President Trump’s decision to pull the USA out of the Paris climate Accord seems to have had an outcome in the intensification of alarm both at his doing so and at what he is thought to have overlooked. I saw a number of examples of this reaction, and will deal with another one next week. But the one I’m focussing on now is a story that appeared in the 17 July New York Times Magazine entitled ‘The Uninhabitable Earth’. I wouldn’t normally have gone to read it, and did so because none other than Dr Michael Mann had panned it, about which more in a moment. You can read it here.

It purports to have been based on interviews with leading scientists, and no doubt it was, depending of course on who you think are ‘leading’, and whom they are leading. But I doubt that the author went to a single sceptic. The tone is apocalyptic from the beginning, and the following quotes and titles follow one another, though not instantly. Even when a plausible possibility is raised it is exaggerated beyond repair.

It is, I promise , worse than you think.

parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century

No plausible program of emissions reductions alone can prevent climate disaster.

 …if the planet is five degrees warmer at the end of the century, we may have as many as 50 percent more people to feed and 50 percent less grain to give them.

A planet five degrees warmer would have at least half again as many wars as we do today. Overall, social conflict could more than double this century.

 Permanent economic collapse

 Ocean acidification will fry fish populations directly, too,…

In a six-degree-warmer world, the Earth’s ecosystem will boil …

That’s probably enough. The article is based on all sorts of assumptions, and looks for the worst-case scenario every time. How it came to be published I have no idea. It is dreadful stuff. And it caused an enormous reaction, to the point where the New York Times felt the need to make corrections, and prepare a footnoted and annotated version. That version, to me at least, is still ratbag commentary of the worst kind. Michael Mann and one other wrote a short piece in The Washington Post decrying the NYT article, because although it suggested  climate change was both dreadful and unstoppable, it all seemed to say there was nothing anyone could do about it.

It is in this environment of defeat and despair that we’ve witnessed a dramatic rise in the prominence of climate doomism — commentary that portrays climate change not just as a threat that requires an urgent response but also as an essentially lost cause, a hopeless fight.  

I wrote about climate doomster stuff (‘doomer porn’) a couple of years ago, and it was interesting to see the term coming back in the way it has.

Judith Curry devoted a whole post to what she called ‘Alarm about Alarmism’, and offers readers useful links to other participants in the controversy. As always on her website the comments are worth wading through. I was taken by this comment of hers about the NYT article:

 I saw many such ‘alarmed’ articles (perhaps not as comprehensive) in the Age of Obama, spouting alarmist predictions and concerns.  Further, the White House seemed to encourage this, as evidenced by the web site and the statements of Science Advisor John Holdren.  I never saw any push-back on this from the consensus-enforcing scientific establishment.

In the Age of Trump, alarmism clearly doesn’t influence the policy makers; the best that consensus-enforcing scientific establishment can hope for is to enforce the not very scary IPCC consensus. And why does this matter to them? Surely this consensus enforcement is antithetical to the scientific process and progress.   It seems to be all about ‘action’ — presumably as defined by the Paris Agreement.  According to Mann et al., too much alarm makes people give up on attempting ‘action.’  Never mind that the proposed actions will have a small impact on the climate (even if you believe the climate models) during the 21st century.

She goes on to suggest that we know almost nothing about how the climate of the rest of this century will eventuate, and offers four possibilities, or options:

  1. It is possible that human-caused climate change will be swamped by much larger natural climate variability.
  2. It is possible/plausible that the sensitivity of the climate is on the low end of the IPCC envelope (1.0-1.5C), with a slow creep of warming superimposed on much larger natural variability.
  3. It is possible/plausible that the IPCC projections are actually correct (right for the wrong reasons; too much wrong with the climate models for much credibility, IMO).
  4. It is possible that AGW and natural variability could conspire to cause catastrophic outcomes.

Dr Curry says that there is too much uncertainty in all of this to apply probabilities to the various options. Option #2 defines the lukewarmers, and option#4 so far is the province of the doomsters. Of course, option #3 is the official version for most of those who are in power in most countries, saving what JC has put in brackets. But the other options are all worth proper exploration.

I would add, and one of the other participants does too, what about a benign outcome? Let us suppose that CO2 keeps increasing, and the world keeps getting greener. What’s not to like? There is good optical evidence from satellites to suggest that the world is indeed getting greener, and one of those who has shown this, Graham Farquhar, has just received the Kyoto Prize (a Nobel equivalent) for his work here and elsewhere. Another participant wants us to remember that natural climate change could involve a cooler 21st century, too. Is that being looked at? Not at the official level, as far as we know.

JC wants some serious scientific work done on all the options, not just on #3, and says, at the end of her essay:

The bottom line is that the simple story pushed by the consensus enforcers of a simple climate problem and a simple energy solution is a goldilocks fairy tale.  Given that their careers have been invested in this fairy tale, its little wonder that they regard anything other than their enforced consensus as ‘pernicious.’

I have little doubt that we will see more of this new controversy — the pushback from climate ‘alarmists’ as they lose control of the levers of power in Washington. I do not think it will be long before other nations begin to stop doing some of the things they have done in the past, and end subsidies for alternative energy and electric cars (now happening in a few places). There will be an alarmist pushback again.

The news that some local government councils are banding together in New South Wales to carry the alternative energy fight forward is reminiscent of the similar decision by some US governors and mayors. It may be good PR stuff, for some electors anyway, but it has no real consequence other than to drive energy prices upwards. The consistently cold June and July in my city means that the September energy bills will be perhaps a third higher than last year. I will pay them, and anticipate some protests even from the believing greenies here. ‘We didn’t mean THAT expensive!’

And now I wait to see if EPA Administrator Pruitt is going to do anything at all about the red team/blue team possibility that he has been talking about. If he does, that will mean another burst of alarmism from the tradition providers. Climate change is not going away, at least politically.

End note:  Only an hour or two after posting this essay I saw a new derogatory term: ‘climate denier’!  It came from a headline: Trump officially nominates climate-denying conservative talk radio host as USDA’s top scientist. How on earth does one deny climate — unless it is to assert that all we ever see is weather? On second thoughts, there is something in that, but not at all what the writer meant.

Join the discussion 87 Comments

  • Chris Warren says:

    I don’t think anyone really agrees with statements that if temperatures increase by 6C that oceans will boil.

    It is best to stick to refereed materials from reputable journals.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      It was the world’s eco-systems, not the oceans, that would boil.

      • Chris Warren says:

        I hope the world’s oceans are part of the world’s eco-system.

        Otherwise a lot of text books are going to need rewriting.

    • beththeserf says:

      Re boiling oceans, Chris.

      • Chris Warren says:

        I doubt whether the oceans will ever actually boil within severalcenturies as the solar insolation constant is 1.388 kw per sq. metre, but there is potential over the longer term.

        With methane and water vapour and, as a worst case scenario, the atmosphere will heat up until it radiates 1.388 kw per square metre.

        Today the Earth’s surface receives 1 kw per square metre when the sun is overhead, so the additional radiation maximum is an additional 39% from a heated atmosphere.

        The impact on the Earth will be comparable to today’s maximum temperature in a locked car during a summers day, plus up to 39%.

        Heating only ceases when all surfaces radiate 1.388 kw per sq metre. On the moon this is well over the boiling point of water.

  • Aert Driessen says:

    The Washington Post got this bit right ….
    “… The Washington Post decrying the NYT article, because although it suggested  climate change was both dreadful and unstoppable, it all seemed to say there was nothing anyone could do about it.” …
    Climate change is unstoppable and our own Chief Scientist confirmed that we could do nothing about it. He told a Senate Committee that even if Australia went to zero emissions (I assume CO2) it would make no difference to Earth’s temperature.
    So in the meantime, why don’t we get smart by walking away from the Paris accord (not binding) and building coal-fired power stations asap as a means of saving our economy, as well as the lives of people who cannot afford soaring power bills.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Because your mad, crazy fantasy may well kill billions of innocents in the future.

      • Aert Driessen says:

        All I know for sure Chris is that we’ll all be in strife when the sun stops shining. From memory, that’s about 12 billion years away.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        “innocents” buy fridges, cars, and have children. Who would have guessed?

      • JMO says:

        Hi Chris You seem to lie somewhere between #3 and #4 option. Just to clarify I will ask you an important question – what is your climate sensitivity view, ie what do YOU think global average temperature will rise when ( it will be “when” not “if”) CO2 reaches 540-560 ppm (ie twice pre- industrial concentration)? My view is 1.2 deg C +/- 0.3. There you are, I am not a “climate denier”, but a climate calmist, Over to you.

        As an aside, my view is let us hope the sceptics are right and the doomsters wrong (they are inverably wrong) because there is nothing you or i can do to stop the relentless increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration. If the doomsters are right then it will be all over red rover, but not just yet. So it is better to enjoy, have fun and agree with sceptics, even better go denial (although I do not advocate that option) these last few years/decades whatever. To be a doomster is to choose the double whammy path, being miserable until the real misery hits (according to the doomsters). Be a calmist/ luke warmer and you can enjoy life,,,until it ends.

        • Chris Warren says:


          According to available satellite data, if present trends continue, global lower troposphere temperatures will be around 1.8 C warmer in 100 years. However North Pole temperatures may well be around 4 C warmer.

          If there is any acceleration in CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, this point will be reached sooner.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Hey blith:

            ” …if present trends continue, global lower troposphere temperatures will be around 1.8 C warmer in 100 years.”

            With only 38 years history showing ~ 0.3c of warming [and possibly statistically none this century] do you seriously think that is evidence of future catastrophe?

            “North Pole temperatures may well be around 4 C warmer.”

            Is that why the U of Manitoba just cancelled their planned summer Arctic expedition due to too much ice?

            Is that why they can’t access the NW Passage today like Amundsen did in a wooden sailing boat in 1903?

            Temps in the North Pole region [70 to 90 lat] were warmer 70 years ago [when ACO2 wasn’t an influence] according to the Jones et al dataset.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Blith, I know your mate, Whinnying Jimmy, has been wearing model-produced sandwich boards for the last 30 years but even he has now kicked the catastrophe can down the road another century or so [just in case he lives too long and has to answer for it {again}]

            Embarrassment must be finally getting too much for him, not to mention loss of cred:


            So don’t you think it’s time to take your sandwich boards off, partake in some rational discussion and enjoy life for a change?

      • Colin Davidson says:

        Wolffff Wolfff!
        Wolves with very big teef!
        Ginormous Wolves with Grossnormoyus Teef and Clors!!!
        Ginormous Wolves with Grossnormoyus Teef and Clors!!!

      • Boambee John says:

        Or it might not, and you might be the one with the mad,crazy, fantasy?

      • Boambee John says:

        “you” being Chris, to clarify.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, Aert, your logical statement is just a mad, crazy fantasy according to blith.

      He is certain that the end is nigh due to CAGW on the basis of a tiny bit of stratospheric warming [or is it cooling, blith?] but go easy on him.

      He might find a bit of evidence yet.

      But if, instead, he took the logical route through all the past events that were “billion killers” he might just discover that there are many other catastrophes that are much more likely to befall us innocents.

      That we could even do something about if we didn’t squander the farm on stupidity, that is.

  • PeterS says:

    The problem is that the alarmists have forgotten the scientific method. Perhaps Dr Richard Fernman can remind them.

  • Neville says:

    Their mitigation fra-d is the greatest fra-d in history. The EIA (US) and IEA (EU) are set up to audit energy use and forecast the future of energy.
    The EIA forecasts that human Co2 emissions will increase by 34% by 2040 and the IEA estimate that S&W energy may generate about 2.5% of global energy by that date. Anyone not see a problem with these numbers?
    Of course nearly all of the increase in co2 emissions will come from the NON OECD and even if the OECD behaved impeccably we still couldn’t make any measurable difference to temp by 2040 or 2100.
    Understanding this mitigation fra-d and con is about as easy as it gets, so there is no excuse for stupid pollies or stupid scientists or for the stupid media to not understand the very simple sums involved. But, will they ever wake up?

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Lomborg’s latest you tube video using the latest EPA MAGICC software to explain the Paris COP 21 BS and fra-d. This isn’t difficult to understand but so many of the world’s pollies, scientists and media seem to fall at the first hurdle.

    Here is the full Purdue Uni talk from Lomborg on April 11th 2017.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Lomborg adds little of value. Obviously Paris is a failure and will not reduce global warming if all commitments are fulfilled.

      So what? Lomborg calls for phasing out fossil fuel subsidies – but this is already on peoples agenda.

      His claim about 7 Nobel Prize Winners is fakery and has been debunked here:

      Lomborg also made the silly clam that 1978 recession solves the problem but ignored the fact that there was no change in Mauna Loa CO2 data that corroborates this. So he does not understand the relationship between emissions and sinks.

      He is an economic alarmist jumping up and down over expenditure that is trivial when compared to US military spending.

      So Lomborg is an example of your much cited fakery and alarmism based on his misunderstanding of the science of climate change.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Poor ol’ blith. Never could deal with the message.

        When confused or when in doubt,
        Always get the shotgun out.

        All those facts are far too much for blith’s tiny mind to ingest.

        Like, deaths from climate catastrophes the lowest they have probably EVER BEEN!!!

        Like, % of world renewable energy currently used is only a fraction of what it was 2 centuries ago. Why?

        We don’t need no steenkin’ facts for any debate, hey blith?

        Let’s just shoot that messenger.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    When the bearded loon first appears on the street corner you may notice him (funny it’s never a her), but after a week, he’s invisible. The climate scare is so old. The politicians may be quaking in their boots, but the people outside the Anglo-American axis couldn’t care less.

    • Neville says:

      I agree Bryan, BUT the developing countries would love to get their paws on the 100 billion $ a year so called compensation for their so called CAGW problems. Now that’s something they really care about.
      Even though it’s all just more BS and fra-d.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      Please, Don, get back to reality. How many of the millions of immigrants flooding into the UK and Europe are going to compromise their new lifestyles because the temperature might increase by a degree or so a hundred years hence?

      That this asinine discussion continues is unbelievable,

      • Don Aitkin says:

        Bryan, did you mean me? The reality that disturbs me is the ever-rising price of electricity and gas here, not all of it due to AGW and politics, but a substantial bit of it. That is why I keep monitoring the issue, not to show why it is wrong exactly (though CAGW plainly is), but because the faster it passes, the easier my life.

        • margaret says:

          Why ‘the easier my life’ Don? I don’t see the connection between you monitoring the issue of alarmism and the outcome of an easier life – for anyone.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            My costs are higher than they need be, Margaret, so an abandonment of the silly renewables push, the RET and the rest ought to lead to my costs being smaller, cet. par. As a retired person on a fixed income, these things are important to me. If my writing on climate alarmism helps, than that is a good thing.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Bryan, I wish I could be so dismissive but the reality is is the crazy sandwich board wearers are winning.

        Witness the Finkel Report and current energy policies.

        The red team still needs to stand up and strongly make the points that Don is making if sanity is ever going to regain control.

  • JimboR says:

    “I was taken by this comment of hers about the NYT article:
    I saw many such ‘alarmed’ articles (perhaps not as comprehensive) in the Age of Obama, spouting alarmist predictions and concerns….. I never saw any push-back on this from the consensus-enforcing scientific establishment.”

    Don, perhaps you and/or Judith didn’t look very hard for such earlier push-back? For as long as I can remember, climate scientists have always decryed the alarmists’ claims, before and after Trump’s election.

    Here’s just one example from 2014:

    “Green groups have been unhelpfully “alarmist” in making the case for tackling global warming – but the world now needs to take urgent and radical action if it wants to prevent dangerous climate change, leading UN scientists have said.

    Some claims that non-governmental organisations have made about climate change “have undoubtedly been exaggerated”, Professor Myles Allen, one of the lead authors of a major new report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said.

    “NGOs have at times been alarmist over climate change… but the IPCC has been very clear and measured throughout. I think alarmism on any issue is unhelpful.” ”

  • beththeserf says:

    Professor Judith Curry, (17/04/2015, interview, Mark Levin Show.)
    Some sanity in contrast to the madness of the cli-sci herd
    predicting …tipping points, New York submerged by rising seas,
    children will never know snow, boiling oceans, Jim Hansen I
    think, ) and ASSumptions of ocean acidification that can’t happen.

    ‘Curry on impact of CO2: “The carbon dioxide that humans are
    putting into the atmosphere does have a warming tendency, but
    it’s not clear that [CO2] is going to dominate with the other things
    that are going on with the sun or volcanic eruptions or deep
    ocean circulations – the things that contribute to natural climate
    variability. Those are the things that could really surprise us.”

    Curry on 97% consensus claims: “The so-called 97% consensus is
    about fairly trivial things: ‘Yes the temperature is warming; Yes,
    humans are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and Yes,
    carbon dioxide does have a greenhouse effect. But that doesn’t
    tell us whether human caused climate change is dominating over
    natural climate change and that is where the big debate is about.

    On balance, I don’t see any particular dangers from greenhouse
    warming….[Humans do] influence climate to some extent, what
    we do with land-use changes and what we put in the atmosphere.
    But I don’t think its a large enough impact to dominate over
    natural climate variability.

    It’s become ideology driven at this point. laughs. Yes definitely.”

  • PeterE says:

    Thanks. Fascinating.

  • Peter Kemmis says:

    The weaker the evidence and the argument, the shriller the protest.

  • spangled drongo says:

    A friend of mine who is a retired science teacher just emailed me an article on his thoughts re people’s understanding of science in today’s world. It ends with:

    “HARD SCIENCE soft science
    Everyone agrees that a successful country in the 21st century must embrace science, and schools have the opportunity to make it happen, but a country in which scientists have little likelihood of being elected to Parliament does not “embrace science”. Our humanities culture needs significant change towards science.
    Soft sciences merit research, but only hard science – science in which reliable principles have been established – can show students spectacular successes achieved through the use of reason. This gives a clear mandate for teaching, if not chemistry then some other stretch of hard science, in the spirit of this article; and for teaching it in the years before GCSE so as to reach everyone.
    In our non-judgemental age the hard/soft dichotomy is seldom recognised. An astronomer can predict an eclipse next year to within seconds, and leave the meteorologist lost for words, yet regularly on TV we hear interviewers giving equal credibility to “experts” regardless of the topic, and news readers using that neutral mantra “according to scientists…”
    If all sciences are thought equal, it is science and reason that is undermined when for example nutritionists do a U turn. We should not underestimate the blanket distrust of science that already exists. The EU recently voted against the advice of its scientists on a GMC issue, a clear victory of whim over a reasoned assessment of the facts. Flattery of soft science is as potentially harmful to humankind as the failure to give hard science its due.
    My article began seemingly with technicalities of chemical education, and with readers doubtless thinking “why send it to me?”, but I think it ends with our great grandchildren’s future at stake.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Bill McKibben specialises in scary stories:

    “Go Fossil Free holds the fossil fuel industry responsible for destroying the planet and morally injuring its inhabitants. While McKibben created an enemy, Go Fossil Free has made the fight against that enemy a “moral” one, citing floods and natural disasters allegedly caused by climate change.

    However, one study notes that deaths related to climate (flood, drought, storms, extreme heat or cold) have dropped 98% since 1920. The energy industry has facilitated this decline through building better homes, heating, air conditioning, proper irrigation and disaster warning systems. That sort of steals the, er, thunder of the ecofascists’ hyperbolic claims.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    But the UN are the scariest of all:

    “Meanwhile, in Jerusalem…

    If you need another example of Palestinian incitement, look at what is taking place on the Temple Mount, a compound that also houses the Dome of the Rock mosque.

    Last week, three Palestinians smuggled weapons onto what they claim is one of their holy sites. Days later, they shot two Israeli police officers in the back. There have been numerous terrorist attacks in Jerusalem and near the Temple Mount, but last week’s brazen murders on the site itself were extremely evil acts.

    In response, Israel set up metal detectors to prevent the smuggling of weapons and additional attacks. All week long, imams and Palestinian officials have been inciting violence. They declared a “Day of Rage.” They have accused Israel of upsetting the status quo on the Temple Mount.

    Saudi Arabia does not allow people to wander freely at the Grand Mosque in Mecca. There are thousands of cameras and security officers. The Vatican uses metal detectors, as do mosques all over the world.

    Only Israeli Jews are condemned for attempting to guarantee the security of a holy site. Not surprisingly, CAIR is trying to get in on the act.

    And while jihadis do the dirty work on the ground, UN bureaucrats in tailored suits are doing their best to “ethnically cleanse” Jewish and Christian history in Israel.

    UNESCO, a major UN body, has rejected Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem’s Old City and declared Hebron, with the Tomb of the Patriarchs, a Palestinian World Heritage Site.

    Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO denounced the biased organization as “a full partner to the false incitement by Palestinians and radical Islam.”

    Long before there were Muslims or Palestinians in Hebron, the Jews were there. The real estate transaction when Abraham purchased that land is recorded in the Book of Genesis.”

  • Neville says:

    Every day we seem to have examples of the wonders of renewable energy and how this will save the planet or some such idiocy. Germany has been the strongest advocate in the EU and probably the world for the last few decades.

    But when you look at the data from the IEA you can see just how difficult this change to so called renewables can be. Germany now generates just 2.9% from Geo+ S&W , 79% from fossil fuels and 9.4% from Bio-fuels and waste. So FFs plus Bio and waste now generate 88.4% of Germany’s energy.
    Anyone not see a problem with this world leader’s data in the push for renewable energy? The message is that Paris COP 21 is a total fra-d and will waste trillions $ for nothing and of course the energy pie just keeps growing.

    Here’s the IEA pie chart for the world, showing 81% for FFs, 10.3% for bio+waste and 1.3% for Geo +S&W.

    • Chris Warren says:


      You do not understand climate change or basic economics.

      Spending billions on renewable energy is not a waste. The employment and economic activity that is lost in one industry is matched by increased employment and economic activity in another.

      The only thing that changes is that investors have a preference for investing in fossil fuels and a lower preference for investing in renewables. Additionally the GDP growth based on renewables may be less than GDP growth using fossil fuels but this comparison is misleading as it does not take into account various externalities. These are much higher for fossil fuels than for renewables.

      Society has a very strong preference for avoiding these externalities.

      The gain in preferences by society outweighs the loss in preferences by investors and any loss in GDP growth.

      • Neville says:

        Chris says,
        ” Neville

        You do not understand climate change or basic economics.” I ask, where is the evidence and data please? IOW please show why I don’t I understand CC or basic economics?

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Spending billions on renewable energy is not a waste….

        The gain in preferences by society outweighs the loss in preferences by investors and any loss in GDP growth.”

        When you don’t have any idea whether it will be a/ an advantage, b/ a non-problem or c/ a problem you can blither till the cows come home.

        But what rational people do is try to get a handle on any situation before they go off half cocked.

        Particularly in this country where we can’t make a scrap of difference to world temperature outcomes and “avoiding these externalities” no matter what we do, it is lunacy to waste valuable resources for no purpose.

        And it could possibly prevent an outcome like the next ice age.

        Act your age, blith.

  • Neville says:

    GEEEEZZZZZZ here’s a real scary story from 1988. Those poor Maldivians have only months to live according to this yarn in the Canberra Times. Or perhaps they’ve already died of thirst decades ago? Boy that photo looks absolutely shocking or perhaps NOT?

    OH and DR Roy Spencer has a lesson for Dr John Holdren and our Chris. This Holdren example is the best “Looney Tunes economics” that taxpayer funded money can buy. Unbelievable but true.

    “This is Your President’s Science Advisor
    March 21st, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    “A President’s political appointees are chosen because their views support the President’s political leanings. This is to be expected.

    One might expect the Science Advisor position to be more politics-free, but not these days. The President’s choice of John Holdren, previously a professor at Berkley, to be his science advisor tells us something about his policies.

    Holdren wrote this 1975 newspaper article, entitled Too Much Energy, Too Soon, a Hazard, about the dangers of having too much energy available for human use.

    Among some of the gems of wisdom there, we find this:

    Finally, less energy can mean more employment. The energy producing industries comprise the most capital intensive and least labour intensive major sector of the economy. Accordingly, each dollar of investment capital taken out of energy production and invested in something else, and each personal consumption dollar saved by reduced energy use and spent elsewhere in the economy will create more jobs than are lost.

    Now, one doesn’t need to be an economist to see the problem with this position. Holdren thinks that because the energy sector generates so much energy so efficiently with so few people and with so much capital investment, that must be a bad thing. He is either unaware (he can’t be that stupid) or he chooses to hide the fact that all of that energy is demanded by the rest of the country for everything we do. Energy enables people to make things and provide services.

    As I’ve said before (and I’ve asked some of the nation’s top economists about the validity of my views), if you really want full employment, just put everyone to work digging holes in the ground and filling them up again. Just having “jobs” is not the desired goal; what we do in those jobs makes all the difference. Jobs must efficiently provide goods or services desired by the rest of society in order for everyone, poor and rich alike, to prosper.

    And abundant, affordable energy is required for all of those productive jobs.

    It literally scares me that people like this have so much influence in our country.”

  • Neville says:

    Jennifer Marohasy is checking the minimum temps recorded at the BOM for winter 2017. There seems to be a policy of having a limit of minus -10 c.
    They have now changed one site to minus -10.4 c a couple of weeks ago, but now are leaving a blank place instead for another more recent low reading.

  • Neville says:

    The new “Climate Change The Facts” is now available and can be ordered at the link.

    Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
    an hour ago

    And Clive James, too. Buy Climate Change: The Facts 2017 featuring essays by leading scientists as well as significant others on the great global warming scare that wasn’t.

    Edited by Dr Jennifer Marohasy, Senior Fellow at the IPA, Climate Change: The Facts 2017 brings together contributions on the latest climate science from some of the world’s leading experts in the field including John Abbot, Sallie Baliunas, Paul Driessen, Tony Heller, Craig Idso, Clive James, Pat Michaels, Jo Nova, Ian Plimer, Tom Quirk, Peter Ridd, Ken Ring, Nicola Scafetta, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, and Anthony Watts.

    There are also essays by Matt Ridley, and Bjørn Lomborg on the economics of climate change, and by Simon Breheny on how the freedom to discuss climate change science is under threat.

    Order here.

  • Neville says:

    Another new study confirms the pause in global warming.

    • Chris Warren says:


      This is another example of your misunderstanding of climate change.

      If there was no underlying global warming, then natural variations would rise and fall, in effect, equally.

      However if there is global warming, this pattern will be disrupted and we get a rise followed by a pause.

      The fact that there is a pause when natural variations needed a fall, indicates that global temperatures are ratcheting higher and higher.

      I have pointed this out to you previously.

      I am pretty sure you have seen all this before, and the pattern is clear – see:

      The pause demonstrates global warming.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “The pause demonstrates global warming.”

        No one is denying global warming. It’s just you alarmists that are bed wetting over the rate, the reason and the future catastrophe attached.

        It’s good to see that at least you acknowledge the pause and that the warming has currently terminated.

        But we are all still waiting for you to demonstrate how that less-than-1c warming [since the end of the LIA and the beginning of the industrial revolution since when our population has increased by 1,000%] is anything more than natural climate variability.

      • Don Aitkin says:


        You do make a lot of assertions like these ones, and I can’t see where the evidential basis for them is. If we knew what caused recent global warming, which seems to have started in the middle of the 19th century, your confident statement would be followed by argument and evidence. But we don’t know what caused the warming, though there are lots of guesses. It may be the case that much of the warming between 1975 and 1998 was assisted by GGE. The problem with that explanation is that it doesn’t assist us in knowing what caused the warming from 1850 to 1975, let alone the strong rise in the first half of the 20th century, and then the slow and gentle cooling over the next thirty years. Nor does it explain why warming stopped rising sharply in the present century, even though CO2 emissions kept going up.

        If we knew what caused natural variations, we would be able to say whether it was the case that they would indeed rise and fall equally. But we don’t know. We don’t even know why warming started in and around 1850, or why the little ice age period occurred over the preceding three hundred years. In fact we know very little about all of this. There is no obvious reason why natural variations combined with ‘global warming’ should lead to a pause. The link that you offer shows pretty straightforwardly that warming has been going on for a lot longer than the present period. Why do you think it is evidence for your position? I think it shows the opposite.

        Now you can try to find all sorts of wriggle-ways around around these problems, but none of them can be shown definitively to be true.

        So what we have from you is strong belief in the coming disaster, and a reliance on small bits of evidence that you think support your belief. That you have pointed out your beliefs before is not a sign that they are at all correct.

        • Chris Warren says:


          There are no assertions. We know as a scientific fact that greenhouse gasses transmit short wave radiation and absorb long wave radiation.

          We know as a scientific fact that heat is being trapped within the earth’s atmosphere.

          It is a scientific fact that if the amount of heat increases that the system’s temperature will warm.

          No matter whether other variations cause longrun cooling, longrun warming, or fluctuations, still the system as a whole, subjected to any greenhouse effect must warm.

          This is all supported by instrumental data from 1979 for atmospheric temperatures and since the 1950’s for CO2 concentrations – a key greenhouse gas.

          If natural short-run variations produce cooling and GHGs produce a warming, then there is every reason to expect a short-run pause – without needing any assertion.

          The global warming that is of concern to most august scientific institutions, is entirely separate to any and all forms of natural variations.

          There is no natural variation that could produce a stratospheric cooling tendency of over 7C per century at around 40km high.

          There is no natural variation that cools the northern hemisphere upper stratosphere at over 9C while cooling the high southern stratosphere at just 6C. There is no natural variation that cools the north pole high stratosphere at over 12C per century but cools the southern pole at less than 4C.

          These temperatures are not assertions but are based on scientific fact.

          All this is definitively true and can only be falsified by equal science.

          It is not necessary to explain changes in and around 1850 to explain changes from 1950’s if GHG environment around 1850 is sufficiently different to that after 1960.

          The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was very different around 1850 and before than in 1960 and thereafter. This is not an assertion but a scientific fact.

          And as far as I am aware the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to any and all natural causes has never reached 400ppm no matter how far one goes back in time. This is not an assertion but a scientific fact.

          So it is the science that is scary.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Poor ol’ blith. He doesn’t get out much or pay attention but loves his own wild assertions about poorly understood science.

            The latest IPCC Report Technical Summary of Working Group I says:

            “The magnitude of the observed global change in tropospheric water vapour of about 3.5% in the past 40 years is consistent with the observed temperature change of about 0.5°C during the same period, and the relative humidity has stayed approximately constant. The water vapour change can be attributed to human influence with medium confidence.”

          • Don Aitkin says:

            It was a mistake to argue with you, Chris, because you don’t deal with the points at issue. I have set out the problems with your assertions, but you don’t respond to them. Instead, you talk about other things. ‘There is no natural variation’, a phrase you use a few times, is best translated as ‘we don’t know’. The science isn’t scary. You have talked yourself into being scared, and it seems important to you to resist all possibility of escaping from your fears. Tough.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “And as far as I am aware the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to any and all natural causes has never reached 400ppm no matter how far one goes back in time. This is not an assertion but a scientific fact.”

            Any evidence for that “scientific fact”?

            Or is that just another of your “sci fi facts”, blith?

          • spangled drongo says:

            “And as far as I am aware the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to any and all natural causes has never reached 400ppm no matter how far one goes back in time. This is not an assertion but a scientific fact.”

            Here’s a scientific fact you need to get your head around, blith:

            “To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.”

          • Ross Handsaker says:

            Chris, you state “We know as a scientific fact heat is being trapped within the earth’s atmosphere”.
            Carbon dioxide is a good absorber of energy and therefore is a also a good emitter of energy – it does not trap heat. The best gas insulators are krypton and argon which are both poor absorbers of energy and therefore poor emitters of energy. In 1989 scientists, Reilly, Arasteh and Rubin, conducted research into the effects of infrared absorbing gases on window heat transfer. Gases were placed between separating window glazing layers. The result showed that the best insulating gases were those that had low conductivity and high kinematic viscosity. Most importantly, low-emittance coatings were much more effective at reducing radiative transfer than absorbing gases.

            Chris, except when there is a temporary temperature inversion the atmosphere is always cooler than the surface. Are you suggesting that heat will flow from cool to warm? As Fourier noted in 1824, the atmosphere would have to be solid, if it was to act like a greenhouse.

          • Chris Warren says:


            Maybe it is more accurate to state that heat is absorbed by CO2 instead of being trapped.

            But the measurements we have still show a cooling tendency outside the CO2 region. This is not th case of heat flowing from cool to hot – but of increasing failure of heat to arrive because it is trapped or absorbed below.

          • JMO says:


            What some scientific facst – warning these will not agree with your “beliefs”so you might like to ignore them.

            It is CO2″s 1- micron absorption line that gets the greenies/ doomster in a lather. But 15 microns is the peak radiation intensity of a black body radiator at 193 deg K i.e. – (yes MINUS) 80 Centigrade.

            GOSH Chris – heck of a lot of warming in that one! CO2 freezes at – 78.5C. Scientific facts Chris, Google Wien’s displacement law calculator. CO2’s higher energy absorption lines of2.0, 2.8 and 4.2 microns are outside Earth’s radiation out to space and tends to act a slight COOLING effect during the day. More hard scientific (Physics) facts.

            I can go on about other scientific facts such as radiation band widths and H2O vapour absorbing 15 micron radiation as well, but surely you should get the drift by now.

            Just aside – one of my Physics Uni lecturers John Nichols who specialised in radiation and optics has retired and now has come out as a climate sceptic.

        • David says:


          You are a real snake oil salesman. Its is not necessary to account for for every variation in temperature to be able to make a statement about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Perhaps your brother can explain it to you.

          And how can you claim global warming has stopped rising sharply this century, when 2014, 2015 & 2016 were each the hottest year on record?

          IMO your arguments would be more convincing, if you were not innumerate.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “And how can you claim global warming has stopped rising sharply this century, when 2014, 2015 & 2016 were each the hottest year on record?”

            Wow! Ken U B Sodumb! Davie has been reading too much SkS.

            It’s called a plateau, dave.

  • Neville says:

    SD I think you’re wasting your time with Chris. Data and evidence don’t interest Chris because he’s fixated on his CAGW cult. The slight warming since the end of the LIA is not unusual or unprecedented at all and there hasn’t been any Stat Sig warming in the UAH V 6 data for at least 23 years.
    And if you consider the strong natural el nino events there is more reason to strongly doubt their much heralded CAGW. Here’s a link to Prof Roger Pielke jnr’s talk at the GWPF a few days ago. Much food for thought from this much hated luke warmer. And I mean he is hated and pursued by the left although he believes in some AGW and agrees with the adoption of a co2 tax. He gives examples of the disgusting pursuit of him and the personal cost involved.

  • Neville says:

    Probably the scariest stories about their so called CAGW are the exaggerated tales about extreme weather events. In this video Dr David Whitehouse ( GWPF) talks to Prof Pielke Jnr about the evidence and data that doesn’t seem to back up these fairy tales.
    When fools like Obama, Holdren, Gore, McKibben, Mann, Oreske, etc tell these stupid porkies the media, other scientists and politicians seem to fail badly and either agree or just play dumb. Why is that the case?
    The IPCC pursued this nonsense in their 2007 report but corrected the mistake seven years later in AR5. The data and evidence clearly backs Pielke’s research, so why does it takes years before these fools wake up?
    Of course Gore’s latest Sci-fi flick tells us that things are much worse than his claims in AIT ( 10 years ago) and once again he is lionised by our stupid media, pollies and various extremists as a prophet who is trying to save the planet for future generations. So again why do these people persist in telling these porkies and ignore the evidence and data?

  • Chris Warren says:


    Can you show where I used the phrase “there is no natural variation”?

    What specific assertions do you think I supposedly did “not respond to”?

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Can you show where I used the phrase “there is no natural variation”?”

      Well, well, well! Could blith possibly be admitting that nat var actually exists?

      Things are certainly looking up!

      With all your above “scientific facts” have you got any that quantify any small part of that “huge” 0.8c since the end of the LIA as nat var yet.

      I mean, if it exists, it has to have some substance, dunnit, blith?

    • Don Aitkin says:

      It begins two of your paragraphs, Chris, and opens a sentence in the second paragraph as well.. Just read them again.

      You say all this: ‘If there was no underlying global warming, then natural variations would rise and fall, in effect, equally.
      However if there is global warming, this pattern will be disrupted and we get a rise followed by a pause.
      The fact that there is a pause when natural variations needed a fall, indicates that global temperatures are ratcheting higher and higher.’

      I pointed out that we know very little about what ‘naturally’ causes warming and cooling. Your link clearly shows a cyclical pattern. We do not know what causes the cyclical pattern. You don’t take issue with my criticism, but launch into something else, stratospheric cooling at the two poles.

      It was a mistake to enter into a discussion with a believer, for all the obvious reasons. I will try not to do it again.

      • Chris Warren says:


        The sentance is:

        “There is no natural variation that could produce a stratospheric cooling tendency of over 7C per century at around 40km high.”


        “There is no natural variation.”

        Why did you deliberately cut off the context ?????????????????

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Goodness me. I said you used ‘the phrase… a few times’ You did. Look up ‘phrase’. It does not mean a sentence, and I did not place a full stop after it. That is your work.

          Oh, and you haven’t deal with the substance of my comment. Don’t both. I leave you to your belief.

          • Chris Warren says:


            There is a serious flaw in your logic.

            If someone was to write “I hate all Catholics who molest children”, this is not saying, or holding:

            “I hate Catholics”.

            So even though the phrase exists, this is not sufficient or reasonable to impute such views on them.

            If someone was to claim “I hate all politicians who are corrupt” then this is not saying:

            “I hate all politicians”

            So when someone says:

            “There is no natural variation that could produce a stratospheric cooling tendency of over 7C per century at around 40km high.”

            This is not saying:

            “There is no natural variation”

    • Don Aitkin says:

      There’s no flaw in my logic, Chris, only in your understanding of what a ‘phrase’ means. I didn’t make it a sentence you did. Your problem, not mine.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Very few people believe the prophesies of climate doom, and Australia is facing far more imminent problems. Economic, social, infrastructure, and environmental, associated with the ludicrous migration policies pursued by both sides of politics. At the current growth rate (mainly attributable to immigration), population will double by mid 2040 to 2050. No ordinary Australian can afford to buy a house in a capital city, so how will the relatively unskilled migrants be accommodated? The tales that most are doctors or IT specialists is obviously false, and you only have to look at the jobs breakdown to be scared silly. Associated with that is the fact that the population makeup is now so heterogeneous that support for a majority Euro/Anglo-centric cultural ethos is rapidly waning.
    It is worth reading the recent article in Quadrant:; as well as some of Douglas Murray’s debates.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      … and if you want to hear discordant muslim shrieks emanating from mosques all through the suburbs, five times a day, I can asssure you, I don’t.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Here’s a non-scary story for a change:

    President Donald Trump will bar transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military, he said Wednesday, arguing their service brought “tremendous medical costs and disruption”

    • spangled drongo says:

      But here’s a real scary one. Kate Jones, the Qld Education Minister has summoned her stupidity to ban Christianity in State schools:

      “Talking about Jesus, exchanging Christmas cards and encouraging Christianity have been targeted under an unofficial policy from education bureaucrats that takes aim at junior evangelists in Queensland primary school yards.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    “And as far as I am aware the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to any and all natural causes has never reached 400ppm no matter how far one goes back in time. This is not an assertion but a scientific fact.”

    Any evidence for that “scientific fact” yet, blith?

    Waiting for evidence from blith is like waiting for the greenhouse effect.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    As I said, within a very few years, we’ll have a lot more to worry about than frying to death.

  • David says:

    Here is something scary. Australia’s most senior climate change skeptic Malcolm (show me the data) Roberts

    “is choosing to believe that he was never British”, his spokesman said

    Despite the British passport sitting in the bottom of his socks draw.

    Sort of like SD and Don chosing to believe temperatures have plateaued

    • spangled drongo says:

      You mean it’s like claiming that 0.8c of warming since the little ice age and a population explosion of 1,000% is all down to ACO2?

      That it’s more genuine to wear a sceptical Aussie ideology than an alarmist British one?

      But check the latest paper on the hiatus and learn a little:

      • David says:

        SD the R squared in any regression reports the proportion of varition in the dependent variable that is explained by variation in the explanatory variables. Aka the proportion of temperature increase attributable to the increase in CO2.

        I have very patiently walked you thru these fundementals before.

        I suggest that you spend a little time getting up to speed with these concepts, so you do not come across, as you do.

  • […] said in my last essay that I would return this week to another theme that is having a big revival just at the moment, […]

Leave a Reply