The September Off-Topic Thread

By September 2, 2017Other

This month I’m starting early. If you want to make a comment about something that is not in fact directly relevant to the theme of the current post, then put it here.

Join the discussion 104 Comments

  • Neville says:

    They’re still insisting that Corals are in danger of extinction, yet they’ve survived many 100s of millions of years and endured incredible climate changes and extremes of SLR, volcanic activity and asteroid strikes etc.

    But can corals survive a doubling of Co2 sometime towards the end of this century? I’d put my money on the coral adapting and making slight adjustments to do so.

    • Boambee John says:

      The number of climate alarmists who deny that evolution is possible is amazing. Coral has evolved in the past as climate as sea levels changed. It will do so in the future, should that prove necessary.

  • JimboR says:

    It might be time to put the pensioners on a cashless welfare card so they stop spending my taxes on alcohol, cannabis and pokies….

    • margaret says:

      Those incorrigible boomers – what were their lusty parents thinking when they mass produced a generation that would become the equivalent of a petrol guzzling V-8?

    • dlb says:

      A universal welfare card sounds like a good idea to me. A good chunk of the retired will be claiming a part pension anyway. With so many using the card there will be less stigma.

    • JimboR says:

      I suspect a lot of pensioners might consider it their “right” to spend their pension however they see fit, although they may be less enthusiastic about extending that same right to the unemployed.

  • Neville says:

    Ken Stewart has found more problems with BOM temp measurements. How long before a proper independent audit is carried out?

  • Neville says:

    Dr Jennifer Marohasy is also asking more questions about BOM temps.

    • Ross says:

      I ask Ms Marohasy questions about her ‘Sience Lab’ and it’s ability to predict rainfall 12 months in advance.
      Needless to say, I have had no response. At all.
      I tried asking Jo Nova if she could chase this up, as she appears to be a friend. No response. At all.
      Perhaps you could give her a go Don?
      She sounds pretty dodgy.

  • Neville says:

    Australia continues to destroy our baseload power supply and the billions $ to be wasted on their so called CAGW mitigation will have no measurable impact on weather or climate by 2100. Why are we doing this when simple maths and science tells us we will score no dividend at all?

    Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
    40 minutes ago

    “The terrible price of global warming hysteria will be felt for a generation:

    Australians are at risk from a dangerous shortfall in baseload power that could drive up household electricity bills, according to a new report to the Turnbull government that comes as more voters turn away from paying higher prices for renewable energy…

    Driving the agenda is advice to government on the planned closure of the Liddell power station in NSW in 2022 and Vales Point in NSW in 2028. Those closures would take 3200 megawatt hours out of the east coast grid, double the capacity lost when Victoria’s Hazelwood power station shut down in April.

    Yet the government remains committed to the same mad ideology that got us here – cuts to emissions that will made zero difference to the climate:

    The government is determined to fix the “dispatchability” issue as well as the “clean energy” demands that come with its stated commitment to meet internat­ional targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Disaster postponed again.

    It was supposed to happen by 2012:,3618027&hl=en

    But now it’s 2040:

    Oh, well!! What’s another couple of decades? I mean, it’s good fun this wearing sandwich boards.

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova looks again at the very high cost of so called mitigation of their so called CAGW. Of course not a scrap of difference to the climate/weather etc by 2100. If most Aussies won’t pay even an extra $10 a month then why do they want to vote for a Shorten Labor govt?

    62% of Australians don’t want to pay even $10 a month for renewables
    “The Money Question trumps

    “Three quarters of Australians may believe climate change is real (so the ABC keeps telling us) but only 13% of Australians are willing to pay $1 a day or more to save the world. Anyone can tick the box “Don’t pick on me, I believe in *Climate$%@$#Change*”. But if people believed it was a threat they wouldn’t balk at paying $100 a year, which is what 62% of Australians did in the latest Newspoll.

    87% of Australians think a dollar a day is too much. But hey, it’s only the planet at stake.
    Newspoll, Sept 2017, Amount willing to pay renewable energy, graph.

    Most Australians don’t want to pay anything more for renewable power.

    The survey is still biased. There was no option to pay “less than zero”. How much are you willing to pay to get rid of renewables?

    The sad thing is that most Australian’s don’t realize they’re already paying so much more.

    For starters, The Australian calculated that the bill for federal renewable subsidies would be $60 billion by 2030. That’s $2500 per Australian. In a house of four, that’s $10k over 20 years or $200 per year. And that’s only the federal subsidies and schemes, it’s not the state schemes, nor the higher cost of electricity. It doesn’t include the cost of losing your job, or the extra money needed to pay bills to cover the rising electricity costs of Coles, Woolworths, Telstra, and every other company that uses electricity to make or store something you want. Someone has to pay for the blackouts, the lost production, and all the diesel generators ready in the sheds across the nation. Meanwhile the local school pays more for electricity, so you pay more in tax or fees, and so on and on for hospitals, movies, insurance, and anything with aluminium or steel in it, on it, or around it.

    The latest Newspoll shows that 45% of Australians understand that renewables make electricity expensive while 24% are confused, and 22% believe that you can store spare electricity in a shoebox under the bed for a rainy day.

    The latest Newspoll survey highlights the community divide on energy, with 45 per cent of voters expecting an increase in their bills from the shift to renewables while 22 per cent anticipate a ­decrease and 24 per cent expect no change. In a warning sign to the government, 60 per cent of ­Coalition voters believe renewables will increase their bills. Only 31 per cent of Labor voters and 31 per cent of Greens voters believe the same.

    We live in a democracy. Let’s hold a plebescite: “Should Australians try to fix the weather in 2100?”

    A new coal-power station would take seven to eight years to build and could face fierce competition from wind and solar by the time it starts generating, given the steady fall in the cost of ­producing renewable energy.

    The only competition coal faces is in fierce subsidies. Renewables are so uncompetitive the government mandates a “fee” of 9c/kWh for those who don’t buy enough — twice the price that wholesale coal power sells out. Tell me again about fierce competition when there are no subsidies.”

  • dlb says:

    For those who think global temperature anomalies are worth looking at, the latest UAH data for the lower atmosphere seem to have levelled off from the last el Nino. It looks like the luke-warmers are on the money with a new step change up of 0.2 deg C from the el Nino, giving a rise of around 0.13 C per decade since 1978. I wonder if it will get a mention at WUWT 🙂

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, dlb, the luke-warming has been bumping along now for over 350 years.

      Has it reached 1c yet?

      • spangled drongo says:

        But we insist on committing suicide over that 1c of nat var:

        Jonathan A. Lesser


        “In 2016, the New York Public Service Commission enacted the Clean Energy Standard (CES), under which 50% of all electricity sold by the state’s utilities must come from renewable generating resources by 2030, and emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) must be reduced by 40%. The CES also incorporates New York’s previous emissions reduction mandate, which requires that the state’s GHG emissions be reduced 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (the “80 by 50” mandate).

        Key Findings

        Given existing technology, the Clean Energy Standard’s 80 by 50 mandate is unrealistic, unobtainable,
        and unaffordable. Attempting to meet the mandate could easily cost New York consumers and businesses
        more than $1 trillion by 2050, while providing scant, if any, measurable benefits….”

  • spangled drongo says:

    AGL is a public energy company formed in Sydney 180 years ago. It was only the second company listed on the Australian stock exchange.

    Now it appears that Skye Laris, partner of Labor’s Tony Burke and now a recently installed senior manager in charge of promoting the energy policy of AGL Energy, Australia’s largest electricity producer, previously worked for activist group GetUp!, which is committed to shutting down the coal-fired power industry:

    Thinks….should I sell my AGL Energy shares or buy more?

  • Chris Warren says:

    According to a recent report, the United Nations says;

    “… up to 37 million people could be affected by Irma, the most powerful Atlantic Ocean hurricane ever.”

    while denialist creeps and slow-learners here pretend it is all “natural variation”.

    Details here:

    • spangled drongo says:

      While alarmist creeps deny history, avoid facts, exaggerate and tell lies to hide their ignorance.

      Fixed it for ya, blith.

    • Brian Austen says:

      It is interesting that not one of those who constantly tell us that CO2 is causing catastrophe ever offer to reduce these emissions by ceasing to breathe.

      When I see real personal responsibility by those spreading alarm I might be more convinced.

    • JimboR says:

      “Climate scientist Jennifer Marohasy” – bit of a stretch isn’t it? She’s looking quite the goose now that her conspiracy theory has been shot down by the independent review panel. Hopefully one of the solutions would be to place a big yellow sticker inside the box… ‘Only use MSI2 cards when maintaining this unit’.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Shooting the messenger again, hey, jimb?

        When in doubt, get the shotgun out.

        That’s the way!

        If you read the article you might notice BoM are not only admitting she is right but are up to their ears in alibis.

      • JimboR says:

        No Drongo, she claimed conspiracy and data fiddling to enhance the warming. Someone once said, when you’re choosing between conspiracy and cock-up, cock-up almost always wins… and that’s exactly what the panel found. She’s cried wolf once too often to be taken seriously.

      • JimboR says:

        Actually, if you think through her position, she was really claiming both. They were smart enough to fiddle the data to make it appear warmer than it was, but not smart enough to pick weather stations that are in any way involved in climate series. It really is silly stuff, and the mugs soak it up.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Jimb thinks being critical of gatekeepers who can be seen by the average person to have a COI is “silly stuff”.

          You don’t possibly think, jimb, that before spending trillions to make no measureable difference to the climate or temperature, that we oughtn’t to put in an auditor to check the data?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Poor ‘ol Yankees, drowning in sea-level rise denial like Canute of old…

    “Sea-level rise has only exacerbated the effects of coastal flooding in South Florida. A University of Miami study released in 2016 found that coastal flooding has accelerated; the flooding coincides with an accelerated rate of sea-level rise in South Florida. The average rate of sea-level rise increased by 3 millimeters a year before 2006, and then jumped to 9 millimeters a year on average after 2006. Over the past decade, that’s about 3.5 inches of sea-level rise.”

    from Scientific America –

    Our denialists are allergic to the word “Scientific”, so this post should have had a health warning just for them, but who cares?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Poor ol’ blith fancies himself as a climate scientist when in fact he is a denier of the first order.

      He knows the east coast of the US is sinking [well, I give him that credit anyway but you can’t be too sure if it’s denial or plain ignorance] but I suspect he prefers to deny that a massive ice sheet, more than a mile thick, grew over what are now Canada and the northern reaches of the United States, the weight of it depressed the crust of the earth. Areas away from the ice sheet bulged upward in response, as though somebody had stepped on one edge of a balloon, causing the other side to pop up. Now that the ice sheet has melted, the ground that was directly beneath it is rising, and the peripheral bulge is falling.

      Some degree of sinking is going on all the way from Maine to Florida, and it manifests itself as an apparent rising of the sea.

      There are parts of the world where sea frontage land is conversely moving upwards giving the reverse result but to asses SLR correctly we need to look at land such as the east coast of Australia where it is not moving vertically such as the Moreton Bay area [even Sydney land is moving somewhat] and it can be seen that sea levels are not doing anything since they dropped about 20cm 50 years ago.

      Using an unstable shoreline to asses SLR is one of blith’s few attempts at dealing with specifics [IOW, by cherry picking] to make his flawed point.

      Try again, blithluv.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Blith’s UNsientific Unamerican article conveniently ignores what the average local with average IQ understands:


    At the Battery, Manhattan, NYC over the period 1960-2010, we found less than zero mm/inches of sea level rise to be attributed to post-1960 AGW. With admittedly rough calculations, it appears that NY City has seen “4 to 6 inches” – 100 to 150 mm — of sea level change over the last 50 years, which is approximately equivalent to “8 inches in 100 years”, but over 3 inches — 85 mm of the relative change — was due to subsidence (land sinking) as a result of GIA. Subtracting the subsidence from the relative rise leaves only 2 inches — 50 mm –of rise attributable to the sea actually getting higher – which is less than the 3.3 inches — 85 mm — which would be expected from long-term pre-AGW (150 year) worldwide positive sea level rise trends, the trend agreed by all not caused by AGW, but attributed to geological causes, usually to the ocean water warming and expanding after the end of the last Ice Age.”

    Those below average, like our blith, prefer sandwich boards.

  • Chris Warren says:

    It is always good to expose the tricks of denialists.

    They even deny well established magazines such as Scientific America. They rewrite science with dogmas that are unsourced so presumably is just junk from denialist websites.

    But they do not understand that Florida is not sinking,

    The area around Hudson Bay is rising, (maroon arrows) the middle of United States is sinking (yellow arrows) and Florida is rising (maroon arrows) or showing minor sinking.

    Why do denialists waffle on about New York to avoid considering actual scientific reports of events in Florida? Just to preach their dogma.

    But notice our denialists, even after confusing New York with Florida, have not realised that vertical movements of the earths crust, up and down, are mostly caused by ice loss – a key symptom of global warming which they then deny.

    So it seems these denialists are schizophrenic. You cannot deny global warming based on vertical changes in the earths crust if these are caused by global warming.

    So when they point to New York they should be shouting – “global warming”.

    More info on the study is here:

    In fact rising and falling crust cannot explain the size of US coastal sea level changes (3 times global mean values). According to science:

    “Regional sea level rise (SLR) acceleration during the past few decades north of Cape Hatteras has commonly been attributed to weakening Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, although this causal link remains debated. In contrast to this pattern, we demonstrate that SLR decelerated north of Cape Hatteras and accelerated south of the Cape to >20 mm/yr, > 3 times the global mean values from 2011 to 2015. Tide gauge records reveal comparable short-lived, rapid SLR accelerations (hot spots) that have occurred repeatedly over ~1500 km stretches of the coastline during the past 95 years, with variable latitudinal position. Our analysis indicates that the cumulative (time-integrated) effects of the North Atlantic Oscillation determine the latitudinal position of these SLR hot spots, while a cumulative El Niño index is associated with their timing. The superposition of these two ocean-atmospheric processes accounts for 87% of the variance in the spatiotemporal pattern of intradecadal sea level oscillations.”

    So the scientific explanation is “hot spots”.

  • Chris Warren says:

    More evidence on how crazy denialist dogma is.

    Here is a chart of land movements compared to sea level rises.

    land movements are much much less than sea level movements.

    You can only spread denialist dogma if you ignore the science.

    A useful paper is here:

    The authors are well aware that other factors such as changing salinity and the “Earth’s response to the last deglaciation,” are also present.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Isn’t it amazing how much “research” the blitherers will go to, to prove their bed-wetting is essential?

      But refuse to put their heads out the window and check the highest astronomical tides regularly.

      But as I keep telling them, it’s never too late.

      How can they claim they even have a clue or are in any way genuine when they prefer questionable science to what they can easily confirm with their own observations?

      If those local sea levels are stable year after year how can the rest of the world be different?

      Even one of the best tide gauges in the world, Fort Dennison, is telling you the situation is not changing.

      Has anyone shown from a benchmark that there is any worrying SLR on the east coast of Australia?

      The Isle of the Dead benchmark in Tasmania shows that over nearly 180 years sea levels have either fallen or gone nowhere.

      The latest mid-winter HAT was slightly below the established AHD 100 king tide level established in the early 1960s.

      There is plenty of undeniable evidence to be had if the blitherers are anything but sandwich board wearers and truly want to find out what’s really happening.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Given that most CO2 increase is in the Northern atmosphere and record cyclones are hitting the USA and massive ice melt is shifting the earth’s crust in North America and that all this points to global warming, our embarrassed denialist starts ranting on about Fort Denison and Tasmania!!!!!

    They don’t like science do they?

    An they still do not have the gumption to provide a source for their original ratbag of false facts.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Hey, blitherpot, meet kettle!

      • Ross says:

        I’m with Drongo on this. Why bother with science, when you can just stick yer head outta windah?
        The worlds awaits your next discovery, Bongo. But don’t be so shy. Put your real name on the cover.

  • Neville says:

    Can Chris and others please tell us how to mitigate their so called CAGW. And please don’t forget to include the 1600 new coal fired power stations being built around the world in your calculations.
    Bolt has also asked another simple question for years and everyone runs for cover and refuse to answer.
    But Dr Finkel admitted at the Senate hearing that our efforts would make no difference to the climate.
    The only rational answer is adaptation, new inventions and technology. That’s where we should be spending our money and forget about clueless energy sources like S&W. So come on tell us what we should do?

    • Chris Warren says:


      I have no clear idea, but the first step, like cigarettes, is to get rid of denialist quacks who cannot use science appropriately.

      When Northern Australia starts to get hit with repeating cat 4 and cat 5 storms it may be too late.

  • Chris Warren says:

    And then there is hurricane Jose yet to come ….

    According to scientists ….

    If Irma hits the U.S. mainland, it will be the first time on record that two hurricanes of category 4 strength or higher have struck the country in one season.

    According to denialists ….

    Natural variability, sunspots, sinking land, El Nino, Atlantic Oscillation, “we don’t know”, “its not clear” etc etc etc ….

    More info at:

    [Warning – science head – Not suitable for denialists]

  • Neville says:

    Dr Judith Curry provides a more sane analysis of Hurricane Irma and Harvey. Let’s hope that the death toll can be kept to a minimum over the next few days.

    • margaret says:

      It can’t be “kept” to a minimum because believe it or not man is not in control.

      • Neville says:

        Sorry Marg but you’re wrong. Deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by 97% since the 1920s.
        Remember Dr Hans Rosling’s video trying to dispel our ignorance that I’ve linked to a number of times? Humans have had more control of their destiny since we started to use fossil fuels.
        We’ve also increased life expectancy by over 40 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The relief that climate disaster provides for the blitherers is tangible now that the drought has broken.

    They were getting so concerned that is was making their religion look foolish that they had to invent alibis:

    “A climatic quirk seems to be slightly shielding the U.S. coast during busy hurricane seasons, often weakening major storms just as they approach America’s beaches, a new study finds. That could help explain why it’s been more than 11 years since a major hurricane with winds of more than 110 mph has hit the United States mainland. […]

    Kossin’s study published Wednesday in the journal Nature found that shifts in air and ocean conditions over decades work together to weaken major storms along the U.S. coast. This protective barrier begins around the U.S.-Mexico border in Brownsville, Texas, and gets more noticeable around the Atlantic coast, Kossin said.”

    Ain’t cli-sci wunnerful?

    You can fake it to make it tell you anything you like.

    What does it remind you of?

  • Neville says:

    Andy May has a look at the HAD CRU data and finds many problems with the 1880 to 1950 period. Trying to find an accurate global temp change over the last 167 years using these data- sets is indeed a big problem. Maths prof Mike Jonas has tried and has come to the same conclusion.

    I’ll link again to Dr Rosling’s video trying to dispel our ignorance about the world we live in. The first 5 minutes is very informative and just confirms that most people don’t understand the huge changes humans have made to make us healthier and wealthier over a relatively short period of time.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks, Neville. Andy May makes a very appropriate comment:

      “Mike Jonas and Greg, I agree with you. It is unfortunate, but once you start pulling a single thread from the clothing called “CAGW” you find yourself naked in no time. Nothing survives a close inspection.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Like most of cli-sci, this is untestable but that’s how the whinniers want it:

    “Bill Nye said, “It’s the strength that is almost certainly associated with global warming.”

    Perhaps then he’d like to explain why the U.S. went 12 years between major hurricane strikes? Was that also the result of climate change, or is it more accurately described as a cyclical outcome? As the Cato Institute’s Ross McKitrick writes in the Washington Examiner, the climate-link rhetoric unscrupulously allows scientists to have their cake and eat it too. “The climate alarmists offer a vague prediction: Hurricanes may or may not happen in any particular year, but when they do, they will be more intense than they would have been if GHG [greenhouse gas] levels were lower,” McKitrick notes. “This is a convenient prediction to make because we can never test it. It requires observing the behaviour of imaginary storms in an unobservable world. Good luck collecting the data.”

    Importantly, McKitrick adds, “Science needs to be concerned not only with conspicuous things that happened, but with things that conspicuously didn’t happen. Like the famous dog in the Sherlock Holmes story, the bark that doesn’t happen can be the most important of all.” In the days ahead, there will be heart-wrenching stories as Irma traverses the lower East Coast. But keep in mind, “You’re also talking about 2 of the most flood-prone cities in the U.S. — Miami & Charleston,” observes meteorologist Eric Fisher. “Both flood during full moons let alone storms.” Hurricanes, like any other weather event, require context.”

    • Chris Warren says:

      Denialist liars ask:

      “why the U.S. went 12 years between major hurricane strikes? ”

      Scientists say there was a major hurricane strike 5 years ago that resulted in:

      Damage in the United States was over $70 billion (2013 USD). [Cyclone Sandy]

      There was another in 2011 – the eighth-costliest hurricane in United States history. [Cyclone Irene].

      How’s this for ignorant stupidity from the drongo….

      “…“Both flood during full moons “.

      Only lunatics bark at full moons – and drongos, so it would seem.

      • Neville says:

        Chris Sandy was a CAT 1 at landfall, but it was a very big storm that caused a lot of damage.

      • spangled drongo says:

        And blith, luv, Irene was downgraded to a Category 1 hurricane before making landfall on the Outer Banks of North Carolina on August 27.

        Since when did repair costs have anything to do with ACE?

        If you insist on blithering, do get your ducks in line first.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Both flood during full moons”.

        Can’t read or understand, hey blith?

        It said, “meteorologist Eric Fisher”.

        Moons have been known to influence tides, blith.

        You should check it sometime. There are many places in our cities and suburbs that regularly do likewise.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Let facts speak for once …

    Any cyclone causing $ billions and $ billions of damage is a major cyclone.

    Why switch attention to category – this is a denialist trick.

    There is no point being concerned about cyclones if they do no damage. Damage is the key issue.

    Maybe you would like to cherry-pick some other measure next time.

    Good luck comparing cyclones to full moons.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Isn’t it amazing how the fake news and blitherers can switch their “science” 180 degrees at a moments notice. But then only the stupids could blame everything on climate change:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Some interesting history of past weather and “adjustments” thereto:

    And the blitherers wonder why rational people are a little sceptical. Oh, dear!

  • spangled drongo says:

    Remember when the doomsters were bleating: Climate change could shrink chocolate production.

    Well now:

    It speaks ever more volumes about the bleaters’ and bed wetters’ religious cli-sci.

  • Neville says:

    Chris I think I’ll give you away as a lost cause. You seem to want to have a lend of yourself at every opportunity.
    BTW this video link from the IPA’s launch of “Climate Change the Facts 2017” is very interesting and Dr Marohasy, Prof Ridd and Maurice Newman engage with us in a no nonsense way that is very refreshing compared to some other so called scientists I could mention.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, you’re much more generous than I.

      Going to that trouble to explain the facts to our blith.

      Poor ol’ blith is really convinced that insurance costs are the measure of ACE.

      But of course as usual, doesn’t supply any evidence.

      And he thinks that a non hurricane and a Cat 1 hurricane are the equivalent ACE to two Cat 3s.

      You don’t have to be silly to be a blitherer.

      But it helps.

  • Chris Warren says:


    The question is still open for a serious answer?

    Why switch the measure to category when:

    – Damage in the United States was over $70 billion (2013 USD). [Cyclone Sandy]

    – There was another in 2011 – the eighth-costliest hurricane in United States history. [Cyclone Irene].

    I know both you and the drongo are now flooding the airwaves with all manner of extra diversionary stuff, and crude comments, but I am ignoring all this noise – please no more.

    Maybe just agree that Sandy and Irene were major hurricane strikes on the US and let drongo wander off in its own stupor.

    Surely most people would regard Sandy and Irene as major hurricane strikes ????

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Why switch the measure to category…”

      Nobody’s switching anything, blith, except you.

      Cat 3 is the measure they use for “severe tropical cyclones”.

      Not how much damage is caused because a left-over storm surge from one may arrive in a more vulnerable part of the country.


      If you will insist on blithering, blith, don’t act surprised and hurt if you get a crude comment.

      You like to dish it out but you can’t take it.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Now our drongo creates even more distraction and switches yet again.

        No-one has mentioned “severe tropical cyclones”.

        And a cat 3 cyclone is certainly a severe cyclone and the damage could well be higher than lesser hurricanes depending on the urban centres it impacts.

        Maybe our denialists should have said there has not been a US landfall hurricanes over CAT 2 for 12 years and provide the evidence which is here:

        There were 7 over 2004 and 2005.

        But of course landfall cyclones are only a subset of all regional cyclones.

        A drop in cyclones, which is what the 12 year gap may indicate, is an expected feature of climate change according to science.

        According to one scientist looking at long-term trends…

        “… between 1960 and 1970 there was a dramatic decline in tropical cyclones activity in Australia; that cyclone activity is today at its lowest in 1500 years, and cyclone activity is cyclical.
        Nott says the research does not reveal why the drop in cyclone activity is occurring, however global modelling predicts cyclone activity will decline as a result of climate change.
        He says the models say this dramatic decline should happen closer to the end of this century. However their data indicates this pattern is occurring earlier than expected.
        While a drop in cyclone activity is to be welcomed, the models do show those cyclones that occur will be more severe in intensity, Nott warns.”

        So is this what we are seeing in August-September 2017?

        Could it be that yet again that denialists do not realise that a pause indicates global warming?

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Could it be that yet again that denialists do not realise that a pause indicates global warming?”

          Well, why not, blith?

          To the blithering alarmists, EVERYTHING indicates global warming.

          In spite of the reduction in cyclones here, between ’60 and ’70, there were a lot more cyclones and houses washed away at that time than has happened in the last 40 years.

          When you spend many nights during that period trying to prevent it happening by sandbagging and pushing car bodies in between houses and ocean at the height of the cyclone, you have a feel for these things.

          Nothing like that has occurred since that time, ie before the bed-wetters started screaming CAGW [at that time it was ice ages returning] and when it returns you will be screaming louder than ever.

          But that how it is with sandwich board wearers, hey blith?

          It’s so easy to change the wording.

          But the screams go on for ever.

  • Neville says:

    Hurricane expert Dr Philip Klotzbach lists the worst storms in US history.

    And Michael Mann is telling porkies AGAIN and as usual drawing the wrong conclusions. Are these people just blatantly dishonest or just pig ignorant? Unfortunately there are plenty of donkeys who will believe them.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Poor ‘ol Klotzbach

      I think he may have to revise his understanding.

      He claimed that there was only 1.3% probability of:

      “1 or More Intense Hurricanes Making Landfall in the County” for the county of Collier.

      Notice how he doesn’t define “Intense” but lets just assume a Cat 3 is “intense”.


      Klotzbach does not give any source of his data. He reports Harvey windspeed as 115 kts (132 mph) which can be termed “intense”.

      So is there any year in US history when two category 4 hurricanes have hit the mainland and unleashed catastrophe? As far as I can see when there have been more than one in a season they have always been much weaker.

      Klotzbach, teamed-up with Dr William Grey, is a fellow-traveller of the Heartland denialist camp which explains his confusion over probabilities and why such stuff appears on the WUWT denialist website and then, uncritically, copied here.

      And those who post such nonsense try to tag others as “donkey’s”, “pig ignorant” etc. But they are the ones hee-hawing out false facts and spreading swill.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Here is the prediction by Dr Philip Klotzbach and Michael Bell for 2017.


    We anticipate that the 2017 Atlantic basin hurricane season will have
    slightly below average activity.

    The current neutral ENSO is likely to transit in to either weak or moderate
    El Niño conditions by the peak of the Atlantic hurricane season.

    The tropical Atlantic has anomalously cooled over the past month and
    the far North Atlantic is relatively cold, potentially indicative of a negative
    phase of the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation.

    We anticipate a below average probability for major hurricanes making
    landfall along the United States coastline and in the Caribbean.

    As is the case with all hurricane seasons, coastal residents are reminded
    that it only takes one hurricane making landfall to make it an active season
    for them. They should prepare the same for every season, regardless of how
    much activity is predicted.”

    How could they get it so wrong? – they forgot to take into account the effects of global warming.

    Klotzbach is the last person to be cited in any honest attempt to understand recent changes in US hurricane catastophes.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “– they forgot to take into account the effects of global warming.”

      Is that the 12 year “pause” blith, or the return to normal that you are referring to?

      Which sandwich boards are you wearing at the moment?

      Do you find that you have to take those boards off to change your undies as you must have to do on a regular basis?

  • spangled drongo says:

    In The Times, Matt Ridley asks the two logical questions that the bleaters blither and bed-wet over:

    “As Hurricane Irma batters Florida, with Anguilla, Barbuda and Cuba clearing up and Houston drying out after Harvey, it is reasonable to ask whether such tropical cyclones are getting more frequent or fiercer.”

    “As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put it recently: “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.” The trend in numbers of major hurricanes making landfall in the United States has been slightly downward over the past century. Harvey and Irma have ended an unprecedented 12-year hurricane drought, in which not a single category 4 or 5 hurricane made American landfall. So whatever global warming is doing or will do, it is not so far increasing the frequency of such storms.”

    But as to whether they are more extreme:

    “But how much of this is down to better measurement? We will never know exactly how ferocious the winds of the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 were, or the great Barbados hurricane of 1780. An analysis published last month by the American government’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory stated: “It is premature to conclude that human activities, and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”

  • Ross says:

    Jennifer Marohasy. Why the censoring of anything about the esteemed Dr and her claims, Don?
    You. Jo Nova. Jennifer herself!
    I sense a conspiracy of silence. But why?

  • Ross says:

    Jennifer Marohasy. Why the censoring of anything about the esteemed Dr and her claims, Don?
    You. Jo Nova. Jennifer herself!
    I sense a conspiracy of silence. But why?

  • spangled drongo says:

    You don’t have to wonder where the truth really lies:

    “Mick Jagger and Oprah Winfrey reportedly had dodged the worst of Irma’s fury. But Robert De Niro vowed to push ahead with ­development of a $250 million luxury resort he is building with James Packer on the eastern ­Caribbean island of Barbuda.

    Barbuda was smashed by Irma and still faces a direct hit by Hurricane Jose, which is following ­immediately behind.”

    But Hollywood has it sussed:

    “Oscar-winning actor Jennifer Lawrence said Harvey and Irma were signs of “Mother Nature’s rage and wrath” at the US for electing Trump to the presidency and not believing in man-made climate change.

    The Tim Flannery-backed Climate Council declared: “Fingerprints of climate change all over Tropical Storm Harvey.”

    But one problem with the Climate Council analysis is that Irma ­developed into a major hurricane over relatively cool waters in the Atlantic. Surface temperatures where the hurricane formed were 26.5C, about two degrees below what is considered necessary to build a major hurricane, climate scientist Judith Curry said.

    “So why did Irma develop into a major hurricane?” Curry asked. “We can’t blame 26.5C temperatures in the mid-Atlantic on global warming.”

    But is this the rational new NOAA under Trump?:

    “Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations ­between SST (sea surface temperatures) and Atlantic hurricane ­activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity — and particularly greenhouse warming — has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    It seems Irma is a pussycat.

    Modern technology now can extract some part of any cyclone where winds are high and classify it accordingly to satisfy the wannabe bedwetters such as media and alarmists but it will make people all the more sceptical of the alarmist, wolf-crying BS:

  • Neville says:

    Irma was unusual because it formed in cooler Atlantic waters and even fooled experienced hurricane experts. In fact the water was about 2 c cooler than the normal requirements for major hurricane formation.
    But the so called scientists ( and others) who claimed that this was a sign of their so called CAGW now have egg all over their collective faces. Thankfully the deaths from such a severe hurricane were very low across its path.
    Here’s Jo Nova’s coverage of this latest natural disaster.

    Hurricane Irma formed over cooler water, 7th worst, but Climate Druids see fingerprints, tea leaves, crystals everywhere
    Hurricanes, forecast, climate change, climate druids, photo, art.
    Hurricane Irma is a big bad storm, like other big bad storms. Six awkward facts:

    It’s only the 7th most intense at landfall in US history.
    It formed over water that was two degrees cooler than normal,
    1893, 1933, 1950, 1995, and 2005 had more Accumulated Cyclone Energy by Sept 10.
    In 1933 two hurricanes hit the US in just 24 hours
    In 1893, 1909, 2004 there were three Cat 3+ landfalls in US (blame climate change).
    NOAA itself says there’s no evidence anyone can detect that greenhouse gas emissions have an effect on hurricanes.

    Not to be stopped by a lack of any scientific connection, climate druids are out in force finding fingerprints in every storm. Like all the great witchdoctors of history, Big Storms are a chance to pump fear and sell their services.
    Tim Flannery is up with other great scientists like actress Jennifer Lawrence:

    Graham Lloyd, The Australian:

    Oscar-winning actor Jennifer Lawrence said Harvey and Irma were signs of “Mother Nature’s rage and wrath” at the US for electing Trump to the presidency and not believing in man-made climate change.

    The Tim Flannery-backed Climate Council declared: “Fingerprints of climate change all over Tropical Storm Harvey.”

    Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie issued a statement to claim climate change was driving and influencing extreme weather events around the globe. “Climate change is now supercharging extreme weather events including storms, bushfires, heavy rainfall and floods,” she said. “This is occurring in a more ­energetic climate system, that’s warmer and loaded up with more moisture than ever before.” McKenzie said Harvey was a “window into our future”.
    Let’s not forget Michael Mann and “Irma and Harvey should kills any doubt that climate change is real”

    “Hurricanes get their energy from warm ocean waters, and the oceans are warming because of the human-caused buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, primarily from the burning of coal, oil and gas. The strongest hurricanes have gotten stronger because of global warming. “
    Irma formed over water that was only 26.5C, fully 2 degrees below the normal threshold

    Judith Curry: “In a matter of a few hours, Irma became a major hurricane. The surprising thing about this development into a major hurricane was that it developed over relatively cool waters in the Atlantic – 26.5C — the rule of thumb is 28.5C for a major hurricane (and that threshold has been inching higher in recent years).

    We can’t blame 26.5 C temperatures in the mid Atlantic on global warming.

    The dynamical situation for Irma was unusually favorable. In particular, the wind shear was very weak.”
    NOAA: There is no evidence that there is a human influence on hurricanes.

    The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab at NOAA on August 30th 2017:

    It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

    The NOAA team go on to say that maybe by the end of the 21st century man-made climate change will make cyclones 2 -11% more intense. The odds are “likely” or “greater than 66%” as defined by the IPCC, and calculated by climate models that have exaggerated every effect so far in the last 30 years. So, not a wild increase, not spooky, and odds are only “better than even” (yes, they use that phrase).
    Hurricane expert Phil Klotzbach: #Irma at landfall comes in 7th behind 1935 Labor Day storm

    Some interesting facts about Hurricanes from Phil Klotzbach:

    #Irma has now generated enough Accum. Cyclone Energy by itself to meet the NOAA ACE definition of an average full Atlantic hurricane season
    #Irma‘s 2nd landfall, on Marco Island, is same lat-lon given for Wilma’s landfall in 2005: 25.9°N, 81.7°W. Both also Cat. 3s at landfall
    In only 5 years has the Atlantic generated more Accumulated Cyclone Energy by Sep. 10 than in 2017: 1893, 1933, 1950, 1995 & 2005.
    Major hurricanes making US landfall 23 hours apart in 1933 did so in Jupiter, FL and Brownsville, TX.
    While 2017 is 1st time with 2 Cat. 4+ US landfalls, US had 4 Cat 3+ hurricane landfalls in 2005 & 3 Cat 3+ landfalls in 1893, 1909, 2004
    Table of all hurricanes with landfall pressures <= 940 mb at time of U.S. landfall. #Irma was 929 mb and #Harvey was 938 mb.
    Hurricane Strength, 2017, Irma, Harvey, table, chart.

    h/t WattsUp.

    I’d bet that Al Gore already has shots of Irma in his Climate-Porn File, but no one would bet against me.

  • Chris Warren says:


    When people start generating labels such as “Climate Druids see fingerprints, tea leaves, crystals … climate-porn “, this means that you are unsure of your own argument. You are seeking to bolster it with foul language. I take it that “climate-porn” is your own foul mouth.

    Also, as these concepts come to your mind so easily, perhaps there is a Freudian slip in that deep down you fear such tea-leaves and crystals, are in fact your own traditions.

    It is easy to show denialists grasping on sun cycles, and changes in salinity, to supposedly explain climate change. This is the real evidence of tea leaves and crystals. Lower down life forms even blame the moon.

    The current behaviour of cyclones may or may not demonstrate impact of global warming. Cyclones are created by massive widespread forces and global warming so far may not be sufficient to exert any measurable effect.

    However without global warming, cyclone Irma may have been the 8th or 9th strongest landfaller in US history.

    However without global warming additional energy, the cool waters may have produced a lower category system.

    Without global warming the repeated strikes on the US may have been cat 2 or 3 as in the past. The newest events of cat 4, from cool water, suggest a new factor is at play.

    The pattern of cyclones does not demonstrate global warming. Global warming is demonstrated by warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere and the warming trends of rise – pause – rise – pause etc. observable in several series. It is corroborated by global ice loss and a persistent slight rise in sea levels which, so far, can only be explained by temperature increases.

    You cannot make progress in all this by simply regurgitating stuff from denialist websites and from those following the Heartland agenda.

    • Neville says:

      Gee Chris I don’t think sceptics are the group who exaggerate and forever tell porkies and fibs to suit their biased agenda.
      I’m more than happy to quote Dr Curry and her business group if you like because she now operates in the private sector and lives or dies in the business of forecasting over short and long periods of time.
      IOW she either does a reasonable job or she will lose clients to other businesses. BTW so far only one life has been lost in the US and I think about 60 in the Caribbean, but in 1900 6,000 to 12,000 died from the Hurricane that struck Galveston Texas. We are very fortunate indeed to live in the 21 st century.

      • Chris Warren says:


        The fortunate ones living in the 21st century are mostly those in developed countries and even these are living well today by deliberately making conditioins worse for those who will live in the 22nd century.

        • Neville says:

          Once again Chris you are wrong. Humans will be much wealthier in the future than we are today. Here’s an opening statement from Matt Ridley during a Munk debate in 2015. He lists a number of issues about human well being and how it has changed in our lifetime and he also looks at the well being of our planet.

          He is an expert on species, extinctions etc and poor countries today are becoming much wealthier at a faster rate than at any time in history. China is a good example and wealth, health and life expectancy etc has boomed over the last half century due to record industrialisation and the use of fossil fuels.

          “Humanity’s best days lie ahead

          Home >
          Blog >
          Munk debate

          Published on: Sunday, 08 November, 2015

          Munk Debate, Toronto, 6 November 2105

          “I took part in a Munk debate on 6 November, in which Steven Pinker and I argued that “humanity’s best days lie ahead” while Malcolm Gladwell and Alain de Botton argued against us. It was entertaining and we shifted the audience our way a little, although three-quarters were on our side at the start (which is probably not representative of the population as a whole).

          Here’s a video of the debate:

          Here’s the text of my opening statement:

          Woody Allen once said: “More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

          That’s the way pretty well everybody talks about the future. When I was young the future was grim. The population explosion was unstoppable, famine was inevitable, pesticides were giving us cancer, the deserts were advancing, the oil was running out, the rain forests were doomed, acid rain, bird flu, and the hole in the ozone layer were going to make us sick, my sperm count was on the way down, and a nuclear winter would finish us off.

          You think I am exaggerating. He’s what a best-selling book by the economist Robert Heilbroner concluded in the year I left school: “The outlook for man, I believe, is painful, difficult, perhaps desperate, and the hope that can be held out for his future prospects seem to be very slim indeed.”

          It was only a decade later that it dawned on me that every one of these threats had either been a false alarm or had been greatly exaggerated. The dreadful future was not as bad as the grown-ups had told me. Life just keeps on getting better and better for the vast majority of people.

          Human lifespan has been growing at about five hours a day for 50 years.

          The greatest measure of misery anybody can think of – child mortality – has gone down by two thirds in that time.

          Malaria mortality has fallen by an amazing 60% in 15 years.

          Oil spills in the ocean are down by 90% since the 1970s.

          An object the size of a slice of bread lets you send letters, have conversations, watch movies, find your way around, take pictures, and tell hundreds of people what you had for breakfast.

          And what’s getting worse? Traffic, obesity? Problems of abundance, note.

          Here’s a funny thing. Most improvements are gradual so they don’t make the news. Bad news tends to come suddenly. Falling airliners always make the news; falling child mortality doesn’t.

          As Steve says, every year the average person on the planet grows wealthier, healthier, happier, cleverer, cleaner, kinder, freer, safer, more peaceful and more equal.

          More equal?

          Yes, global inequality is on the way down. Fast. Why? because people in poor countries are getting rich faster than people in rich countries.

          Africa is experiencing an astonishing miracle these days, a bit like Asia did a decade ago. Mozambique is 60% richer per capita than it was in 2008. Ethiopia’s economy’s growing at 10% a year.

          The world economy has shrunk in only one year since the second world war – in 2009 when it dipped by less than 1% before growing by 5% the next year. If anything the march of prosperity is speeding up.

          But my optimism isn’t just based on extrapolating the past. It’s based on WHY these things are happening.

          Innovation, driven by the meeting and mating of ideas to produce baby ideas is the fuel that drives them.

          And far from running out of fuel, we’re only just getting started. There’s an infinity of ways of recombining ideas to make new ideas.

          And we no longer have to rely on North Americans and Europeans to come up with them.

          The internet has speeded up the rate at which ideas have sex.

          Take vaping. In my country there are now more than 3m people who’ve given up smoking because of e-cigarettes. It’s proving to be the best aid to quitting we’ve ever come up with.

          It’s as safe as coffee.

          And it was invented in China, by a man named Hon Lik, who combined a bit of chemistry with a bit of electronics.

          OK, but isn’t all this progress coming at the expense of the environment? Well no, often the reverse. Many environmental indicators are improving in many countries: more forest, more wildlife, cleaner air, cleaner water.

          Even the extinction rate’s down compared with 100 years ago, for the creatures we know about, birds and mammals, thanks to the efforts of conservationists.

          And the richer countries are, the more likely their environment’s improving – the biggest environmental problems are in poor countries.

          But what about population? The population growth rate’s halved in my lifetime from 2% to 1% and the birth rate’s plummeting in Africa today. The world population quadrupled in the 20th century but it’s not even going to double in this century, and the UN thinks it will stop growing altogether by the 2080s.

          Not because of war, pestilence and famine, as gloomy old Parson Malthus feared, but because of prosperity, education and health.

          There’s a simple and beautiful fact about demography. When more children survive, people plan smaller families.

          With slowing population growth and expanding farm yields, it’s getting easier and easier to feed the world.

          Today it takes 68% less land to grow the same amount of food as 50 years ago. That means more land for nature.

          In theory, you can feed the world from a hydroponic farm the size of Ontario and keep the rest as a nature reserve.

          And the planet’s getting greener. Satellites have recorded 14% more green vegetation today than 30 years ago, especially in arid areas like the Sahel region of Africa.

          But am I like the man who falls out of the skyscraper and as he passes the second floor, shouts “so far so good”? I don’t think so.

          You’ll probably hear the phrase “turning point” in this debate. You’ll be told this generation is the one that’s going to be worse off than its parents, that it’s going to die younger, or see sudden deterioration in its environment.

          Well, let me tell you about turning points. Every generation thinks it stands at a turning point, that the past is fine but the future’s bleak. As Lord Macaulay put it, “in every age everybody knows that up to his own time, progressive improvement has been taking place; nobody seems to reckon on any improvement in the next generation. We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who say society has reached a turning point – that we have seen our best days. But so said all who came before us and with just as much apparent reason.”

          We filter the past for happy memories and filter the future for gloomy prognoses.

          It’s a strange form of narcissism. We have to believe that our generation’s the special one, the one where the turning point comes. And it’s nonsense.”

          Macaulay again:

          “On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?”
          By: Matt Ridley

        • spangled drongo says:

          Well, blith, I already have a zero to minus emission CO2 budget.

          How about you?

          Or is this just more blitherpot and kettle hypocrisy?

          Show us your real virtue, blith.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Neville, when the blitherers would much rather base their cli-fi on models that tell them how many angels can dance on the head of a pin than go outside and make accurate observations and/or study historical data we know we are dealing with ideology, religion, doom prediction and all the indulgences that those addictions bring forth.

        To them, people like Judith Curry who supply them with a reality check are always PNG.

        • Neville says:

          Yes SD I think you’re on the money. See my response to Chris quoting Ridley’s check list of improvements since the 1950s and beyond.
          And poor countries are becoming wealthier at a faster rate, see China, india etc. But I suspect you know all this anyway, but it’s still an impressive list to think about.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Neville, new paper by Morner on SLR. True figure zero to 1mm/y.

            Satellites manipulated? Who’d ‘a’ thought?

            Sea Level Manipulation
            1(Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden)
            Corresponding Author: Nils-AxelMörner
            Abstract: Sea level changes is a key issue in the global warming scenario. It has been widely claimed that sea
            is rising as a function of the late 20th’s warming pulse. Global tide gauge data sets may vary between +1.7
            mm/yr to +0.25 mm/yr depending upon the choice of stations. At numerous individual sites, available tide
            gauges show variability around a stable zero level. Coastal morphology is a sharp tool in defining ongoing
            changes in sea level. A general stability has been defined in sites like the Maldives, Goa, Bangladesh and Fiji.
            In contrast to all those observations, satellite altimetry claim there is a global mean rise in sea level of about
            3.0 mm/yr. In this paper, it is claimed that the satellite altimetry values have been “manipulated”. In this
            situation, it is recommended that we return to the observational facts, which provides global sea level records
            varying between ±0.0 and +1.0 mm/yr; i.e. values that pose no problems in coastal protection.
            Keywords: Manipulation, observational facts, satellite altimetry, sea level change, tide gauges
            —————————————————————————————————————————– ———-
            Date of Submission: 26-07-2017 Date of acceptance: 05-08-2017
            —————————————————————————————————————————– ———-


  • BoyfromTottenham says:

    I recently read a dystopian novel by US author Lionel Shriver, entitled ‘The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047′ which imagines the breakdown of civil society in a future, bankrupt USA. Warning – it isn’t pretty reading. Then I remembered the famous 1938 US radio broadcast on Halloween by actor Orson Welles, of H.G. Wells’ science fiction novel ‘The War of the Worlds’ that caused widespread panic until people realised it was fiction, rather than a news broadcast.
    Given the current chaotic energy policy in Australia, maybe someone should produce a movie or TV series imagining what life would be like in Australia in the next decade or so if the government allows our currently reliable and reasonably affordable power network to slowly disintegrate, in the vain belief that we can seamlessly switch to powering the nation from insufficient and intermittent wind and solar ‘renewable’ sources.
    Imagine the number of manufacturing businesses that would be forced to close, throwing hundreds of thousands out of work. Image massive losses and disruption as refrigerated and frozen food, medicines and blood stocks get spoilt by irregular power supplies. Imagine thousands of high-rise buildings becoming uninhabitable because of lift and air-conditioning outages, throwing even more out of work. Imagine the traffic hazard as traffic and level-crossing lights fail at random, and the ensuing deaths and injuries. Imagine the chaos as electric passenger trains stop and start unexpectedly, causing further traffic chaos. I could go on, but you get the idea. Great dystopian cinema!
    Would this be an effective way to allow voters and taxpayers to understand what a crazy energy policy our ‘virtue signalling’ politicians have saddled us with, and how disastrous will be the consequences if it is not reversed? I would personally be happy to cough up at least $100 to crowdfund such a venture – IMO it would be a great investment on behalf of my children and grandchildren.

    • Ross says:

      Change can be scarey, boyfromtot. But your ‘war of the worlds’ scenario is just as smidge….hysterical.
      The very thing that makes Don Aitkin cross.
      But I’ll ‘mark your words’. Just in case.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes BfT, and add to that the virtue signalling of govts making car manufacturers switch to 100% electric by 2040!!!

      With slow, expensive and unreliable power we will all have to have 2 cars each. One on the road and one on the charger.

      The only trouble is we won’t be able to afford even one.

      With all the back-up generators required we won’t save an ounce of emissions, let alone reduce temperatures, but won’t we all feel thoroughly virtuous!!

      • BoyfromTottenham says:

        Spangled, you are being way too literal. Don’t confuse science with warmism, don’t confuse government public statements (especially China’s) with their intentions. And BTW your ‘2 cars’ comment reminded me of a spoof ad in a newspaper many years ago offering a special deal on Jaguar cars – get a discount for buying 2, so at least one of them would be running when needed. Unfortunately neither global warming nor electric cars are a spoof, just a con.

  • Neville says:

    This 2010 EU report claims that biofuels produce much higher emissions of co2 than fossil fuels.

    Using the IEA EU data we find that total world energy generated from fossil fuels is 81.1% and if you add in biofuels+ waste you have a total of 91.4%. And we know that energy from S&W is less than 1% of TOTAL world energy and may increase to about 2.5% by 2040. Certainly none of these numbers add up to any change for climate/temp or anything else by that date or by 2100. So why we so stupid and closing down our reliable coal fired plants in OZ while 1600 new Coal plants are being built around the world? Here’s the IEA data.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, how can an intelligent society allow itself to be brainwashed and bullied into such stupidity?

      If only the “educated” were smart enough to get the obvious message or even listen to and partake in rational debate.

      A new paper on correlation of regional warming with global emissions:

      “These results taken together do not support the claim that the observed warming in surface temperatures worldwide since the Industrial Revolution is driven by fossil fuel emissions or that the rate of warming can be attenuated by reducing fossil fuel emissions.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Blith has gone very quiet on those hurricanes. Don’t tell me he is letting a good crisis go to waste.

    Not wavering in the cause, are you, blith?

    But any’ow, here are a couple of points for his much needed education:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Keith Windschuttle nails aboriginal recognition in the constitution:

  • Neville says:

    Andrew Bolt, Judith Sloane and Janet Albrechtsen tell the truth about our crazy energy policies. Of course if Shorten wins power everything will quickly deteriorate even further and faster.
    Can’t these fools add up simple sums?


    Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun

    September 13, 2017 7:48am

    The Essential Report poll should shock the Turnbull Government out of its fantasy that it’s winning on electricity prices by being not quite as bad as Labor: “28% think that a Labor Government would be more likely to deliver lower energy prices and 19% think a Coalition Government would deliver lower prices.”

    That’s a hell of a failure to convince.


    And if the Liberals don’t harden up fast they will keep losing on what should be the issue that wins it re-election:

    Judith Sloan:

    The Turnbull government would be completely bonkers to commit to a clean energy target. Such an intervention is simply a dressed-up version of the renewable ­energy target that has so distorted our electricity system that all we can now purchase is high-priced, unreliable power.

    Don’t believe all the drivel about a CET allowing clean coal or gas. It is much less about the benchmark that is set — CO2 per megawatt hour — than about the emissions reduction target.

    Under the Finkel model, we will move from 22 per cent renew­ables in 2020 to 42 per cent in 2030. Virtually all new investment will be in unreliable ­renewables…

    It’s critical the CET is put in the Not For Implementation file.

    Janet Albrechtsen:

    Australia’s competitive advantage as a country with cheap, reliable energy has been sacrificed…

    Labor and the Coalition have allowed the politics of ­climate change to distort sensible energy policy. The only difference between the two major parties is one of degree, with Labor pushing a higher renewable energy target than the Coalition. In both cases, the climate tail is wagging the energy dog, with RETs and subsidies rendering investment in coal unviable, leading to gaps in baseload power, grid instability, blackouts and that insufferably high power bill on your kitchen bench. If renewables made economic sense without subsidies, the industry would thrive without an RET and without driving up energy ­prices. It’s hard to imagine a policy more certain to kill jobs and industry and drive investment offshore.

    As an election strategy, “Blackout Bill” becomes a potent political weapon but only if the Turnbull government can admit that higher electricity prices are driven by twin policy demons: the RET and renewables subsidies. It will take some political and policy courage to walk away from both.

    Here is the problem – spelled out in a media release from Malcolm Turnbull on March 23, 2016:

    Clean energy is central to the Government’s strategy to address climate change and meet our emissions reduction targets.

    We are committed to supporting the development, demonstration and deployment of renewable technologies – which will help transition Australia’s energy sector to low emissions over the course of the century.

    Reader Peter of Bellevue Hill warns:

    AB, it will also require the will and the credibility to change energy policy. As someone who built his political career on a love of green energy and carbon pricing, Turnbull has neither.

    For the policy to change the leadership must change.
    Speaking of Tony Abbott:

    Tony Abbott has claimed the Turnbull government’s Snowy Hydro 2.0 plan would not be enough to replace the loss of electricity supply from the closure of the Hazelwood coal-fired power station in Victoria.

    The former prime minister said the government would inevitably have to fund the construction of new clean coal power stations.

    Mr Abbott’s comments follow an address to the Coalition party room in which he urged that plans to adopt a Clean Energy Target be abandoned.

    “We’ve got enough renewable energy in the system already … arguably we have too much,” Mr Abbott told The Australian.

    “We are already slated under the RET to effectively double the amount of wind power in three years. We would be better off saying no more subsidised renewables … to graft a CET on of the RET is deeply problematic.”

    (Thanks to readers Peter of Bellevue Hill and Clinton.)

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, the world is mad, save thee, me, Cory and the conservatives:

      “It’s been a chaotic couple of days in the Senate and there’s no sign of that changing this week!

      The usual argy-bargy over procedure and process continues but it is the legislative agenda that is worthy of comment. Specifically there are two bills that have failed the common sense test.

      The first of these is about ‘protections’ to make hurt feelings an offence during the debate on redefining marriage. This was rushed into the senate this morning and within hours passed with little critical examination – but with plenty of emotional and self-serving stories over how nasty the debate has been. Unlike most, I chose to question the government over some contents of the bill and frankly wasn’t satisfied with the answers.

      Firstly, it overturns the people’s right to access the legal system by requiring their complaint to be first approved by the Attorney-General, who coincidentally is a cheerleader for the rainbow brigade. Secondly, the Minister was unable to explain whether it would be an offence to share (via social media) pre-existing and previously published images, videos or other material that doesn’t comply with the new rules.

      This could potentially impact millions of people and so I have been forced to write to him seeking an answer. As ill-considered as the bill was, the passage of an earlier bill should really ring alarm bells.

      In their perceived wisdom, the government have sought to comply with their international climate change agreements by making some common household items more expensive. Right now, they have targeted the leaf blower, weed-whacker, lawnmower and outboard motor with expensive new emissions standards. It’s a kind of carbon tax that can be extended to any motorised device at the whim of a Minister.

      That means a Minister can apply the new carbon tax onto your chainsaw, motorbike, generator, car or tractor at any time. I’d suggest the new rules are only just the beginning … and there is next to nothing we can do about it. Should that occur, it has been estimated that the cost of an average new car would rise by around $5,000. That’s the real price of this stealth carbon tax imposed by green zealots, to worship at the altar of global warming.

      Whilst we see foolish things all the time, given how much hot air and political capital that has been expended on the carbon tax over the years, it is amazing that this passed the parliament with virtually no objection. Labor, Liberal, Greens, National and One Nation parties all stated they supported the bill. I’m pleased to say I didn’t, but regret that I couldn’t stop it.

      Two ill-considered government laws in just two days. Who knows just how many there are still in the pipeline? What I want you to know is that I’ll be doing my best to amend, fix or stop those bills that fail the common sense test.”

      Until next week,
      Cory Bernardi

  • spangled drongo says:

    How the world could save a fortune. Stop the funding:

    Former NASA GISS climate scientist tells new NASA head to stop funding “corrupt, carpet-baggers”

    They are a husband and wife team, both producing peer-reviewed climate papers. He worked at NASA GISS for seven years. Since they came out as skeptics in California, they’ve had to move house.

    Describing NASA GISS as “opportunists, carpetbaggers, the corrupt, the ignoble.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    If only we could do likewise plus smaller ones for submarines instead of slaughtering our money on pretend solutions:

    “‘Mini’ nuclear reactors could help solve Britain’s energy crunch and cut a third off bills, ministers hope”

  • Don Aitkin says:

    I’ve have been in deep bush for a week, which is why some comments have piled up in moderation. It may happen again over the next four days. Sorry. Normal service should be going then.

  • Ross says:

    Vale Senator Malcolm Roberts. A loss to the sceptic cause. A greater loss to comedy.
    Going to miss you, mate.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Doncha luv the way cli-sci wizards just know it all and tell you everything except the facts?

    If they have this “really solid scientific basis for knowing and understanding the way the climate is changing rapidly” I wonder why they don’t let us in on the secret:

    “We have a really solid scientific basis for knowing and understanding the way the climate is changing rapidly,” Professor Mackey said.
    “I find it interesting as a scientist when people say they don’t believe in science because science is not a matter of faith – religion is a matter of faith.
    “It’s really a matter of having a scientific understanding or explanation in relation to the cause and effect.”

    I doubt if Professor Mackey and his consensual mates have ever looked out the window in their lives:

    “Professor Mackey said many people had never been taught about climate change science so found it difficult to understand.

    And he said it was not something you could look out the window and see or experience…”

    Just give it a go, Prof. It’s amazing what’s out there.

Leave a Reply