorded on earth have slowed and even reversed to show cooling.

    Figure 1. Temporal evolution of the difference between the mean annual air temperatures and the 1966-2015 average temperature for each station (3-year moving averages). Source: Olivia et al. (2017).

    Carrasco, J.F. 2013. Decadal changes in the near-surface air temperature in the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 3: 275-281.

    Turner, J., Lu, H., White, I., King, J.C., Phillips, T., Scott Hosking, J., Bracegirdle, T.J., Marshall, G.J., Mulvaney, R. and Deb, P. 2016. Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability. Nature 535:
    Posted 13 April 2017

  • Neville says:

    More idiocy from the Qld premier and her mad rush to promote clueless S&W energy. She now wants to subsidise more solar madness to the tune of 60 M per job. And no measurable change at all to their so called CAGW.

    Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
    November 17, 2017 10:21am
    Share this on Facebook
    Share this on Twitter
    Share this by Email

    “The Queensland Premier, Annastacia Palasczcuk, was promoting green energy at the Clare Solar Farm. Resources Minister Matt Canavan calculates the astonishing waste: “The Clare Solar Farm stands to get something like $340 million in subsidies over the next 13 years for 5 jobs! That works out at $60 million a job.”


    “The Queensland Premier was at the Clare Solar Farm on Sunday promoting renewables jobs. Here are a few facts about the Clare Solar Farm.

    1. The Clare Solar Farm once operational will employ “up to around 5 people” according to their website.

    2. The Clare Solar Farm stands to get something like $340 million in subsidies over the next 13 years (paid through by higher power bills) for 5 jobs! That works out at $60 million a job.

    3. The Clare Solar Farm is owned by a Saudi billionaire, Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel. I have nothing against billionaires (or Saudis for that matter) but I have noted that the Premier has something against Indian billionaires, specifically the one that owns Adani.

    4. The Adani mine will generate 10,000 jobs and, even if they are provided a $1 billion loan (not a subsidy!), that works out at $100,000 a job. That is a little bit cheaper than $60 million a job. And remember this is a loan that will be paid back not a subsidy!

    5. Guess which of these projects the Premier has decided to veto? I will give you a hint, it is the one that the Premier’s partners the Greens don’t like.


    The Clare Solar Farm will be a 150MW solar farm 35 kilometres from Ayr in Queensland.

    While it provides 200 jobs in construction once these are gone, the project’s website says that “During operation up to around 5 jobs will be created.”

    In theory, a 150MW solar farm could produce 1,314,000 MWh / year. That is worked out by 150MW x 24 hours in a day x 365 days a year. In practice, solar farms run at best 25% capacity factor (because of night, clouds, etc). So let’s put Clare’s electricity production at a generous 328,500 MWh / year = 1,314,000 MWh x 25%. This means that each year the Clare Solar Farm will generate 328,500 large scale Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) under the Renewable Energy Target. RECs are currently retailing for just over $80 / MWh which means that each year this project will get 328,500 x $80 = $26 million in subsidies each year.

    These subsidies are paid by increasing your power bills.

    The Renewable Energy Target runs until 2030 and the Clare Solar Farm hopes to be producing power by the end of the year. That means that it will get 13 years worth of subsidies. All up then that’s $341 million in subsidies paid through your power bill. Remember those 5 jobs – I have been told it’s 2 gardeners, 2 security guys and a panel operator. So we are getting 5 jobs for $341 million. It is only $60 million per job.

    Note some greenies will argue that my $80 per REC is too high and that REC prices will come down over the next decade. Last time I checked though accountancy rules mean you have to value things at market value and that is the market value of RECs at the moment. Regardless though even if you say that the REC price will be half that amount, a quarter or heck even a tenth, we are still talking millions of dollars of subsidies per job. On any measure this is madness!”

  • Neville says:

    Many new Arctic studies seem to pour doubt on any unusual warming or ice loss when compared to earlier times.

  • Neville says:

    It looks like coal is the clear winner after the latest Bonn talks last week. There will be up to 1600 new plants built in the near future and even Europe will be building new plants.
    And Merkel’s Germany is having all sorts of problems including soaring electricity prices and a big loss of jobs in the energy sector.
    And their co2 emissions remain stubbornly high even after wasting endless billions for decades on their crazy S&W disaster.

  • Neville says:

    A very good editorial from the WSJ summing up Germany’s S&W disaster. And our reckless Labor party would follow this crazy mess to the letter and waste many more billions with a guaranteed zero dividend after decades of flushing money straight down the drain.

    “Germany’s Green Energy Meltdown

    Date: 18/11/17
    Editorial, The Wall Street Journal

    “American climate-change activists point to Europe, and especially Germany, as the paragon of green energy virtue. But they ought to look closer at Angela Merkel’s political struggles as she tries to form a new government in Berlin amid the economic fallout from the Chancellor’s failing energy revolution.

    Berlin last month conceded it will miss its 2020 carbon emissions-reduction goal, having cut emissions by just under 30% compared with 1990 instead of the 40% that Mrs. Merkel promised. The goal of 55% by 2030 is almost surely out of reach.

    Mrs. Merkel’s failure comes despite astronomical costs. By one estimate, businesses and households paid an extra €125 billion in increased electricity bills between 2000 and 2015 to subsidize renewables, on top of billions more in other handouts. Germans join Danes in paying the highest household electricity rates in Europe, and German companies pay near the top among industrial users. This is a big reason Mrs. Merkel underperformed in September’s election.

    Berlin has heavily subsidized renewable energy since 2000, primarily via feed-in tariffs requiring utilities to buy electricity from renewable generators at above-market rates. Mrs. Merkel put that effort into overdrive in 2010 when she introduced the Energiewende, or energy revolution.

    The centerpiece is the escalating emissions-reductions targets Germany now is missing, which surpass the 20% reduction by 2020 to which the rest of the European Union has committed. The policy is also supposed to reduce total energy consumption to 50% of the 2008 level by 2050, with a 25% reduction in electricity use. That was a tall enough order for an industrial economy. Then Mrs. Merkel made it even harder in 2011, with a hasty promise after Japan’s Fukushima disaster to phase out nuclear power by 2022.

    Energiewende enthusiasts say the policy is racking up successes despite the problems. That’s true only in the sense that if you throw enough money at something, some of the cash has to stick. In electric generating capacity, for instance, renewables are now running almost even with traditional fuel sources.

    Yet much of that capacity is wasted—only one-third of Germany’s electricity is actually generated by renewables. Berlin has invested heavily in wind and solar power that is easiest to generate in parts of Germany that need the power the least, especially the north. Berlin will need to spend another huge sum building transmission lines to the industrial south.

    The other costs relate to providing electricity when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, which is often in Germany. The traditional plants needed to fill in the gaps are overwhelmingly fired by coal, on which Germany still relies for roughly 40% of its power.

    Natural gas would be cleaner and is easy to switch on and off. But gas is more expensive than coal, and the peak daytime consumption hours when gas could recoup that investment are also the times utilities are more likely to be required to buy overpriced solar power.

    As a result, natural gas accounts for only 9.4% of Germany’s electricity, down from a little over 14% in 2010. Gas accounts for some 30% of U.S. electricity generation, and the shift to gas from coal explains a majority of the reductions in carbon emissions in U.S. generation since 2005, according to a report last month by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. German households pay nearly 36 U.S. cents a kilowatt-hour of electricity, versus an average of 13 cents in America.

    No wonder voters are in revolt. Surveys say that in theory Germans like being green, but polls about household energy costs say otherwise. The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) won a surprising 13% vote share in part on a promise to end the Energiewende immediately. A new study from the RWI Leibniz Institute for Economic Research finds that 61% of Germans wouldn’t want to pay even one eurocent more per kilowatt-hour of electricity to fund more renewables.

    This is casting Mrs. Merkel’s coalition talks into disarray. Her prospective Green Party partners want to double down on Energiewende distortions by banning coal, starting with the 20 most-polluting plants. Mrs. Merkel’s center-right Christian-Democratic parties and the free-market Free Democrats are willing to close 10 plants at most, in recognition that more would strangle the economy of energy absent nuclear power after 2022.”

  • Neville says:

    The Andrews Labor govt’s con and fra-d in Vic will blow out electricity prices big time. They closed Hazelwood and now rely on diesel generators to back up their clueless S&W fairy tale. But will the voters ever wake up to this corrupt Labor govt before the next state election? We can only hope.

    Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
    November 19, 2017 9:07am
    Share this on Facebook
    Share this on Twitter
    Share this by Email

    “Premier Dan Andrews a year ago said closing the giant Hazelwood coal-fired generator would hit electricity bills by about “4 per cent or 85 cents a week”.

    That was always utter bull, given Hazelwood generated about 20 per cent of Victoria’s electricity, and among its cheapest.

    But Andrews helped to drive that station out of business to allegedly save us from the hyped dangers of global warming. And now the real costs starts to be emerge:

    VICTORIAN households face a huge $470 jump in their electricity and gas bills.

    The Sunday Herald Sun can exclusively reveal the state’s third largest energy retailer — Energy Australia — is rolling out significant price jumps in 2018 that will push electricity bills up by 14.9 per cent and gas bills by 13.5 per cent.

    From January 2 the average residential customer will be slugged an extra $278 a year for electricity, pushing their annual bill to $2134…

    The surge in electricity charges has been blamed on the steep climb in wholesale energy prices — electricity bought by retailers on behalf of customers — and the closure of coal-fired power stations including Hazelwood.

    Energy Australia’s chief customer officer Kim Clarke said wholesale electricity prices have risen about 55 per cent since the start of the year…

    The closure of Hazelwood isn’t just costing us much more in electricity prices. Without the coal-fired power, generators have had to burn more gas – just when it’s scarce and costing a bomb. The rise in gas prices is in part a consequence, too.

    Then there’s the rising danger of power shortages, along with the cost of gimcrack solutions:

    DIESEL generators will be hooked up to Victoria’s energy network in the coming weeks as part of a last-ditch effort to keep the lights on this summer…

    They will provide up to 100 megawatts of electricity if requi­red, enough to power an estimated 40,000 households during peak periods.

    The Australian Energy Mar­ket Operator has secured the extra diesel generation as part of a widescale effort to shore up Victoria and South Australia’s energy supply, amid warnings of potential shortfalls after the closure of the Hazelwood coal-fired power station.

    Worst-case scenario forecasts show homes could face having their power cut in ext­reme weather during summer.

    This is so scandalous. So brainless. With shiny-bright eyes, we march off a cliff,

    And yesterday the voters of Northcote demanded even more of the same:

    The Greens have won their third Victorian lower house seat, defeating Labor in Northcote, a seat the ALP has held for almost a century…

    Victorian Greens leader Samantha Ratnam said the victory showed voters cared about climate change action…

    Meanwhile, to our north China rises. By century’s end we may be begging it for economic help.”

  • Neville says:

    Evidently most of the world’s govts, most media and thousands of scientists can’t read a simple graph and understand simple first grade maths.
    Here is the EIA coal graph forecast from 1980 to 2040 that any five year old child should easily understand.
    Dr Hansen was correct when he said that Paris COP 21 was a con and a fra-d.

  • Neville says:

    Let’s hope that Germany starts to wake up to the S&W idiocy they’ve been engaged in for the last couple of decades. Here’s a quick summary of their stupidity quoting the astute Benny Peiser.

    “Germany’s Green Energy Dream Is In Danger Of Falling Apart
    Date: 20/11/17

    Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller

    “German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s attempt to form a new government failed on Monday, marking the first time in decades that majority political parties have been unable to form a governing coalition.

    If no coalition forms, Germany may be forced to hold new elections. But one casualty of Germany’s ongoing political crisis could be the country’s costly plan to promote green energy and fight global warming.

    “Germany’s utopian dream of transforming itself into the world’s green powerhouse is collapsing as its political and media establishment is mugged by reality,” Benny Peiser, director of the UK-based Global Warming Policy Forum, wrote in a blog post.

    “The country’s climate obsession has turned into one of the country’s biggest political and economic handicaps, making Germany almost ungovernable,” Peiser wrote.

    Indeed, environmental issues were a major point of contention among parties Merkel and her Christian Democratic Party wanted to partner with.

    “The ecologists wanting to phase out dirty coal and combustion-engine cars, while the conservatives and FDP emphasised the need to protect industry and jobs,” News24 reported.

    Former U.S. President Barack Obama often praised Germany’s green energy policy, calling it a model for the world to follow, but recent political upheaval may have planted the seeds of Germany’s reversal on climate policy.

    Greens wanted to shut down 10 to 20 of Germany’s 180 coal-fired power plants that still provide 40 percent of the country’s electricity. Conservatives opposed this, fearing massive economic and social upheaval.

    Further attacks on coal power could boost the popularity of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), Peiser noted.

    “Its skeptical stance on climate and green energy issues has sent shock-waves through Germany’s political establishment who fear they can no longer afford to appease the Greens without losing further support among their traditional voter base,” Peiser wrote.

    “Without the development of new pragmatic policies and a forceful defence of a cheap energy strategy in face of a rapidly fading (and ageing) green movement, Germany is unlikely to free itself from the green shackles that are hindering technological and economic progress, never mind political stability,” Peiser added.”

  • Neville says:

    Is the latest 15,000+ scientist’s warning to humanity just another con / fra-d or hoax? Seems very mickey mouse at best.

  • spangled drongo says:

    A wonderful insight into the standard of climate science in the world today.

    At JCU, the VC takes you to court for having a different opinion of the “consensual science”:

    • spangled drongo says:

      Sorry, correction. Should have said the VC has to be taken to court to reverse a career-endangering investigation of someone who was exercising his right to criticise the science.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Desperate media, desperate politics, desperate science.

    When are the lies going to end:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Why am I not surprised:

    “Hurricane Harvey was portrayed in the media as a deadly consequence of a warming climate. However, the facts are that this just isn’t the case. When looking at historical data for hurricanes affecting the United States, the data shows no trend over time.”

  • Neville says:

    Here’s an uncontaminated data-set that started in 1958 and is much more accurate than all the other surface based data and only shows about 0.1c a decade of warming. What’s not to like and why should we be wasting endless trillions $ on a non problem for a guaranteed zero return?

    Thanks to Dr Patrick Michaels and Dr Ryan Maue.

  • Neville says:

    Steve McIntyre also has a look at the Stenni 2017 Antarctic study. But the corruption continues as they refuse to hand over their full data so Steve can make a better assessment of Antarctic Holocene temp.
    I’ve supplied Steve ( in comments) with the Calvo et al study that claims that southern OZ has a similar pattern to Antarctica over the last 30,000 years. The Calvo study found that SST over sth OZ had dropped for the last 6,500 years. A very inconvenient truth.

  • Neville says:

    Here is Co2 Science’s summary of the 2007 Nott et al ( NE OZ) tropical cyclone study over the last 800 years. The Med WP and time since 1900 have the fewest extreme cyclones compared to the LIA period. We are very lucky to be living in a much safer time and very few people die from extreme weather events compared to 100 years ago.

  • Neville says:

    This 2011 SE OZ trop cyclone study from two BOM researchers should be linked to again. Here is the link/summary from Co2 Science .
    Note that there has been a 62% decline in TC activity since the 1870s on the OZ east coast. When will they wake up to Gore’s/ Flannery’s/ most media/ most pollies/most govt’s etc, etc wild exaggerations?

    Tropical Cyclones Making Land-Fall Over Eastern Australia Reference
    Callaghan, J. and Power, S.B. 2011. Variability and decline in the number of severe tropical cyclones making land-fall over eastern Australia since the late nineteenth century. Climate Dynamics 37: 647-662.

    The authors note that several studies have raised concerns that tropical cyclones, or TCs — and especially the severe ones — “have become more frequent in many places in response to global warming,” citing Emanuel (2005) and Webster et al. (2005). In addition, Callaghan and Power write that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, highlights several studies that conclude that “tropical cyclones are likely to become more intense in the future in response to global warming,” citing Alley et al. (2007); but rather than accepting this set of claims on the basis of the IPCC’s “authority,” they go on to provide a much more compelling analysis of their own.

    What was done
    Callaghan and Power, as they describe it, developed and used “a new data base of severe land-falling TCs for eastern Australia derived from numerous historical sources, that has taken over a decade to develop.” This data base, as they continue, includes: “peer-reviewed publications; Bureau of Meteorology publications, including comprehensive case histories for a large number of TCs — including all TCs since the mid-1950s, Monthly Climatological Bulletins and Monthly Weather Reviews, unpublished TC season reports, bounded operational analysis charts back to the 1890s stored in the National Archives, unpublished internal Bureau documents; publications by state and local governments; archives of several Queensland newspapers; newspaper clippings held by the Bureau of Meteorology; books describing land-falling TCs; information held by the Cairns and Townsville Historical Societies; a report to the QLD parliament (1918); and extensive unpublished information from the public including numerous damage photographs,” as well as “reports on storm surge, wave action and shipwreck data from an extensive Australian shipwreck data base.”

    What was learned
    The two researchers with Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology first note that their new data base allows them “to document changes over much longer periods than has been done previously for the Southern Hemisphere,” and among the host of results they describe, two of them stand out with respect to their significance to the global warming debate. First, they report that “the sign and magnitude of trends calculated over 30 years periods vary substantially,” highlighting the fact that “caution needs to be taken in making inferences based on e.g. satellite era data only.” And second, they report that “the linear trend in the number of severe TCs making land-fall over eastern Australia declined from about 0.45 TC/year in the early 1870s to about 0.17 TC/year in recent times — a 62% decline.” And they add that “this decline can be partially explained by a weakening of the Walker Circulation, and a natural shift towards a more El Niño-dominated era.” Thus, they conclude the abstract of their paper with the remark that “the extent to which global warming might also be partially responsible for the decline in land-falls — if it is at all — is unknown [bold and italics added to highlight the irony of the result].”

    What it means
    Callaghan and Power’s analysis of their lengthy and comprehensive new data base reveals results that appear to be totally at odds with the contentions of the IPCC, which are based more on the output of numerical models of the atmosphere than on real-world observations. And their results also highlight the fact that even real-world observations may be misleading, especially if they do not cover a long enough time period to reveal the oscillatory nature of various aspects of earth’s climate.

    Alley, R., et al. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. IPCC.

    Emanuel, K.A. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688.

    Webster, P.J., Holland, G.J., Curry, J.A. and Chang, H.-R. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309: 1844-1846.
    Reviewed 19 October 2011

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, as I have said before, since the big pacific climate shift in 1976, there have been no TCs crossing the coast south of the Tropic of Capricorn when in prior years there were half a dozen a year.

      They didn’t slow down, they just stopped coming.

      • Neville says:

        SD I accept what you say, but don’t forget you’re dealing with extremists that have little regard for evidence, data or logic and reason. All we can do is plug on and present more evidence from the PR studies from the past and the present.

  • Neville says:

    Many new PR studies have been listed again at No Tricks Zone that show no impact from increased co2 emissions.
    How long before they have another look at their CAGW theory?

  • Neville says:

    Incredible how our clueless media are spinning and lying about the QLD election result. One Nation increased it’s vote by +12.8%, Labor lost -1.5%. LNP lost -7.8%, Greens gained + 1.3%, Katter gained 0.2% and others lost -5%.

    So of the losses from Labor, LNP and others total of 14.5% only 1.7% didn’t go to One Nation. And the Greens picked up 1.3% of that 1.7%. And even their ABC admitted this morning that One Nation averaged about 21% in the seats they chose to stand in.

    Of course Katter possibly won 3 seats but only got 2.1% of the state wide vote.

  • margaret says:

    “And it does not help our confidence in the system when, in addition to the case of our almost excessively law-abiding mother, the onus of proof is reversed on thousands of other dutiful citizens, and they are required to prove their innocence or return money paid to them in error by a government agency. Yet, when members of parliament find that through their own carelessness or denial they got themselves elected unlawfully, wise men and women talk of amending the Constitution – a bridge considered much too far if it concerns recognition of the country’s Indigenous people – and the offending pollies are not asked to repay a cent of the millions paid to them from the public purse. It does shake our confidence.
    Still, you wouldn’t wish it on your worst enemy. Barnaby Joyce not an Australian? We are all diminished, surely. “

  • Neville says:

    Bjorn Lomborg tries AGAIN to present the facts about renewable energy. Here’s his article at WUWT and is so very easy to understand. The renewable graph from 1800 to 2040 tells the full story. See link.

    “The big slide in renewable energy tells the real story
    Guest Blogger / 2 days ago

    No, renewables are not taking over the world anytime soon.

    “Guest essay by Bjørn Lomborg

    We have spent the last two centuries getting off renewables because they were mostly weak, costly and unreliable. Half a century ago, in 1966, the world got 15.6% of its energy from renewables. Today (2016) we still get less of our energy at 13.8%.

    With our concern for global warming, we are ramping up the use of renewables. The mainstream reporting lets you believe that renewables are just about to power the entire world. But this is flatly wrong.

    The new World Energy Outlook report from the International Energy Agency shows how much renewables will increase over the next quarter century, to 2040. In its New Policies Scenario, which rather optimistically expects all nations to live up to their Paris climate promise, it sees the percentage increase less than 6 percentage points from 13.8% to 19.4%. More realistically, the increase will be 2 percentage points to 15.8%.

    Most of the renewables are not solar PV and wind. Today, almost 10 percentage points come from the world’s oldest fuel: wood. Hydropower provides another 2.5 percentage points and all other renewables provide just 1.6 percentage points, of which solar PV and wind provide 0.8 percentage points.

    Neither will most renewables in 2040 come from solar PV and wind, as breathless reporting tends to make you believe. 10 percentage points will come from wood. Hydropower provides another 3 percentage points and all other renewables provide 6 percentage points, of which solar PV and wind will (very optimistically) provide 3.7 percentage points.

    Oh, and to achieve this 3.7 % of energy from solar PV and wind, you and I and the rest of the world will pay – according to the IEA – a total of $3.6 trillion in subsidies from 2017-2040 to support these uncompetitive energy sources. (Of course, if they were competitive, they wouldn’t need subsidies, and then they will be most welcome.)

    Most people tend to think about electricity for renewables, but the world uses plenty of energy that is not electricity (heat, transport, manufacture and industrial processes).

    Actually, if the world miraculously could make the *entire* global electricity sector 100% green without emitting a single ton of greenhouse gasses, we would have solved just a third of the total global greenhouse gas problem.

    As Al Gore’s climate adviser, Jim Hansen, put it bluntly:

    “Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and [the] Tooth Fairy.”

    We need to get real on renewables. Only if green energy becomes much cheaper – and that requires lots of green R&D – will a renewables transition be possible.”


    Data for graph: “A brief history of energy” by Roger Fouquet, International Handbook of the Economics of Energy 2009; IEA data DOI: 10.1787/enestats-data-en, and World Energy Outlook 2017, unfortunately not free,

    Hansen quote:…/mail…/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf

    The world emitted 49Gt CO?e in 2014, and all electricity/heat came to 15Gt or less than a third,

  • Neville says:

    I’m in moderation again and I think it’s my fault. I included links at the bottom of Lomborg’s article and I’m sure that is the cause. Sorry Don.

  • spangled drongo says:

    It’s harder to be a RO than it used to be:

  • spangled drongo says:

    If we ever needed confirmation of the empty mindlessness of the climate consensuals, this does it in spades:

  • spangled drongo says:

    More on the above from Judith Curry.

    Fake science to the max:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Fundamental stuff:

    “The idea that economic growth brings us up against planetary limits is wrong. The reverse is true. Poverty creates a downward spiral of land degradation, water runoff and soil loss, exploitation of forests and woodland and overexploitation of fauna. What is left behind are dustbowls all over the planet. Reversing this is the key to economic progress in many places. Scientific interventions that make people better off are increasing global agricultural productivity.”

Leave a Reply