What would it take for me to cease being a sceptic about the horrors of ‘climate change’?

By July 11, 2019Other

W

I wrote an essay on something like this subject a few years ago, but I don’t seem to be able to find it. I felt the need to write another one, anyway, and if I can find the earlier one, I’ll be able to see whether anything much has changed.  Because I have been a data-monger since my early twenties I regard good data as the essence of any attempt to assess the value of a proposition, accompanied by good and relevant argument. What I see as the lack of both good argument and good data in the domain of ‘climate change’ made me a sceptic about the domain almost from the beginning. So here goes. The process, as I put it down, is temporally linear.

  1. The planet is warming in an unprecedented way

Is it warming? There seems general agreement that it is. The late and much respected Professor Bob Carter said it all depended on what time scale you were using. He argued, with evidence, that there has been a slow and steady cooling since the high-point of the post-glacial period we are in. The trouble is that the data are awfully spotty. There are virtually none for the oceans until very recently, and virtually all the land data come from the northern hemisphere. The satellite data are only forty years old.

Unprecedented? I don’t think so. There is abundant historical evidence of warm and cold periods in the last two thousand years and more, the Danube and Thames both froze (at different times), Breughel was painting frozen canals in Holland that he actually saw, and grapes were being harvested and turned into wine in the Middle Ages some three hundred km north of the general limits of viticulture now. What caused these movements from warm to cool ? There is no widely accepted explanation.

  • The current warming has been caused by greenhouse gas emissions, notably carbon dioxide

Again, I have not seen a paper that shows this step convincingly. I think that it there were one I should by now have seen it, and its lead author would have won some sort of top prize. Increases in carbon dioxide are argued to have a logarithmic effect on temperature, and if this is correct, then the effect of CO2 increases will diminish quickly. To bolster their argument, the warmists/alarmists/orthodox invented a concept called ‘climate sensitivity’, which disposed of the logarithmic effect, so that a doubling of CO2 would increase temperature by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius (the IPCC’s official view). A lot of work has been done on CS, and there is now a range of estimates of its effect from virtually none to nine degrees Celsius. My view is that if CS is low, then the whole ‘climate change’ scare is without foundation. I find it hard to see that the present warming is caused by human activity in burning fossil fuels, though we may have had a slight effect.

  • The warming is going to be very bad for all living creatures and eco-systems

One of the great problems of the future is that it doesn’t yet have any data. So all the fuss about what will happen in the future is based on models, both climatic and economic. The models have to take account of what we already know, about which, as I have pointed out, there is some dispute. So the models are also disputable. I am not enamoured with them at all, and the further out they go with predictions the less I accept them. There is just too much uncertainty about the climate data, and too much uncertainty with likely levels of human population, GDP, conflict, let alone human ingenuity. Closer to the present there is no evidence to show that the increase in carbon dioxide has made things difficult for the planet. Indeed, the planet is greener, and food production has increased. Nor is there good evidence to show a link between greenhouse gases generally and ‘climate disruption’. It is all to come, apparently. But not so far.

  • The seas will rise and flood vast areas of the planet, putting coastal cities at desperate risk.

There is good evidence that the seas have been rising steadily and slowly for a long time. The tide gauges show a slight rise over the past century or so, though the amount varies around the world. The situation is complicated by land falls and rises, which can accentuate or modify apparent sea level changes. Recent satellite measurements are larger than tide gauges, but of course it is completely wrong to suggest that the satellite measurements show a sudden acceleration in sea-levels, just because they are larger. We have no idea what they might have been in the past. Closer to home, there is no evidence that Pacific islands are under threat from rising sea levels, though their political leaders say so, while Bangladesh is expanding its territory out to sea. There is extensive development in the Maldives, where the Cabinet once held an underwater meeting to tell the world how serious its situation is. I feel much the same about the proposed ‘acidification’ of the oceans. There just isn’t good evidence about any of these threats. A final thought here: if the planet has been warming for the past hundred years or so, then the oceans will have been releasing a certain amount of carbon dioxide. How much is not clear. It seems to me more likely than the small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is having the capacity to warm the oceans, which are incomparably larger in scale.

  • We must change our way of life to avoid disaster, especially by moving to alternative sources of energy.

I came into this domain because of my interest in public policy. Good public policy has to be based on good data and good argument. Of course, there is public policy that flows from a government’s believing that policies X or Y will get them returned at the next election, even when the data and the argument are woeful or at least threadbare. The move to demonise fossil fuels, especially coal, now has a long history, and has been picked up by governments and UN agencies. The high point was around 2009, and the Copenhagen Conference. Ten years later much of the heat has gone from the issue, but governments can’t easily get out of it.

There seems no likelihood of a concerted global effort. The Paris meeting is not proving to be any kind of resolution, India and China and ignoring it all, alternative energies in wind and solar are not free, and contribute in their own ways to more greenhouse gas emissions. The notion that Australia has some kind of moral duty to show the way seems preposterous to me, and nothing we do will have any effect at all on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Why on earth are we doing these things?

Those are my doubts about the orthodox view, and the doubts make me sceptical. Of course, I could be wrong, and warmists right. If the data and the arguments improve, then I will be most interested. To be a sceptic is to doubt, not to deny. 

We will have to wait and see.

Join the discussion 792 Comments

  • Chris Warren says:

    Excellent question.

    Quick answer is “science and data” to identify long-run trends in our environment.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Are you trying to teach your grandma how to suck eggs? That statement is beyond trite and into banal!

  • Peter Lang says:

    Don,

    Only point 3 is relevant. The evidence suggests that any global warming we might get this century will be beneficial for ecosystems and the global economy. Therefore, actions that reduce global warming are harmful not beneficial. Not only do they reduce the benefits of global warming but they are costing around $1.5 – $2 trillion per year (around close to 2% of global GDP) for no benefit whatsoever.

    • Stu says:

      Peter, “Not only do they reduce the benefits of global warming but they are costing around $1.5 – $2 trillion per year (around close to 2% of global GDP) for no benefit whatsoever.”. Where did you find that figure and the conclusion of no benefit? It is a big call. You have obviously assumed that coal burning has no deleterious effects on environment or people, because quite a bit of the renewable power generation in your $ figure would be replacing either existing or new coal infrastructure. Like I said, a big call. Show us your facts.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “You have obviously assumed that coal burning has no deleterious effects on environment or people”.

        And you have obviously assumed that renewable energy sources such as solar and wind have no deleterious effects on the environment or people. This is somewhat heroic, as the deleterious effects of mining and processing rare earth minerals are well known, while the adverse effects of infra-sound on people are coming to be recognised.

        And no-one wants to know about the environmental costs of disposing of old solar panels and wind generators.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          And then there is the less than minor issue of disposing of old lithium ion batteries.

          • Stu says:

            And coal fly ash etc containing arsenic and mercury!

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Then let’s have a full comparison, whole of life and world wide.

          • Stu says:

            Ok, start with, let me see, how many billion tons of fly ash? Nasty stuff. As for “disposing” how about recycling, more sense, but hard with burnt coal. Oh, and are you saying there are no deleterious effects of mining coal, fracking for oil and gas etc and transporting the stuff (remember Exon Valdiz and the refinery explosion in Philadelphia a few weeks ago)? Currently the scale of all that is heavily on the carbon fuel side. Even something no one even talks about. As well as the CO2 bi product there is an enormous (in total) output of heat with burning all that carbon. Most of the heat is wasted due to the very low efficiency of energy conversion. You guys should be up on that as you are always banging on about the Urban Heat Island effect. Where do you think that comes from, besides ashphalt.?

          • Peter Lang says:

            Stu,

            You have not provided figures for a proper like with like comparison – you need to compare using units of deaths per TWh for full life cycle analysis.

          • Kneel says:

            As for “disposing” how about recycling, more sense, but hard with burnt coal.

            Fly-ash has many uses – as an abrasive in toothpaste, or as a filler for concrete, for example.

      • Peter Lang says:

        My reply is awaiting moderation

  • Peter Lang says:

    Is global warming beneficial for ecosystems?

    Below are some evidence that suggest global warming may be beneficial for ecosystems.

    1. I infer that the optimum GMST for ecosystems is that which existed around the Eocene Thermal Maximum [1] and during the ‘Cambrian Explosion’, i.e. ~25–28?C (i.e. 10–13?C warmer than present). The following suggest that warming is beneficial for ecosystems, not harmful.

    2. Most major extinction events [2] have been due to bolide impacts, volcanism and ice ages, not to global warming

    3. The PETM was due to warming but it was less severe than most mass extinctions
    “The most dramatic example of sustained warming is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum [3], which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions.”

    4. The cause of the Permian-Triassic Boundary mass extinction event has recently been reported as an ice age, not global warming (Baresel et al., 2017) [4]

    5. I do not know of any major extinction events that were due to global warming when GMST was below the optimum (which was ~7–13?C above present)

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

    7. Biosphere productivity is increasing during the current warming – the planet has greened by about 14% during 35 years of satellite observations (Donohue et al., 2013) [6], Zhu et al. (2016) [7], Greening of the Earth and it drivers )

    8. Biosphere productivity is higher at low latitudes (warmer) than at high latitudes (colder). Gillman et al. (2015) ‘Latitude, productivity and species richness’ [8]

    9. Biomass density (tC/ha) ~10 times higher in tropical rainforests than extratropical [9].

    10. The mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere has increased substantially during the warming from the LGM. Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. 2019 [10], find that the mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere increased by about 40% (850 GtC) from LGM to preindustrial times. This compares with 10%-50% (300-1000 GtC) increase from LGM to the pre-industrial inventory of about 3,000 GtC stated in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 [11]. This also indicates that warming is beneficial for ecosystems.

    I infer from the above that global warming is net beneficial for ecosystems when GMST is below the optimum (which may be around 7–13?C above present GMST).

    References:

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene

    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#List_of_extinction_events

    [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

    [4] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43630

    [5] http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/1983/

    [6] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/grl.50563

    [7] https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004

    [8] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/geb.12245

    [9] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.13.77 (p84)

    [10] https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-849-2019

    [11] https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

  • Peter E says:

    A breath of sanity in this crazy world of ours. Entirely convincing. Thanks.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Don

    The evidence is that present warming is unprecedented if you understand that this echos the extremely unprecedented even violent increase in CO2, methane and Nitrous Oxide.

    These charts, covering the last 10,000 years do allow for a cooling as Carter mentioned, but it ceased at around 7,500 years ago as explained by Ruddiman.

    See: https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/fig/figure-2-3-l.png

    As Ruddiman makes clear, Carter’s cooling should have continued due to its cause – ice-age cycles – themselves caused by Milankovitch cycles.

    The departure at 7,5000 is “unprecedented warming” and blocked further encroachment of glaciers and freezing Thames events. But for this warming – our planet would be heading towards a new ice age.

    I think people should have a close look at Ruddiman’s work.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      I think you should visit Tuvalu, but you needn’t take gumboots.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      “extremely unprecedented even violent increase in CO2, methane and Nitrous Oxide.”

      Somewhat emotive language.

      “Extremely unprecedented” or just unprecedented?

      Are the current levels absolutely unprecedented? That is an heroic assumption, unless your definition of “unprecedented” is “not in the past few thousand years”.

      Violent? Dragged you down an alley and mugged you, did it?

      Try to use more measured language.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Thanks Don, for a great summary.

    The evidence is that present warming is still in the 25th percentile of historical Holocene warming.

    Recent ocean warming that seems to have occurred [data is not sufficient to tell] is almost certainly beyond the capacity of that 1c of atmospheric warming we have enjoyed since the end of the LIA, to produce, but that same 1c of warming is capable of producing the CO2 increase.

    And both the warming and the CO2 increase are net beneficial.

    But when we are still in the first quartile of the natural climate temperature range for the last 80 centuries there is essentially nothing happening with the world’s climate that hasn’t happened during that period.

    Just like the latest mean sea level at Fort Denison that is 7cm LOWER than the MSL there in 1914.

    Just like our local beaches.

    Just like the oceans’ coral atolls.

    Just like the big river deltas.

    THERE-IS-NOTHING-HAPPENING.

  • spangled drongo says:

    And when the gatekeepers stop promoting the kiddie klimate krisis we will all become a lot less sceptical.

    https://realclimatescience.com/2019/07/rewriting-americas-history-2/

  • Thank you Don for that estimation of People Driven Climate. I entirely agree with the points you made.
    the onus should be on those who say CO2 should be curbed to prove those claims about Global warming/ Climate Change / Extreme Weather happening. The sceptics are not calling for changes.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Just a small amount of science and data.

    https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-6-3-l.png

    Obviously, the year 2000 levels of N2O (green star), CO2 red star, and methane (blue star) are unprecedented.

    Due to the radical departure from past 600 thousand years trends, beyond even ranges associated with ice age cycles, a new cause has arisen.

    This can only be the impact of mankind and this impact, however described, is increasing.

    If is scientifically impossible for GHGs to increase in the atmosphere without warming the planet, so the issue for all decent people is, when and how can this increase in GHG’s be stopped?

    • Ross Handsaker says:

      Chris, have you noticed that the hottest places on the Earth have very low levels of water vapour and clouds, which are the main components of the greenhouse effect. Phoenix and Atlanta, USA, are at nearly the same latitude and altitude. Phoenix climate is hot desert with a very dry atmosphere (little water vapour) while Atlanta has a humid sub-tropical climate, yet both average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures at Phoenix are much higher than at Atlanta.
      Perhaps water vapour has a net cooling rather than warming effect on daytime temperatures in particular!

      • Chris Warren says:

        Ross

        No, I have not delved into regional water vapour data.

        My understanding is that rainfall overall is increasing slightly on a global scale.

        • Ross Handsaker says:

          The radiative greenhouse effect, if valid, must work during the day as well as night and in all regional areas.
          Another example of where water vapour/clouds seem to have a cooling effect on day temperatures is Singapore which is on the Equator. It is surrounded by very warm seas, is calm but with extremely high water vapour in its atmosphere. It has a record high temperature of only 37C which is much lower than peaks of up to 50C at hot dry deserts.

    • Kneel says:

      Obviously, the year 2000 levels of N2O (green star), CO2 red star, and methane (blue star) are unprecedented.
      This is an apples to oranges comparison, most likely – most certainly, we did NOT have instruments to measure any of these gases 600k years ago (not even 600 years ago!)
      Since these then are obviously from a proxy, what does the same proxy say about the level NOW? Certainly, the “star” levels do NOT appear to show in the proxy, even though it shows “0 years ago”.

  • Neville says:

    Another good and accurate summary Don, but I don’t think this will satisfy the CAGW brigade or the general run of the mill extremists.
    Just recently Dr Lomborg and Dr Christy AGAIN shredded the usual nonsense from the so called scientists and their fellow travelers in the MSM and gullible left wing pollies.
    The green new deal advocates want to waste trillions of $ on this non problem, and yet the return on this “investment” would be ZIP. What a con and fra-d, just ask Dr Hansen. Here’s the link.

    https://cei.org/blog/bjorn-lomborg-and-john-christy-shred-climate-alarmism

  • Neville says:

    Here is Dr John Christy’s full report to the GWPF in May 2019. Much longer, but a good, sane summary of their so called CAGW.

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

  • spangled drongo says:

    It is the pressure from our “educated”, know-nothing, climate alarmists who are responsible for this fiasco:

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/07/how-the-murray-went-up-the-creek/

    And that is just a small sample of what the world is in for in the near future.

    And, sadly, the blitherers and the stu-pids just don’t get it.

  • Neville says:

    Thanks for that Quadrant link SD, but I think the eco-loons aren’t worth our time, because they are not interested in the real world.
    Even these looney, dud predictions from the 1970 Earth day don’t seem to slow down many of today’s yappers at all.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/22/failed-earth-day-predictions/

    • Mike Burston says:

      Now here’s a thought. The Earth did very well without much oxygen in the atmosphere for the first 2.5 billion years. Oxygen is a very corrosive gas. Quick! Microchip the population and tax them for not using up enough. Make them work harder. Tax them all!

  • Boambee John says:

    Chris and Stu

    To borrow from Don’s title, what would it take for you to cease being alarmist about the horrors of ‘climate change’?

    • spangled drongo says:

      BJ, they need to go somewhere where they can enjoy an ice age for a while. They would then come begging for our current “horrors”:

      Recent ice cores from the Antarctic appear to have fingered the culprit at last: it’s all about plants. During ice ages, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere steadily drops, because colder oceans absorb more of the gas. Eventually it reaches such a low level – about 0.018% at the peak of the last ice age – that plants struggle to grow at all, especially in dry areas or at high altitudes. As a result gigantic dust storms blanket the entire planet, reaching even Antarctica, where the amount of dust in the ice spikes dramatically upward. These dust storms blacken the northern ice sheets in particular, making them highly vulnerable to rapid melting when the next great summer arrives. The ice age was a horrible time to be alive even in the tropics: cold, dry, dusty and far less plant life than today.

      As Svante Arrhenius, the Swede who first measured the greenhouse effect, said: “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates.”

      https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2018

    • Chris Warren says:

      Charts like this reversing trends is all we need.

      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

  • Stu says:

    This was posted under an earlier part thread where it might be missed and has wider ramifications than the post it replied to, so here it is again.

    The original post by BJ raised the issue of environmental costs: “And you have obviously assumed that renewable energy sources such as solar and wind have no deleterious effects on the environment or people. ”

    Ok, start with, let me see, how many billion tons of fly ash? Nasty stuff. As for “disposing” how about recycling, more sense, but hard with burnt coal. Oh, and are you saying there are no deleterious effects of mining coal, fracking for oil and gas etc and transporting the stuff (remember Exon Valdiz and the refinery explosion in Philadelphia a few weeks ago)? Currently the scale of all that is heavily on the carbon fuel side. Even something no one even talks about. As well as the CO2 bi product there is an enormous (in total) output of heat with burning all that carbon. Most of the heat is wasted due to the very low efficiency of energy conversion. You guys should be up on that as you are always banging on about the Urban Heat Island effect. Where do you think that comes from, besides ashphalt. And where do you think it goes?

    • spangled drongo says:

      But what you always fail to understand, stu, is that one process gets the job done and the other not only costs a lot more and is more environmentally unfriendly, it can never do what is needed.

      End of story.

      • Stu says:

        That is just opinion, yours and few others, and not fact. Events are overtaking your position fortunately. You are waging a losing campaign, except in this narrow space. Look at what is happening, even in USA, in spite of the disaster in chief. Rationality is winning, not the reactionary approach of the climate laggards.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          And yet, with all the downsides you point out, (while completely ignoring the downsides of ruinables, particularly their unreliability) the age of fossil fuels has seen the greatest improvements in the human condition in all of recorded history. Alarmists wish to sacrifice this to “protect” humanity against hobgoblins imagined by the writers of computer models.

          You also accuse sceptics of banging on about UHI. I don’t know about other sceptics, but my mentions of UHI usually focus on it being the most clearly identifiable element of human caused warming, albeit a very minor influence on a global scale.

          Your comments about UHI demonstrate your unreasoning fear of anything associated with non-ruinable energy sources, while at the same time you completely ignore the vast amounts of fossil energy required to conststruct your ruinable energy sources.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            While you are at it, don’t forget to Google Congo cobalt mines and China rare earth mining pollution.

            And to count the environmental cost of the huge quantities of concrete needed as foundations for wind generators. One of your favourirlte scientific sources, the Grauniad, is really down on concrete.

            Then there is the whole lithium ion matter.

          • Stu says:

            I guess they said the same thing when the moved to the bronze age and again with the shift to iron, then steel. Same thing with the move from sailing ships to power. And of course we all assume cars have been around for ever but people like you were dead against moving away from horses, you would have fretted about the jobs of the buggy whip makers, stable hands and carriage builders. That is called being reactionary, which is exactly what you are. Sure carbon based energy was crucial in the advancement of industrial civilisation, but that does not mean you have to stick with it for ever, especially if it has nasty pollution side effects, which it does. Just as big populations in Asia and Africa bypassed the age of fixed line communications by going direct to mobile technologies so it is the case with renewable energy technology, communities are going electric without building grids.

            Getting back to Don’s theme and your twist of it. “What would it take for me to join the sceptics”?

            First, evidence that the rapid change in global heat and consequent melting of the cryosphere is caused by natural factors. Not waffle about natural variation over time and stories of past events. Evidence.

            The scientists working in all the aspects of the puzzle labour long and hard to produce solid research papers. There is nothing comparable from the other side proving natural causes. All the usual suspects, earth orbit, wobble, solar output etc have been shown to not be relevant at this time. So the sceptics resort to the SOI etc. Sure, we know they are indicators, but things are happening beyond their scope and with greater frequency.

            The breadth of areas of research into climate, ice, vegetation etc etc is very wide and all of that gets added together to achieve the consensus view propagated by the IPCC.. They say the evidence is unequivocal. The same cannot be said for the sceptic side.

            And proof that the bulk of the opposition to change is not financed by and promoted by carbon fuel interests which have a vested interest in delaying the transition from carbon. The Kochs, Mercers, Exxons etc have been proven to be great financial contributors to the cause. Perhaps the players they encourage are genuine, hard to know in all cases.

            Sure, on the climate side there is not absolute certainty but go and read the section of the IPCC report dealing with the reliability of their conclusions. Many are in the 80 to 90 percent range and leading up to “certainty”. Turn that around would you fly on a plane that had an 80 per cent prediction it would crash on the basis that there is a 20 per cent chance it won’t. In similar vein would you act on a second opinion by a gynaecologist if a urologist had told you that you had prostate cancer? That might seem extreme but is not so different from the small number of scientists (each working in a small part of the field) claim to be better equipped than the summation of work by tens of thousands on the other side.

            Back to the hoary old tale. If the climate scientists are wrong it would be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the tiniest of odds it could be achieved. Logic says otherwise. If all the people involved (outside of the Heartlands, IPA’s etc) are assumed to be genuine and effective workers of their craft the balance of numbers falls their way. On the other hand if any of the Lindzens, Novas or Soons really had a good case that proved there is no such thing as AGW and that our burning of carbon was not a problem, they would likely get a Nobel prize. That does not seem likely based on the current output of scholarly papers from that side.

            Finally back to uncertainty. Scientists are reluctant to ever claim certainty. But the very nature of the changes taking place in the climate mean that is more reason to take action than not, such are the risks of inaction. There are plausible claims that many of the most knowledgable people think the risks and outcomes will be much worse than currently acknowledged. The biggest unknown factor is the proximity of climate “tipping points”. That is one area where the sceptical players historical window gazing could shed some useful light.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “I guess they said the same thing when the moved to the bronze age and again with the shift to iron, then steel.”

            Please don’t blither, bluster and bullshit, stu.

            All those changes came as a natural evolution of skills and reasoning.

            Your current desired changes are coming as a post modernist, socialist promotion for the destruction of free markets and capitalism.

            Nothing to do with evolution or rationality.

            Just socialist politics.

            At least be man enough to admit it.

        • Mike Burston says:

          That’s pushing credibility a bit. Sceptics deserve the term “Climate Rationalists”, not the alarmists

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Rationality is winning, not the reactionary approach of the climate laggards.”

          Stu calls AOC “rationality”.

          Oh dear!

          Not until you have to survive on your “rationality”, stu, will you ever become a sceptic.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      I must say that I am astonished to see your comment about fly ash.

      Are you not aware that fly ash is an important component of concrete? Indeed, most wind generators probably rest on foundations that include large amounts of recycled fly ash.

  • Neville says:

    Just for Stu to bring him back to proper data and evidence about the real world. Here is the developing world’s TOTAL energy in 2015.

    This is from the IEA and if you add in BIO + waste you might start to wake up. In less than 20 years they’ve overtaken the OECD countries and are now soaring ahead. In 2015 they used 8006 MTOE and the OECD 5300 MTOE or 50% less than non OECD. In less than twenty years. Get it???

    And the 2015 OECD TOTAL energy is about the same as 1990. Since 2015 the non OECD co2 emissions have increased and OECD are flat-lining. Here’s non OECD and OECD pie graphs.

    https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/NONOECDTOT4.pdf

    https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/OECDTOT4.pdf

  • Neville says:

    Perhaps Stu can try and understand some more real world data to start to wake him up a bit more? Wiki has given us the percentage increase of co2 emissions per country from 1990 to 2017.

    China 453% increase, USA 104% increase or line ball since 1990, India 404% increase, Germany 78.2% or less than 1990, UK 64% or less than 1990. BTW world increase in co2 emissions from 1990 to 2017 is 163% and this is while the developed OECD countries have flat-lined over that period of time. Wakey, wakey?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

  • Peter Lang says:

    Stu,

    I posted a comment immediately after my first comment. It explains the evidence that global warming is beneficial for ecosystems. It includes 11 references, but has been held in moderation for 2 days. I guess Don hasn’t had a chance to look at the thread and the comments.

    Regarding the source of the $1.5-$2 trillion it is from Climate Change Business Journal (2015), Insurance Journal (2015), and Bjorn Lomborg’s peer reviewed testimony to US Congress and .

    41. Lomborg, B. The impact and cost of the 2015 Paris Climate Summit, with special focus on US policies. In The House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, 114th Congress, First Session ed.; U.S. Government Publishing Office: Washington, US, 2015; pp 98-118. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg97771/pdf/CHRG-114hhrg97771.pdf (2018-04-26).

    42. Ferrier, G. The Climate Change Industry; EBI Report 4000; Climate Change Business Journal: San Diego, CA, US, 2015. https://ebionline.org/product/report-4000-the-climate-change-industry/ (2018-04-26).

    43. Jergler, D. Is Climate Change Now Its Own Industry? In Climate Control, Jergler, D., Ed. Insurance Journal: USA, 2015. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm (2018-04-03).

    You say: “You have obviously assumed that coal burning has no deleterious effects on environment or people, because quite a bit of the renewable power generation in your $ figure would be replacing either existing or new coal infrastructure.”

    Your presumption about what I assumed is dead wrong. Toxic pollution and accidents in the coal energy chain cause around 15 deaths per TWh in developed countries and about 60 deaths per TWh world average. But these are not due to CO2 or climate change. The evidence suggests global warming is beneficial, not harmful.

    Forget, renewables. They can never supply much of the world’s energy. Further, they are enormously expensive when the full cost of the grid and storage are included. The cost increase at an accelerating rate as their penetration increases.

  • Neville says:

    According to the above Wiki article China and India were responsible for about 36% of all human co2 emissions in 2017 and the USA and EU about 24%.
    I know that many experts think that the China and India data are untrustworthy and their co2 emissions are much higher. But today in 2019 we can probably assume that these two rapidly developing countries actually emit about 40% of human emissions of co2, with more to come up to 2040 and beyond.
    So please tell us AGAIN how to fix/mitigate your future so called CAGW problems? But ya gotta love real world data because it’s a real bummer for the religious fanatics among us.

    • Stu says:

      So in summary you are admitting the problem is much bigger than thought and getting worse. Let us all sit on our hands, nothing we can do. Then again based on those numbers if there were no renewables things would be even worse, oh damn.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        How much of the increase in China comes from making solar panels and wind generators for export to gullible westerners?

        Exporting our CO2 emissions to China does not make them go away.

      • Neville says:

        So Stu you’ve got no answer AGAIN TO YOUR SO CALLED PROBLEM? Note your problem not mine.
        I’ve given you the data that clearly shows that everything today is much better and humans are living longer, healthier and wealthier lives.
        So please don’t include me in your silly , delusional religious fanaticism. I always prefer proper science and proper data from the real world, not your fairy land extremism.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Neville

          This does not necessarily apply into the future.

          The benefit is largely due to the fact that with the onset of global warming, our planet was entering a new glacial period. So this was the first effect and glaciers that were encroaching villages in 17thC and 19thC started to retreat.

          But for global warming, they would have continued.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Since glaciers (and cold) produce worse results for life on earth than sea level rise and heat, might we assume that you support increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere to continue holding the glaciers back, as the BBC did during the 1970s “New Ice Age” scare?

  • Chris Warren says:

    So it seems global sea surface temperatures are warming at 1C every 40 years.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=SST&level=2000&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=0&lon2=360&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&iarea=0&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries

    This indicates a huge amount of new heat is being absorbed.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “So it seems global sea surface temperatures are warming at 1C every 40 years.”

    D’ya think that is based on buckets or intakes, blith?

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    “but that does not mean you have to stick with it for ever, especially if it has nasty pollution side effects, which it does.”

    And you still continue to ignore the nasty pollution side effects of ruinables.

    As for your evidence-less belief that I pine for the days of horse and buggy, I lived through the “good old days”. Polio, smallpox, animal manure (I lived in a semi rural area).

    I have no desire to return to ice chests and inadequate winter heating, which is what ruinables in their current state of development offer.

    • Stu says:

      BJ, “I have no desire to return to ice chests and inadequate winter heating, which is what ruinables in their current state of development offer.”. That is just not going to happen under any scenario other than collapse of civilisation because of reaching a severe tipping point. Not likely in our time frame, so you can keep your beer cold still. By the way the beer and butter stays nice and cold on my boat with just the sun providing the power. Small stuff, but illustrative.

      And instead of knocking the current research approach and modelling (not you but the twitterati) because of insufficient evidence it would be handy if people encouraged government and universities etc to spend more on instrumentation and field studies. Further it would help if there really was some money in climate research (as claimed exists as the current motivation by the twittersphere) so that we could encourage more bright young students to follow through with STEM courses to science degrees then 7 to 10 more years to get PhD’s and become experts in the subject. Then the models, including more localised and regional versions would help predict not just the climate but the weather. As it is, many of the best and brightest end up as lawyers and merchant bankers doing maths on take over deals. We have too many of them already.

      In short don’t knock science, encourage it.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “By the way the beer and butter stays nice and cold on my boat with just the sun providing the power. Small stuff, but illustrative.”

        Could that boat have been built exclusively with materials and tools made with solar power? Your example is tritem

    • Boambee John says:

      And yet, your proposed population reduction solution will take many decades to have any impact.

      So clearly you are not deeply concerned.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Looks like air temperatures also increase 1C every 40 years.”

    Looks like you don’t know what you are talking about and cherry pick the fudgers [as usual]:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu at 1109

    “Getting back to Don’s theme and your twist of it. “What would it take for me to join the sceptics”?

    Thanks for your comprehensive response. Unfortunately, it is quite clear from that response that your mind is made up, and only a glacier rolling over your house will change it.

    While you go hard on what you regard as the consensus of many IPCC scientists, I was relieved to see that you did not fall back on the bogus 97% furphy. That said, I offer you two words of caution about any scientific consensus: Phlogiston Theory.

    As for your concerns about vested interests, as a former bureaucrat, let me assure you that the vested interests of government employees are defended as vigourously as those of any private sector actor, and they are as prone to error as each other. A classic example is the IPCC, established specifically to discover evidence of anthropogenic climate change; there is absolutely no chance that they will not find enough “evidence” to assure their own continued employment.

    Turning back to an earlier question, have you followed up on Congo/cobalt and China/rare earth minerals yet? Ask yourself, would such be allowed in any western nation? That is what you want to replace fly ash.

    • Stu says:

      How about you watch the video of the US house committe on science, space and technology, hearing called lEarths thermometers: glacial and ice sheet melt in a changing climate”. You will see that even the republicans (well except one) on that committee now see the problem. And that is a big change in the last few years. You will find the full thing here. If you have the time it is well worth watching all the way through. It might even change your mind.

      You will find it here. https://youtu.be/EUWK4g7rt38

      It raises some of the factors that are still being overlooked in all this which derive from SWOT analysis. That is that we are faced with strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in how we deal with a changing climate.

      As Richard Alley says we know the local bush catches fire naturally now and again, so we prepare and remain alert. We also know that climate changes naturally, but unlike with events like fires some people just want to shrug the shoulders and say so what. Why the difference. Even the Defence department (here and in USA) get it and are planning accordingly.

      • spangled drongo says:

        What Alley was talking about in your video was the melting of Glacier Bay between the 1790s and the 1890s.

        Guess what caused that, stu?

        When he demonstrates EXACTLY what I have been trying to tell you, and you choose to either deny or ignore, that there is EXACTLY nothing happening today that did not and has not happened back in those days when CO2 was less than 300 ppm, where is the climate crisis???

        The US are much more nervous about SLR because much of their land is sinking but in relatively geodetically stable Australia the sinking is happening but much less.

        And the recent measurement of MSLs at Fort Denison is 7cm higher than it was a century ago even with this slight sinking.

        That is telling us that sea levels are not rising.

        And if sea levels are not rising, about the only thing that is happening is CO2 is increasing without influencing temperatures beyond Nat Var.

        That is not a problem, that is a non-problem.

        • Stu says:

          Watch further than that, you might learn something. I did suggest you watch it all.

          • spangled drongo says:

            What makes you think I didn’t?

            It’s just that Alley had the most evidence and facts.

            And they were, as I say, a non-problem.

            If anyone there is telling you something we don’t know, please specify.

            But otherwise don’t waste our time with garbage.

          • Neville says:

            Stu see my summary of Christy’s report and ref to Arctic sea ice today compared to the Holocene average. Except for LIA it is higher today, see his graph at the full report.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Contra to Richard Alley, the more common response to fire risk these days is to prevent hazard reduction and close off established fire trails. Bad example.

        Defence organisations went all hot on “peak oil” 20 or so years ago. Bureaucrats are as prone to the madness of crowds as anyone else.

    • Stu says:

      BJ “A classic example is the IPCC, established specifically to discover evidence of anthropogenic climate change; there is absolutely no chance that they will not find enough “evidence” to assure their own continued employment.”.

      You do realise I hope that the IPCC employs very few people, just a secretariat. All the lead authors, reviewers etc all volunteer their time. Presumably their employers approve the time spent. Anyhow it disproves your claim.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        The lead authors et al also get lots of research grants, undoubtedly at least in part because of their IPCC connections. No, that does not disprove my claim. Broaden your perspective.

        My phone needs a recharge, but I will expand on this later.

        • Stu says:

          Chicken and egg story I think. You would not get to be a lead author without having already made it. Oh and by the way surely you are not using some nasty battery device are you?

          • Bryan Roberts says:

            “You would not get to be a lead author without having already made it.”

            Donna Laframboise?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            As I do not share many of your concerns, I am quite happy to use a “nasty battery device”. Surely you are not relying on carbon fuelled mains power? Or using anything that was not completely carbon neutral? Or not a locovore?

            Back on potential conflicts, on reflection I think that the motives of many CAGW proponents (not all of whom are genuine alarmists) fall neatly into the groups identified by the acronym MICE, said to have been used to identify suitable people to recruit as spies during the Cold War.

            Money, Ideology, Conscience, Ego.

            Under Money there are two broad groups, those seeking a research career in climate science, and those seeking to make money without real regard to the scientific aspects. The first make sure that their research grant applications always include a para linking whatever they want to do with climate change. The second group are the carpetbaggers, chasing subsidies and the lecture circuit. Think ruinable companies and the likes of Al Gore respectively.

            Under Ideology are the UN and EU types who have openly admitted that they are using the climate change bandwagon to restructure the world economically or politically, and to redistrubute wealth (often to themselves).

            Under Conscience are people like you, who believe deep in their hearts that we need to act now to save our children and grand children.

            Under Ego are some of the same who appear under Money. The “public” scientists like Mann, Karoly, Flannery, hangers on like Garnaut, and politicals like Gore.

            The first and last groups (M and E) are potentially the least harmful, as it is in their interests to keep the gravy train on the rails.

            The ideologues are the worst, ideologies of various types have given us the Terror of the 1790s, death camps, gulags, cuktural revolutions and Year Zero.

            The prisoners of conscience become dangerous once they start to believe that they have a personal responsibility to save the world. Soon they can believe that sterilising half the population, or forcing a reversion to subsistence living, must happen for the “greater good”. Unlike the greedy, they will work untiringly for what they see as the greater good.

  • Neville says:

    Dr Christy’s report to the GWPF in May makes interesting reading if we really are interested in the real world. He showed that their models were wrong when compared with the actual observations.
    He also found that——
    There was no hot spot in the tropical troposphere at 10 to 12 km height.
    Even the latest CMIP-6 models still showed too much warming.
    No increase in tornadoes.
    No trends in hurricanes.
    No trends in US floods or droughts.
    The highest MAX US temp trends occurred before 1955.
    No trends in global droughts from 1950 to 2017.
    Wildfire trends have dropped since the 1870s.
    The burned area decline is now the best since 1900.
    Arctic sea ice is higher today than at any time except the LIA. Certainly higher today than the rest of the Holocene period.
    No trend in NH snowfall.
    Weather related disaster losses as a proportion of GDP is down.
    I’ll add a few more—-
    Also we know that deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by 98% since 1920. Less than 2 bn people then and 7.5+ bn people today. Think about that comparison.
    SLR is about the same today as the previous 100 years. See Kench, Duvat and other studies, plus Dr Humlum’s recent study finding 1mm to 1.5mm a year from the tide gauges.
    Polar bear populations are now booming since the low point about 60 years ago.
    No warming in the Antarctic using Sat data since DEC 1978.
    The Antarctic peninsula has cooled since about 1998 according to the Turner et al BAS study.
    The HAD Crut 4 data has changed since Prof Jones’s BBC interview in 2010. The earlier warming trends have been adjusted down and the later warming trends have been adjusted up. There was no statistical significant difference in the warming trends in 2010 according to Dr Jones.
    Also the average life expectancy today for the world’s 7.5 bn people is about 72. That’s the average for all countries rich and poor. Wealthy countries are higher at about 80+ but poorer countries are catching up. For example today the average life exp in China is 76. And they now generate 66.7% of their energy from coal and just 1.5% from GEO+ S&Wind. ( 2015) Think about it.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      You have been caught in a lie.

      Arctic Sea Ice is not “Arctic sea ice is higher today than at any time except the LIA. ”

      The facts are here:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/every/mean:12

      • Neville says:

        Geeeezzz Chris, since when is 1975 to 2019 the Holocene? I think that is about 44 years not the last 10,000 years and in 1975 many alarmist scientists thought we might be heading for the next ice age.
        And we know that 1945 to 1975 was a colder period around the world until the jump to the warmer phase of the PDO in about 1976.
        Have a look at Christy’s graph and you’ll see the drop from the very high LIA period until now. There were much warmer periods for thousands of years during the earlier holocene when little or no ice existed in the Arctic. BTW I have no need to lie about anything, because there’s still plenty of data available to disprove a lot of the nonsense fed to us by the MSM and IPCC.

  • Stu says:

    Clearly you did not watch it so I will summarise for you. Five eminent scientists gave evidence to and were questioned by the panel, both Democratic and Republican. The gist of it is that the glaciers and ice sheets are disappearing at an alarming, and accelerating rate. As one put it, they hope the Arctic is more of a thermostat than a switch. Yes they agreed with your oft quoted lots of ice 20,000 years ago and varying sea levels. The statement went on “and yes there is still 200 feet of sea level rise available. The big question they left was “what about tipping points”. You may not be concerned but people depending on melt water from glaciers are concerned about the future based on current trends. The republican dill tried the smart arse denier approach of asking if each of the panel thought humans caused the end of the last glacial period. They all said no, obviously. And as they said rising sea levels and shifting suitable agricultural areas were not a problem then with so few people and no ocean front cities. Different story now eh. The story of the octopus in the garage in Florida courtesy of now regular “sunny day” tides caused a laugh.

    The rest of your long list of things is just a “so what” scenario. Oh and SLR same as 100 years ago. Presumably you are back on the Fort Dennison track. Do you understand anything about sea level? You do know it is not the same all around the world or even over time due to atmospheric, geographic and lunar influences? I recall you banging on about King tides a while back which indicates confusion on your part about the concept of MSL.

    This argument is getting tiresome. If you have something interesting to say I might comment, otherwise I will take time out as I am clearly wasting my time here. Unless Don is even slightly swayed by my arguments. Meantime I will follow real scientists and ignore the phonies.

    Cheers

    • Boambee John says:

      Another farewell for Dame Nellie Stu?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu, some of those scientists merely quoted the flawed GRACE data WRT glacial ice which is not factual.

      They all happen to be on the GRACE gravy meter so that suits them no end.

      Sea levels at Fort Denison indicate sea levels for the greater part of the Pacific and if they are not rising then SLR is a furphy.

      And while MSL is the accepted indicator of what is happening with sea levels, rising king tides are what will affect people, not rising MSL.

      Tipping points have never been a factor in past climate so why now?

      You are the one who is getting tiresome.

      Still unable to provide any quantifiable evidence other than computer predictions based on these flawed assumptions.

      You have been asked to list anything that is happening today, climate-wise, with CO2 at 410 ppm that did not happen during the last 80 centuries when CO2 was consistently below 300 ppm.

      But you still run a mile.

      Time to truth up, stuey-luv.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      While you are lurking out there, go back to Don’s article, read his arguments carefully, then answer them point by point, laying out your evidence clearly and logically in your response.

      Then you might have some chance of changing his mind.

      Your mixture of emotion and random links won’t cut the mustard.

  • Neville says:

    Chris when I said today I meant from the LIA until today and Christy’s graph clearly shows that
    in the fig 6 of Stein et al 2017.
    Yes the LIA was the coldest period for many thousands of years and ice levels in the Arctic were at high levels and glaciers advanced all around the world . I also said that 1945 to 1975 was a colder period and obviously we’ve warmed since then. Lucky us.

    Here’s Stein 2017 study.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jqs.2929

  • Peter Lang says:

    Regarding Don’s last point: “We must change our way of life to avoid disaster, especially by moving to alternative sources of energy”, a summary of a new report provides a sanity check of the what can be realistically achieved and in what time scale. It should be a wake up call for those who believe renewable energy has anything significant to offer.
    Inconvenient Energy Realities: The math behind “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking”</b?
    https://economics21.org/inconvenient-realities-new-energy-economy.

    The URL for full report is included in the article.

    This is a valuable resource for quick quotes, so I suggest saving the URLs for future use.

    • Stu says:

      So taking all those figures quoted in the article and producing all that energy with carbon fuel and not enough renewables we are totally fucked. Start planning your survival mechanisms. But I think the future will be different, you horse whisperers will be shown by events to be total reactionary charlatans, but we will bring you along with us don’t worry, we won’t hold grudges. Just wait. Evidence is on our side.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Just wait. Evidence is on our side.”

        We’ve been waiting over 30 years already, stu.

        When d’ya think ya might deliver?

        • Stu says:

          You have not been watching global weather have you? The world is not all the same as Dubbo. And clearly you don’t acknowledge Arctic sea ice levels and Greenland melt. Never mind that is indicative of denialism.

          • Neville says:

            Stu you live in a sort of dismal merry go round. I’ve shown you all the IEA data on the OECD and non OECD since 1990 and you just refuse point blank to understand.
            There is nothing the OECD can change but you just keep repeating the same nonsense all day and every day. Very simple maths that any five year old should easily understand, yet it doesn’t seem to penetrate your closed mind.
            Renewables are and will always be just BS and fra-d and won’t change anything by 2040 or by 2100 and beyond. Dr Hansen called this out in 2015 after the Paris circus and yet you still don’t get it?
            Lomborg has shown that full compliance with Paris will change nothing and will waste endless trillions of $ for no measurable difference by 2100. What is it you don’t understand about any of this? Don’t forget when you wake up tomorrow the simple sums will still be there to haunt you until you eventually wake up. Or not.

          • Stu says:

            La, la, la, la. You will never get it till too late. You believe what has happened before will happen again, nothing can change. Reactionary mentality in full. Thank heavens you were not runnIng the show in 1939 or even now come to think of it. Classic glass half full mentality. No vision at all. You must lead a miserable life, poor soul.

          • Stu says:

            Of course I meant to write glass half empty, you are a negative person. It is getting late.

          • spangled drongo says:

            We are quite aware that the world is warming slightly, stu, and we are the ones who claim this is a glass-half-full scenario.

            Or even three quarters.

            It is you who is the blithering bed-wetter based on non-evidence of a non-problem.

            When do you think you will get around to checking out and telling us about anything new happening?

            Simple question.

            Give us an answer.

            Now I have to go and check the frost levels as it is the coldest morning here for many years.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Go back and read (or re-read) my MICE comment.

            You are becoming quite unhinged as your conscience drives you to make ever more bizarre comments in your drive to give us your simple message:

            “Repent, the end of the world is nigh!”

  • Neville says:

    Stu you are beyond hope, but the very simple sums will be the same tomorrow and the next day and the next. But you’re in the same company as silly Shorten, Plibersek and the Labor and Greens parties.
    Shorten thought that you could charge an EV in about 10 minutes and Plibersek admitted she didn’t understand the level of co2 in the atmosphere. And these stupid mugs thought they could change the climate by wasting 100s of billions of $?
    Then again I suppose you believed them? But don’t forget those simple sums when you wake up tomorrow morning.

  • Neville says:

    Gosh according to Prince Charles we only have 18 months to save the world. May the Queen outlive this silly, ignorant dingbat and save us from all the other loonies who don’t seem to understand the data relating to the real world and how lucky we are to live in this space and time.
    The biosphere is greening and humans have never lived longer, have never been wealthier and the global economy has just doubled in size from 1990 to 2018. Think about it.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/13/we-have-18-months-to-save-world-prince-charles-warns-commonwealth-leaders/

    • Kneel says:

      …according to Prince Charles we only have 18 months to save the world.
      If you google search, you’ll easily find a “we have 10 years to turn it around or it’ll be too late” from at least 1988,1998,2008 and 2018 – for exactly the same reason (viz. CO2).
      Colour me unconvinced.

  • Stu says:

    SD, BJ and co. I am really disappointed you have not yet gone as far as claiming this cause of the whole fiasco.

    “This is orthodox Marxist, socialist ideology and the West is being bullied into parting with trillions of dollars for the privilege of surrendering to an authoritarian central government. When enough people grasp this, the climate change delusion bubble will burst.”

    It sounds like something you would write but was in fact the work of a classic player in this game. Do you recognise it? And do you actually agree with it? And remember people like A Bolt have been banging on for years that they have exposed the conspiracy, the game is over and all will be good. The source of the quote does the same.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      You seem unable to comprehend that there can be mixed motives for actions. The world is not a simple black/white, good/evil dichotomy.

      Again, go back to and re-read (or actually read for the first time) my MICE comment. Some individuals mix the Money/Ego motives, others the Ideology/Ego ones. Some have genuinely pure motives, but are vulnerable to manipulation by others, and often unable to detect the manipulation.

      It is quite possible, indeed very probable, that the greedy and power hungry will jump onto a bandwagon that will help them achieve their objectives while they can seem to be working for universal benefit.

      It is summed up in the phrase “Doing well while doing good”.

      You are touchingly innocent if you believe otherwise.

    • Neville says:

      So who is your source?

      • Stu says:

        The one and only recycled Malcolm Roberts. So is that a no, you don’t subscribe to the one world government theory? Good.

        • Mike says:

          The same recycled Malcolm Roberts observed to the effect how the debate on Climate Change is a proxy for a contest about money and power

  • Mike Burston says:

    How this thread has unfolded reinforces Clive James’ observation of how we are led down ever more complicated reasoning when seeking clarification of why predictions of catastrophic warming don’t happen. Don has previously pointed out we’re all qualified to make our own judgement:”is the world warming.? are our CO2 emissions to blame? Does it matter?” We’re all being called to make sacrifices after all.
    A remark in Dons essay about how governments would “find it hard to get out it it” hasn’t been scrutinised in the thread, but I think politicians, as a rule, would say long live AGW because it’s all about money and power
    Surely the best guide to future climate is past climate

    • Boambee John says:

      Mike

      Money and Power (Ego). Two of the greatest human motivations, yet Stu cannot comprehend that some people might see the CAGW bandwagon as a means to advance a separate cause (dare I write “world government”?), while others might simply see a scientific or technical problem to be solved. He seems genuinely to believe that every proponent of the CAGW theory is pure of heart and mind!

      Heh Stu, I have a bridge to sell you …

  • Neville says:

    Thanks for that Stu, big surprise NOT. BTW I’ve been trying to track down an easy way to display our personal wealth today and over time.
    This is from the World Bank site and measures the GDP per capita for every country in the world. Ireland is amazing and has become very wealthy over a very short period of time. I’ve enlarged some of the country graphs to include in the larger window. But Ireland is a stand out.
    But just scroll down to find a country and the GDP per capita is available without enlarging the tiny graph. Our world in data also uses the world bank data and other sources for incomes and wealth etc.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=AU-US-CA-CN-IE

  • spangled drongo says:

    Our virtue signalling stu is so self-brainwashed into believing that humans are causing the rapid heating of the planet, even though he cannot produce any evidence of that actually happening, that he now feels empowered to be the Great Authority on this poorly understood subject.

    But the more evident it becomes how little he knows, the more he proclaims his certainty and the more he pontificates from authority.

    What a wind bag you are, stu.

    • Stu says:

      As usual you have it all wrong. I am neither expert nor certain. But I do quote science and scientists. And as your bleating about power prices etc shows the whole economic edifice is moving further towards the assumption that the threat is real and requires action. Have you noticed there are no new coal power stations planned, there are subsidies for solar etc. I don’t think anyone important is heeding your story. So get over it. Except in small recesses like this one and the tiny brain of Donald Trump your game is lost. You may be correct (most unlikely) but until that is proven by events (also most unlikely) you will remain sidelined. Save your breath and stay cool.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Have you noticed there are no new coal power stations planned,”

        This is a clear sign of the narrowness of outlook that you share with Chris, who expressed satisfaction on an earlier thread that Australia had reduced its per capita CO2 emissions, while failing to notice that much larger emitters had not.

        The world is more than Australia, and there are hundreds of coal powered stations planned and being constructed around the world.

        Your limited outlook is also displayed by your belief that only those who agree with your fears are actually scientists. As for the subsidies for ruinables, I again draw your (limited) attention to the letter M in the acronym MICE. People and companies are becoming robber baron wealthy on those. Some ruinables companies could be more accurately described as subsidy harvesters with a sideline in power generation.

        If your quest for confirmation had a wider focus, you would be aware of these realities.

        • Stu says:

          “The world is more than Australia, and there are hundreds of coal powered stations planned and being constructed around the world.”

          And have a you noticed there are even more thousands not being built?

          Never mind my narrow outlook. Admit your argument is losing in the real world.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Even by your low standards, that was pathetic.

            Yes, I notice the thousands of coal fired power stations not being built. Like the little Sewdish girl who “sees” invisible CO2, I can see the invisible not being built coal fired power stations.

            Can you tell us which peer reviewed journal has scoured the world asking about which power stations are not being built?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu, when I give you a report from a hydrographic surveyor that sea levels at Ft Denison have actually fallen [we previously knew they had barely risen] for the last century, does it possibly occur to you that your “scientific” prognostications just may be flawed?

        That it may be wise to be a little sceptical of the Greta Thunbergs?

        If there’s no SLR in Sydney then there is almost certainly no SLR in the Pacific.

        As BJ is advising you, broaden your tiny mind.

        Get rational for a change.

        • Boambee John says:

          spangled

          But, but, but, a droggy isn’t a, like, you know, reeeeal scientist.

          Why, hydrographic charts aren’t, like, you know, peer reviewed and published in reputable journals (the ones that Chris agrees with).

          Though if ships masters and navigators use them, and don’t run aground, does that count as peer review?

        • Stu says:

          “If there’s no SLR in Sydney then there is almost certainly no SLR in the Pacific”. Are you really sure about that? I think you are totally wrong, based on what I have read from credible sources.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, the seas and oceans to the east of Australia form the largest body of water on Earth. This broadly connected vast body of water presents a genuine sea level. The Sydney Fort Denison Recording Station provides stable, accurate and genuine mean sea level data.

            Trade winds, storms, cyclones etc. temporarily affect sea levels for short to long periods to about a difference of 40 cms and this causes surface currents of about 4 knots max with the ocean trying to achieve equilibrium but this is an ever changing situation.

            Over a period of a century the average sea level of the greater Pacific would be the same as Ft Denison.

            There is no better indicator of broad ocean levels than local levels as long as the hydrology remains constant. As it has in this case.

            As someone who has won international yacht races in the Pacific by studying and taking advantage of these winds and currents I speak from some experience.

          • Stu says:

            SD. So that raises the obvious question, why do we have tide gauges all over the place? On your logic we only need one for the whole Pacific. The authorities could save a heap of dollars by just using Fort Dennison, yeah!

          • spangled drongo says:

            I’m sure you know the answer to that silly question but in case you are serious the answer is that no two pieces of land have the same vertical movement and while the ocean constantly seeks equilibrium, land doesn’t.

            Australia is possibly the most geodetically stable country in the world and the measurement of Pacific Ocean sea levels at Fort Denison is arguably the most accurate available.

            There are tide gauges in the Pacific that show sea levels falling, rising and remaining the same.

            Where GPS chips are placed on these gauges or nearby tells the true story but it is not the ocean that varies [with the exception of variable wind mounds in the trade wind areas but because Sydney is in the “horse latitudes” that doesn’t apply] it is the land.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “based on what I have read from credible sources.”

            Do you use thd same definition of “credible sources” as Chris? Sources that tell you what you want to hear?

      • Kneel says:

        Have you noticed there are no new coal power stations planned…
        Indeed I have.
        Somewhat of an own goal, wouldn’t you say?
        I mean, with all the billions thrown at it in this country, we managed to go from 85% coal powered electricity to…. drum roll…75%.
        Think about that: after (let’s be generous) 10 years, we reduced by 10%. OK. So let’s go mad and double our spending so that we increase renewables by 2% p.a. In 20 years time, we’ll be at 35% coal – but only if there are any power stations left to supply it! A typical coal-fired power station lasts anywhere from 30 to 70 years, but of course the newer ones are more efficient and cleaner, but they still have outstanding debt, so they are more expensive and so less likely to survive. Since in NSW, we haven’t built a new power station for about 20-30 years, in 20 years we are in a world of hurt.
        Speaking of new ones, should we actually build new HELE coal plants, we could retire the oldew, less efficient ones, and get a 25% reduction in CO2 (and coal use) – without any negative impact on reliability.
        Of course, it takes a least a decade to build a new coal-fired station too…

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    While you are reading the work of scientists, you might condider this man (imtroduction to his bio in Wiki, more detail there):

    Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983[1] until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[2] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change[3] and what he has called “climate alarmism.”[4]

    To broaden your perspective?

    • stu says:

      Would that be the same Lindzen who had trouble getting his last paper published.

      “ PNAS editors sent LC11 out to four reviewers, who provided comments available here. Two of the reviewers were selected by Lindzen, and two others by the PNAS Board. All four reviewers were unanimous that while the subject matter of the paper was of sufficient general interest to warrant publication in PNAS, the paper was not of suitable quality, and its conclusions were not justified. Only one of the four reviewers felt that the procedures in the paper were adequately described. As a result, PNAS rejected the paper, which Lindzen and Choi subsequently got published in a rather obscure Korean journal, the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science.“

      Maybe he has lost his focus.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Thank you for that prompt response, you took the bait.

        Are you seriously questioning Lindzen’s credibility? Given the many failed attempts to replicate “peer reviewed” research in recent years (try a Google search if you doubt me), perhaps you might consider that there is just the verrry faintest possibility that the peer review process could be less than perfect.

        Meantime, look again at Lindzen’s credentials. He could eat most of the current crop alive and spit out the bones.

        It is telling how quickly you abandon the concept of “credible scientists” when confronted with one who doesn’t tell you what you want to hear. There are many others, equally reputable.

        • Stu says:

          Yes I agree your sources are “equally reputable”, to Lindzen. Have you heard about cognitive decline with age? It hits professors too.

          • Boambee John says:

            OK, so your mind is completely closed. I will have to find some other form of amusement, as pulling your chain does not turn on your lights.

  • Stu says:

    BJ. “Do you use thd same definition of “credible sources” as Chris? Sources that tell you what you want to hear?”

    That is a silly statement opening up tit for tat replies. i.e we could say exactly the same thing about you, except yours are less credible (told you).

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      You opened yourself up for that tit for tat response some time ago, and I have previously used it. It is quite fun, isn’t it?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        But more seriously, peer review has its place, but it is at best an imperfect instrument. It is wiser to look at the full range of opinion, then look to see which reflects what is actually hapoening.

        Try it some time, if you dare!

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    You need to get on board, the worms have turned against ruinables:

    “Former Greens leader and veteran activist Bob Brown is campaigning to stop a $1.6 billion wind farm development in Tasmania because it will spoil the view and kill birds.

    The proposed Robbins Island wind farm in Tasmania’s northwest will be one of the world’s biggest, with up to 200 towers measuring 270m high from ground to blade tip.”

    Perhaps the momentum on ruinables only has force in other people’s backyards?

    • Kneel says:

      Former Greens leader and veteran activist Bob Brown is campaigning to stop a $1.6 billion wind farm development in Tasmania because it will spoil the view and kill birds.
      If anyone cares, my response to Mr Brown is: “Suck it up, princess. You didn’t care about birds and views for anyone else’s wind farms, did you?”

  • Stu says:

    I saw this on twitter, fairly apt for here:

    Romans discussing Mt. Vesuvius in AD 79:

    – it always shakes & rumbles like that
    – SO2 cleanses the soul
    – Emperor Trumpasius says there is no threat
    – Pliny is just an alarmist
    – It is so beautiful at night
    – It is the will of Jupiter

    – #climatechange #climatecrisis

  • Chris Warren says:

    Denialists are the scrapings from the “bottom of the barrel”

    They are forced to shop around for journals to publish their articles which may occur in mistake. Sometimes articles do sneak through to the eternal shame of the better journals. For example Spencer managed to publish a denialist article in the reputable journal “Remote Sensing” and the editor Wolgfang resigned as a result.

    Having failed to get published Lindzen shopped around and finally found a rather obscure Korean journal, the “Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science”. In 2009, Richard Lindzen and his colleague Yong-Sang Choi published a paper claiming the climate sensitivity to the increased greenhouse effect is very low. Their fundamental flaws were quickly revealed (by Trenberth and Fasullo and O’Dell and Wong) and even Lindzen admitted he made “some stupid mistakes. . . . It was just embarrassing.” This reflects badly on the reviewers for “Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science”.

    Trenberth and colleagues showed that low sensitivity appeared only if the start and end points of the data analysis were carefully chosen (cherry-picked). This is the core tactic of denialists.

    When Lindzen submitted to the prestigious “Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS)” but as you would expect all reviewers (there were 4) unanimously agreed Lindzen’s paper was unpublishable.

    So they resort to infesting blogs.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Another dirty trick by denialists.

    A reputable Russian scientist found that we were headed into a relatively short period of low sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum.

    She said ” if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum. ”

    So our denialists misused this to predict that temperatures will drop in the near future.

    They deliberately deleted “if everything is done only by the sun” and ran headlines such as “scientist sees cooling ahead”. This is denialist fakery.

    Example:

    https://www.sott.net/article/324794-Solar-physicists-research-discovers-second-solar-cycle-sees-global-cooling-ahead

  • Stu says:

    On a different track I wonder if way in the future historians compare the climate story now with the end of slavery. “We cant end slavery it will ruin the economy, they cant look after themselves, the poor don’t count anyway, it is the natural state for black people, we have always farmed this way, the bible says it is ok, there is a whole industry that supplies slaves to slave owners and transports them etc etc. “ At the end of the day all of these were attempts at justifying the reactionary position of keeping on with slavery. Much like justifying keeping on with carbon burning now. “Our society was built with coal, it is too costly to change, people will starve, people will die without coal fired power, there is no reason to change, the lights will go out etc”. It all has a familiar ring to it.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      This and your Vesuvius post above show the level of your (mis)understanding of the subject. You cannot (as you have admitted) understand the scientific aspects, so you resort to fairy tales.

      Also, it is good to see that Chris maintains his unbroken record of substituting abuse for argument.

    • spangled drongo says:

      You and blith are so desperate to defend your indefensible climate crisis theory.

      Check his twisting of the obvious, above.

      But I suppose when all you have is a small, pathetic, consensus to back you up and no evidence, all you can do is what BJ says.

      Scrape the bottom of the barrel.

      You can’t even answer a simple question to support your CCT.

      And you caved in on the sea level debate for the same reason.

  • Chris Warren says:

    I see the comment count has gone up by three, but I only see 2.

    Has the drongo, drongo’d again?

  • spangled drongo says:

    You are ignorant enough, blith, without having a lend of yourself as well.

    It’s nice to see, though, that you are worried you are missing something.

    • Stu says:

      Can someone tell me how many years we are into the grand solar minimum temperature downturn and what has actually been happening. Just asking. And what is the forecast going forward.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        I suspect that the solar scientists are more circumspect in making projections, having seen the regular applications of egg to the faces of the climate scientists.

  • Ian MacCulloch says:

    I recall your interest in Rhodes Bainbridge – he appears to be highly thought of in the field of planetary physics as well. I am attaching the link to a very recent discussion on Professor Zharkova’s concepts where he is quoted extensively in blogoshperical discussions.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/06/25/zharkova-uses-solar-planetary-theory-in-new-paper-predicting-earth-temperature-rise-to-2600-following-imminent-grand-solar-minimum/#more-43121

    • Chris Warren says:

      Ian MacCulloch

      I assume you have read the original paper.

      Given the authors’ statement that “These oscillations of the estimated terrestrial temperature do not include any human-induced factors, which were outside the scope of the current paper” it is not clear that the net effect will be nothing but a relatively minor variation on global warming.

      This may not have applied in the past with CO2 below 290ppm when warming and cooling cycled through time and could have emerged in the data and effects more prominently.

      The fate of humanity depends on natural causes plus anthropogenic carbon accumulation in the atmosphere.

  • Boambee John says:

    Chris

    Your comments above about “dirty denialist tricks” caused me to ponder a little more on the subject, and I now see where you are coming from.

    I mean, there was that disgusting denialist attack on the Karoly et al paper, peer reviewed and pre-published on-line. Some sleazy denialist got all picky about some minor mathematical errors, forcing the retraction of the paper. And this to one of Australia’s foremost climate scientists! Utterly disgraceful!

    But even worse was what those dirty denialists did to Michael Mann and his brilliant work on the historical temperature “hockey stick”. His work was not only peer reviewed and published, but also featured in an IPCC report, and most importantly in Al Gore’s magnificent work, “An Inconvenient Truth”. And some disgraceful denialist had the gall to find a few quirks in the mathematics. Sure, Michael had used a “trick” to obscure that his chosen temperature proxy did not work against recent actual measurements, but that hardly affected the results at all. OK, the IPCC bowed to denialists and didn’t mention it again, but what a dirty denialist trick!

    And to add insult to injury, some denialists in the UK had the unmitigated gall to mount a court action against “An Inconvenient Truth”, forcing schools to point out some absolutely trivial errors when showing that brilliant work to children.

    BTW, the above is sarcasm, in case that is too hard for you to recognise.

  • Stu says:

    It fails even as sarcasm because it is so full of errors. Eg the hockey stick is well proven, and even one time skeptics like R Muller (funded by deniers like the Kochs) concluded the hockey stick analogy was real. Meantime I concede people like Gore and even Flannery have overcooked the egg, a bit like Roberts, Jones etc on the other side, but no problem, the truth will out.

    Speaking of Jones, the dick has no idea of the difference between stocks and flows. Poor fool.

    • Mike says:

      If the Hockey Stick was “Settled Science” why did the IPCC drop as it their de facto logo?
      PS thanks for the CET vs CO2 graph SD

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Chris tells us that the temperature increase is linear, the hockey stick shows a sharp upward curve, hardly linear.

      Who is wrong, Chris or Mann?

      • Stu says:

        Linear v what?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          I realise that you have acknowledged your own lack of expertise, but I would have thought that even you would understand the difference between a straight line (linear) and a curve (non-linear).

          Stop embarrassing yourself, even I am feeling sad at what you are doing.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            CO2 emissions have continued to rise since 2000, but even the IPCC has admitted that there had been a pause in the temperature rise since then.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee John

        This entirely depends on the time scale.

        Please stop playing these tricks.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          You stop playing your tricks, I will stop playing mine.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Careful selection of start and end points is one of those dirty alarmist tricks that I have picked up. Another name for it is cherry picking, a regular alarmist trick.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            I do not cherry-pick.

            I do not play tricks.

            It seems you are up a creek without a paddle.

          • spangled drongo says:

            And our b in c sez:

            “I do not cherry-pick.

            I do not play tricks.”

            Could it be that when you just blither, you aren’t really aware of what you do?

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris,

            Sure you don’t cherry pick, and sure you don’t play tricks. We all believe you, though thousands wouldn’t.

    • Kneel says:

      Eg the hockey stick is well proven,..
      Well proven to be bunk, yes I agree.
      You can feed this formula synthetic time series data that is known a priori to be trendless, and it still spits out hockey sticks.
      It’d called “data mining” – if you torture the data enough, it will confess.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Eg the hockey stick is well proven”

    Show us the evidence, stu.

    Or is that like the rest of your “evidence”?

    Non-existent?

    You have continually used the excuse that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in Europe and North America were local phenomena and this is simply a load of old shoes:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/17/manns-hockey-stick-refuted-10-years-before-it-was-published/

    Or better still, read this:

    https://www.amazon.de/The-Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate/dp/1906768358/ref=sr_1_1?s=books-intl-de&ie=UTF8&qid=1339227005&sr=1-1

  • spangled drongo says:

    New study shows that natural factors explain the recent rise in CO2 and that its residence time is only 4 years:

    Highlights

    We present a carbon cycle with an uptake proportional to the CO2 concentration.

    Temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates are considered.

    The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be 4 years.

    Paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate are well reproduced.

    Human emissions only contribute 15 % to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.

    Abstract

    Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787?via%3Dihub

  • spangled drongo says:

    And stu doesn’t think there are many young sceptical scientists around:

    “The global surface mean temperature change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/21/mit-doctorate-climate-scientist-slams-gw-claims-based-on-untrustworthy-falsified-data-no-scientific-value/

    • Boambee John says:

      They were only ever a propaganda tool. What is the scientific value of a global average when the temperature across the globe on any day can have a range close to 100 degrees C, and can vary by more than 20 in some locations?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Absolutely, BJ. And when they have been selectively discarded, adjusted and reintroduced at will under the claim of quality improvement……Oh, dear.

        And when I ponder on that 1c total warming since global records began and then study my 3 veranda thermometers with an almost continual 3c variation at any one time….

      • Stu says:

        BJ, “They were only ever a propaganda tool. What is the scientific value of a global average when the temperature across the globe on any day can have a range close to 100 degrees C, and can vary by more than 20 in some locations?”
        Mate, if anything you have written to date displays less understanding of measurement and scientific method, I have yet to see it. Do you want to rephrase that question. I will give you the benefit of doubt meantime.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          No, I do not wish to rephrase. Given your self admitted lack of knowledge of science, I suggest you lower your profile.

          Worked out what a Null Hypothesis is yet?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Perhaps you should read SD’s post more carefully. Are you alleging that a “mit-doctorate-climate-scientist” displays “displays less understanding of measurement and scientific method”? Gutsy call from a self acknowledged non-expert.

  • Stu says:

    Very scientific measurement – not. Please try again.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The hypocrisy of climate alarmists is breathtaking:

    “So Tony Abbott was right. It will be good to hear that apology.

    After millions of birds bats and who-knows-what-else has been killed, now he cares:

    In his letter on the wind farm, Dr Brown wrote: “Besides the impact on the coastal scenery, wind turbines kill birds. Wedge-tailed eagle and white-bellied sea eagles nest and hunt on the island. Swift parrots and orange-bellied parrots traverse the island on their migrations.”

    The birds are just a “beside”.

    Reap what you sow — a belief based on superstition with no underlying principles means sooner or later Greens reveal their inner hypocrite.”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/former-greens-leader-bob-brown-campaigns-against-wind-farm/

    • Neville says:

      SD perhaps the dopey lefties will take notice of their chief Brown dope, who knows? I suppose even this extremist fool has to be right on occasions?
      Remember when he and other Greens donkeys blamed our coal for the latest cyclone down our east coast? But Bolt took them to task for being ignorant about the latest BOM data showing a lower trend over the last 50 years. That’s for both severe and non severe cyclones. Unbelievable but true.
      Arguing with unprincipled layabouts is a fools errand and I think we should throw as much new, real data in their face as we are able to find. Although they couldn’t care less about real data and evidence because they are always attracted by stupid left wing dogma and politics. Just look at the stupid Dems in the US.

  • Neville says:

    Could a reduction of low level clouds be a major influence on our climate over a period of time? New Finnish and Japanese studies seemed to have come to the same conclusions.
    If you have less of these clouds you have more warming and for years a number of scientists have agreed that there is a lack of good cloud data and probably far too much warming has been attributed to Human co2 emissions.

    http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

  • Neville says:

    Here is that Finnish study.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

    Here is the Kobe Uni study and a quote from the authors.

    http://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_kobe_en/NEWS/news/2019_07_03_01.html

    “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it”, comments Professor Hyodo. “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.”

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      If you read the Finnish paper and looked at fig 3, you will see clearly for the temp peak at 1998, that the change in clouds occurred after the change in temperature and it was a smaller effect.

      They do not cite the source of their cloud data, but mention only that it runs for 25 years which is inadequate for their conclusions.

      Do denialists accept 25 years of data when it suits them while rejecting 40 years of data when it doesn’t?

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        Why not? Alarmists regularly accept a couple of hot days as “climate”, while describing similar runs of cold days as “weather”. They demand 30 or 40 years when it suits them, but settle for shorter periods when that does.

        Just part of the rich fabric of selectivity they use. Select starting and end dates to suit, select which records to emphasise and which to ignore. That kind of thing.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Boambee John

          You are misinformed – no one accepts a couple of hot days as climate. The focus is on record hot days.

          You only need a short run of repeated record hot days to have cause for concern because if there was no rising trend there would be no cluster of new records at one end of a longer record.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Does a short run of repeated record cold temperatures also become cause for concern, particularly in an era when global temperatures are said to be rising?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Just think, Neville, Joni wrote and recorded the song 50 years ago but the “experts” didn’t listen:

      “It’s cloud illusions I recall, I really don’t know clouds at all”.

      And neither did they.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Was it you, stu, telling us about the plight of Bangladeshis from the “climate crisis”?

    A review of objective crop data, however, shows Bangladesh is enjoying a dramatic long-term increase in crop production, resulting in record food availability, as the Earth continues its modest warming:

    https://www.cfact.org/2019/07/12/caught-in-lie-data-destroys-claim-about-bangladeshi-climate-migrants/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Alarmists never stop claiming climate disaster but contrary to their claims, extreme weather-related deaths have been in long-term and significant decline, falling by 98% over the last 80-plus years. Heat-related deaths are outnumbered by those due to cold by as much as 20:1, meaning that warming would save lives. The United States Drought Monitor shows that the area in drought in this country is at its historic low since data collection began. The allegation of an extinction of one million species would require 25,000 to 30,000 extinctions per year, yet, according to the IUCN Red List, the extinctions numbers have been in significant decline since the early 1900s and have averaged only two per year since 1970.

    When will they stop telling lies?

  • Stu says:

    Ah yes the Finnish paper. Here is a fairly detailed pulling apart of that unpublished, non peer reviewed paper. The conclusion is that it is BS.

    https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

    And the other one I am surprised you have not dragged in is that eminent scientist Alan Jones who still does not understand the difference between stocks and flows or in this case mass and flux. Check out his Fox performance.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Yes – it looks like the models have stupendous accuracy now.

      https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Screen-Shot-2019-07-05-at-3.42.18-PM.png

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        So, have they been adjusted to match the past, using “tunable parameters”? And if so, will they need further adjustment in a few years time so they show the next five years in retrospect?

        The true test is to go back a few years and see how the projections made then matched reality.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          Some light reading for you

          “”Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.”

          — Box, George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces, p. 424, Wiley. ISBN 0471810339.”

          • Mike says:

            Furthermore scientific research in all fields, including medicine, is often superseded, even found to be in error within five years. There’s no point reading everything thrust under our noses

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Yes – it looks like the models have stupendous accuracy now.”

        Well, blith, it’s amazing how stupendously accurate you can [eventually] get when you model the past but they still have no idea why the past climate did what it did.

        But the future is something else:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

        But you are a comedian.

    • spangled drongo says:

      The conclusion, stu, is that it is one model arguing with other models.

      You know, the ones that have shown themselves to be 97% wrong and getting wronger with their projections.

      And when it is the constructors of the wrong models that are reviewing the findings guess which side of the debate they support.

      This is the evidence-free but projection-rich “science” that you and blith worship.

      All the while ignoring the real world and being devoid of any rational scepticism.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “Here is a fairly detailed pulling apart of that unpublished, non peer reviewed paper.”

      From an alarmist website?

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    Have you looked up Congo/cobalt mining and China/rare earth pollution yet?

    Ot are you afraid of what you might discover?

    • Stu says:

      Give me a number for people harmed doing, that versus people harmed globally, mining coal, transporting it, breathing the smog it puts out etc. oh and by the way many of those “rare earths” end up in lots of things like catalytic converters, mobile phones, aeroplanes etc, etc. put down your phone now!

      • Boambee John says:

        So you don’t and don’t want to know.

        • Stu says:

          Coal injures many more people.

          • Boambee John says:

            A definitive statement from Stu.

            Please provide the numbers and the evidence, covering both coal and wind/solar.

            Should be easy, you must have it to make that statement.

          • Stu says:

            BJ, the WHO says “Worldwide, ambient air pollution contributes to 7.6% of all deaths in 2016”. Elsewhere they say 4.1 million deaths that year from air pollution. What is your number for deaths in Cobalt etc mines?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Bit of an own goal there.

            “Ambient air pollution” probably includes the pollution from burning wood and animal dung for cooking and heat, a major cause of early death in the countries where there is no reliable (fossil fuel powered) electricity supply.

            Try again.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee John

        It is estimated that over 20,000 coal miners die each year from black lung alone.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          Now, your estimate on the numbers affected by cobalt and rare earth mining in countries where environmental standards are less than optimal.

          • Kneel says:

            Indeed.
            And please remember to adjust for the percentage of global electricity production as well – you know, per TW/h of generation.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          Read back. Stu claimed that “WHO says “Worldwide, ambient air pollution contributes to 7.6% of all deaths in 2016”. Elsewhere they say 4.1 million deaths that year from air pollution.”

          I pointed out to him that this probably (almost certainly) includes “pollution from burning wood and animal dung for cooking and heat, a major cause of early death in the countries where there is no reliable (fossil fuel powered) electricity supply.”

          Allowing that not all of the 4.1 million would come from those sources, how many years of your “20,000 coal miners die each year from black lung alone” figure does it take to match, say, 3 million deaths from indoor burning of wood and animal dung? Tske your time working it out, I realise that arithmetic can be quite difficult.

  • Stu says:

    What’s this, no one running with Nils Morner and Alan Jones, the man with the one percent of three percent of f’all theory. Come on , it is an easy knock off.

  • spangled drongo says:

    When the cloud study concludes that we have practically no anthropogenic climate change with as much evidence as the alarmist scientists supply with their claim that climate change is an immediate threat to the planet and is largely a man-made, the screams are deafening.

    We obviously need to teach kiddie kloud klimate kure in schools now.

  • Neville says:

    Another informative video from the GWPF about the endless UK promotion of these GREEN S&W killers. Stuff the birds, other wildlife and the environment, who cares so long as these con merchants can get their hands on your money?
    But even the Brown donkey is waking up to this con and fra-d. Surely if he can then anyone can?
    Of course none of this will change the climate or temp by 2040 or 2100. IOW a ZERO return on the so called investment.

  • Neville says:

    Another top podcast from Anthony Watts, this time talking to Dr Judith Curry about the present state of climate research.
    Judith thinks there is some AGW in the system but is also very aware of the dubious behavior of some of the clowns pushing their CAGW alarmist dogma.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/16/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-climate-change-is-not-a-clear-and-present-danger/

  • Chris Warren says:

    A good summary of denialist lies and cherry-picking…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo

    [Not suitable viewing material for dishonest skeptics]

    • Stu says:

      That is a great one and the real sting in the tail comes in around 11:50 where he accurately describes skeptics. But no one here will watch the video because it is too accurate and too confronting at least so far as the viscount is concerned. And the whole argument is a good analog for many of the other “players”.

    • Boambee John says:

      But good viewing for dishonest alarmists?

  • spangled drongo says:

    If these alarmists have a genuine point to make on their climate theory, why don’t they openly debate the sceptics?

    Like the sceptics are asking?

    Instead of manipulating them like puppets on a string.

    Any fool can make out they win the argument this way.

    It’s just like the rest of their data fiddling and manipulation.

    Their evidence is so contrived and dubious, they have to be in full control of the outcome or they can never make a point.

    They claim they can tie Monckton in knots.

    But they haven’t got the courage to face him in person.

    • Stu says:

      Clearly you guys have not watched the video, so I will spell it out for you. It shows Monckton making a series of claims based on papers he references. Hadfield then very carefully shows the actual conclusions of those papers which is at odds with Moncktons cherry picked quotes. It goes on and on. If this is not confronting Monckton what is? Oh there is even a TV clip where they interview the guy and he backs down. And you say the evidence is “contrived and dubious”. Please point out exactly where that is the case.

  • Stu says:

    Who said it was a debate? And it is not an example of cherry picking, unless you call knocking off only one of your cheer leaders is cherry picking. Monckton has given many lectures, many recorded and available to review. Hadfield has based his analysis on that and carefully questions a whole string of Monckton claims, by checking back to the sources of his “evidence”. But I can see why that would not worry you. As Hadfield explains near the end, the typical audience is not just skeptics but people looking to accept blindly and follow any charlatan who expounds drivel in support of their own pre conceived position.

    Are you saying all those points by Hadfield are wrong? Are you saying Monckton is correct with all his claims in the video?

    Climate skepticism continues to not be evidence based. Check the science.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Who said it was a debate?”

    You’re right there but you fail to understand that when an evidence-free hypothesis is being proposed and those proponents can only produce predictions based on hysterical assumptions, it requires a lot of debating before we squander our life savings on the non-solution to the likely non-problem.

    When these alarmists, instead of debate [which they have always lost and now refuse to enter into] instead use orchestrated, controlled, cherry picked, out of context arguments and continually avoid face to face debate, only goes to prove how hollow their whole hypothesis really is.

    To claim some sort of moral victory because of this duplicitous procedure, takes a certain level of stu-pidity.

  • Neville says:

    So climate skepticism is not evidence based? What about— No change in SLR trend , polar bear population booming, no change in hurricane trends, no warming in SP since 1978, no hot spot above the equator , deaths from extreme events have dropped by 98% since 1920, lower trend for OZ cyclones since 1970, no increase in global wildfires, no trend in global droughts, rainfall overall is higher across OZ since 1970, all humans living much longer ,healthier, wealthier lives than 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago and even 30 years ago???
    The evidence is overwhelming that our GREENING planet is much easier NOW for the 7.5+ bn people to live much better lives. That’s compared to JUST 1 bn in 1800 or JUST 1.8 bn in 1900. Don’t blame us because you don’t understand very simple sums , data and evidence.

    • Boambee John says:

      Neville

      You must understand that computer models with multiple assumptions and “tunable parameters” are the acme of modern science. This old fashioned make an hypothesis, measure data, test against a null hypothesis, etc, is so limiting.

    • Boambee John says:

      spangled drongo

      You reeeally juuust doon’t understand. Unlike taking the failed prophesies of the climate gurus and highlighting that these show th e weaknesses of the models (which is an eeevil denialist trick, beneath the dignity of all reasonable alarmists) this technique of “debate by proxy” is scientifically exemplary, and should be used all the time, but just not by those eeeevil denialists.

    • Stu says:

      None of those things are evidence that we are not in the midst of AGW. Some big jumps there from correlation to causation etc. The number of cyclones is only one characteristic, what about speed of forming, rate of rise of intensity, rainfall etc. Oz is only one part of the world and cyclones here is not a good measure for you to rely on. The world is a smarter place since 1900 so you would hope we have achieved a drop in deaths from nasty causes. And the rest amount to no more than hearsay from the skeptosphere. Check the wild fires in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

      And here is a question for you. If the oceans have warmed (which they have) and therefore expanded how is it possible that sea level has not risen? And that is without considering increasing meltwater from glaciers and icepacks. I think you will find SEA LEVEL is a much more complicated concept than you realise.

      Don’t bother replying, I know what you will write, so save us all the time and energy.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Some big jumps there from correlation to causation etc.”

        Most of them made bybalarmists, who see gerbil worming behind everything that happens, but are horrified by the very idea of empirical data.

        PS, worked out how many of those 4.1 million deaths were caused by burning wood and animal dung indoors, in the absence of reliable electricity?

  • Neville says:

    Sorry above world population in 1900 was 1.6 bn and reached 1.8 bn by 1920.

  • Chris Warren says:

    No change in SLR trend , WRONG
    polar bear population booming, WRONG
    no change in hurricane trends, WRONG
    no warming in SP since 1978, WRONG
    no hot spot above the equator , WRONG
    deaths from extreme events have dropped by 98% since 1920, WRONG
    lower trend for OZ cyclones since 1970, IRRELEVANT
    no increase in global wildfires, IRRELEVANT
    no trend in global droughts, IRRELEVANT
    rainfall overall is higher across OZ since 1970, INSIGNIFICANT
    all humans living much longer ,healthier, wealthier lives than 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago and even 30 years ago??? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG
    The evidence is overwhelming that our GREENING planet is much easier NOW for the 7.5+ bn people to live much better lives. WRONG

    Obviously Neville doesn’t understand very simple sums , data and evidence.

  • Boambee John says:

    “The UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food condemned the growing of biofuels as ‘a crime against humanity’ because they diverted arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel instead of sold for food…Rather than contributing to the theoretical food security of hundreds of millions of the world’s poor in 50 years time, it has reduced the actual food security of tens of millions of the world’s poor today.”

    A figure of 200,000 death pa has been mentioned. Does this count as a cost of CAGW. What do the alarmists have to say?

    • Stu says:

      I don’t agree with your numbers but I do agree that biofuels are a very silly idea not least because of the problems you mention.

      • Boambee John says:

        Small steps Stu, small steps.

        BTW, the 200,000 figure comes from one Mike Hulme, apparently a big name in alarmist circles.

        From Wiki:

        “mikehulme.org
        Michael ‘Mike’ Hulme is Professor of Human Geography in the Department of Geography at the University of Cambridge. He was formerly professor of Climate and Culture at King’s College London and of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.”

        Clearly just another denialist?

    • Chris Warren says:

      Biofuels, lithium batteries and reafforestation etc are short-term responses but can never range broadly enough to cope with the emissions from 7,8,or,9 billion people based on their current industrial way of life.

      This is not to say that future technology with algae, and other batteries and efficient hydrogen may emerge, but still I see only the need to address population or find some new magic to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.

      Ruddiman’s work shows that humans were causing climate change long before we reached 1 billion people and before any fossil fuels were extracted.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        As i have pointed out before, stopping population growth and then reducing total numbers are very slow processes, measured in multiple decades to have any significant effect. Relying on them to “solve” the “problem” suggests that there is no urgency in your mind.

        Unless, of course, you are comfortable with what might euphemistically be called active measures (compulsory sterilisation, withdrawing medical support from the sick or elderly, or even worse).

        As you would be aware, some of the more extreme environmentalists see humans as a plague or virus on the world, which should be either eradicated, or reduced to minimal numbers (themselves being counted among the elect, of course). I hope that you would join me in condemnation of such fascist ideas.

        Relying on the development of some “new magic to extract CO2 from the atmosphere” is wishful thinking. But then, so is believing the projections of computer models 50 years into the future.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          Old item from the Grauniad.

          “Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony. A number of pregnant women selected for sterilisation suffered miscarriages and lost their babies.

          The UK agreed to give India £166m to fund the programme, despite allegations that the money would be used to sterilise the poor in an attempt to curb the country’s burgeoning population of 1.2 billion people.

          Sterilisation has been mired in controversy for years. With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object. Activists say some are told they are going to health camps for operations that will improve their general wellbeing and only discover the truth after going under the knife.

          Yet a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were “complex human rights and ethical issues” involved in forced population control.”

          I hope that you would not support such a program.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu sez: “I think you will find SEA LEVEL is a much more complicated concept than you realise.”

    No stu. You couldn’t get a simpler concept.

    Particularly when it is not doing anything or going anywhere.

    The seas and oceans to the east of Australia form the largest body of water on Earth. This broadly connected vast body of water presents a genuine sea level. The Sydney Fort Denison Recording Station provides stable, accurate and genuine mean sea level data.

    There have always been short period storm and low pressure rises in sea levels. The highest recorded sea level at Sydney occurred during the 1974 low pressure storm. The sea level rose to 30 cm above high spring tide level for one day. During recorded history there has been no indication whatsoever of a 100 to 200 cm permanent rise in sea level.

    Accordingly, the mean sea level at Sydney in 2019 is 6 centimetres lower than the mean sea level at Sydney in 1914 when the Bureau Of Meteorology commenced recording Mean Sea Level.

    This is what’s called empirical evidence, stu, and it’s there for all to observe if only you will take the trouble.

    When you are obviously so alarmed about climate change and sea levels can provide so much reassurance that nothing other than natural climate variability can possibly be happening, it is curious, to say the least, that you should choose not to look, peruse in detail and investigate.

    • Stu says:

      That still does not explain where the expansion of sea water from heating has gone to. It is conclusively proved that the oceans (including, and maybe a especially the Pacific) have warmed. Or presumably of course you disagree with the warming. In which case please explain where the extra energy has gone.

      • spangled drongo says:

        With the tiny bit of heating we have measured, stu, we only ASSUME the oceans are heating.

        The fact that the MSL at Ft Denison is lower than it was a century ago explains it all perfectly and undeniably.

        • Stu says:

          No, there is no assumption involved, if you do a google search you will find a vast trove of published papers on the subject. Some of those lead groups like IUCN to conclude:

          “The ocean’s ability to absorb excess heat has shielded humans from even more rapid changes in climate. Without this oceanic buffer, global temperatures would have risen much more than they have done to date. IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007 estimated that the Earth had experienced a warming of 0.55°C since the 1970s. According to an analysis by the Grantham Institute, if the same amount of heat that has gone into the top 2,000 m of the ocean between 1955 and 2010 had gone into the lower 10 km of the atmosphere, the Earth would have seen a warming of 36°C.”

          So, fairly conclusive and now the oceans appear to be reaching a limit on capacity to absorb which will put more load back on the atmosphere.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Do these papers indicate what proportion of the current atmospheric CO2 levels are the result of “outgassing” from the warmer oceans?

            Henry’s Law is relevant.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “No, there is no assumption involved”

            Not even when your sci-mates can’t show in any detail if the ocean is warming from volcanism and emitting CO2 or cooling from ENSO and absorbing more CO2 or that a mere 15 years of being able to measure the temperature of a portion of the ocean with no previous data worth considering, available to compare recent ARGO data with?

            Your “evidence” is not only assumption based, it’s whistling in the dark, stu.

          • Stu says:

            SD, says sea level was higher in 1914 than 2019. On a given day and even for that year that is possible given the many factors that affect tides and level. But that is cherry picking. Look at the graph and tell me what the trend line says.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        You state that the oceans have warmed, therefore the water has expanded, therefore the sea level must have risen.

        You have jumped rapidly and without apparent thought through your logic chain.

        Have the “oceans” heated all the way to the sea bed, or just a thin layer at the top? Given the vast bulk of the oceans, the latter seems the likely reality (that is not the same as alarmist “reality”).

        If only a thin layer (centimetres? metres? tens of metres?) has actually warmed, then the expansion of only that layer, spread out across the total area, some 70% of the earth’s surface, is not likely to produce a significant volumetric increase.

        Go away and do some calculations, and get back to us. Perhaps some climate modellers might offer to help? That would reduce the mischief being wrought for at least a little while.

    • Stu says:

      Do you understand the variability of a measure like mean sea level for a year and the need to look at long term trend lines for judgement rather than just cherry picking a high start point and a low end point? Probably not! The scientists who study this come to quite a different conclusion from yours.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “long term trend lines for judgement rather than just cherry picking a high start point and a low end point? Probably not! The scientists who study this come to quite a different conclusion from yours.”

        As different to the usual dirty alarmist trick of cherry picking a low start point and a high end point?

      • spangled drongo says:

        “The scientists who study this come to quite a different conclusion from yours.”

        Please show us where your “scientists who study this” aren’t cherry picking a few years of incomplete measurements from a questionable source with proven errors as compared with over a century of factual measurement.

        Mean sea level is the most honest way to measure sea levels as it is observable on a daily basis.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Quiet everyone … denialists at work?

    https://youtu.be/fWQDdKFOP9Q

  • spangled drongo says:

    Nuclear in a normal world:

    Look ma, no subsidies! If nuclear power was subsidized like solar & wind… we might have already replaced coal with natural gas and nuclear power.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/18/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-renewables-crushing-natural-gas/

    • Stu says:

      Not sure where he gets his figures but it varies greatly from the evidence. Here is what one official says;

      A SENIOR OFFICIAL WITH America’s largest nuclear plant operating company is predicting a dim future for nuclear power in the U.S, according to S&P Global Platts.

      William Von Hoene, senior vice president and chief strategy officer at Exelon, said last week that he doesn’t foresee any new nuclear plants being built in the United States due to their high operating costs.

      “The fact is – and I don’t want my message to be misconstrued in this part – I don’t think we’re building any more nuclear plants in the United States. I don’t think it’s ever going to happen,” Platts quoted Von Hoene as saying at the annual U.S. Energy Association’s meeting in Washington, D.C. “I’m not arguing for the construction of new nuclear plants. They are too expensive to construct, relative to the world in which we now live.”

      • spangled drongo says:

        Nuclear reactors go on and on. France has electricity prices 17 per cent below the EU average and keeps Europe operating when all the current unreliables fail. Also there is very modern development of small reactors that we should be using in our new, pre-outdated, multi-billion subs, versions of which would be ideal for residential purposes.

        I bet the nuclear reactors that power US aircraft carriers produce cheap power and would run cities of EVs at very low mileage cost.

        But we can’t have that.

        And then there’s thorium.

        If it wasn’t for the LNT f***wits who wish to make nuclear unusable, Australia would have a great, safe, low cost, emission-free future.

        These people are trying to do likewise in the US with less, but growing, success.

        • Stu says:

          Really weird moment, I agree with much of what you say. I suspect the French power system is heavily subsidised, but it is effective. Meantime why have we not seen the Thorium type move into production? Probably shows the heavy finger of vested interests including government. Maybe it would be a good line of research to see if carbon interests have been muddying the waters there also. I would not be surprised, if so.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            And I would not be surprised if Green and ruinable vested interests also had their oar in.

          • Stu says:

            There is a huge gap between the fire power of the carbon interests and renewables, chalk and cheese. And there is proof of the meddling of the carbon boys.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Corbon farming and ruinables are multi billion dollar industries which hold great power. Their political supporters hold and willingly use vast power.

            Try to grow up beyond the cartoons you watched in your youth.

          • Stu says:

            BJ,
            The gulf between the fire power of all of the world renewable players and the US$75 trillion plus oil industry never mind coal is like an ocean. I think you need to get real, you have been sold a dodgy story by the lobbyists and our old mate Jonesy. It is you with the cartoons. Go and check the numbers.

  • Serge Wright says:

    When considering the climate debate, one must also consider the proposed solutions to the assumed problem and the cost versus benefits. What we do know with high certainty is that wind and solar have not been able to provide reliable grid scale power anywhere they have been deployed and only work to drive up prices, resulting in a rise of energy poverty and economic loss.

    Ironically, despite the high certainty of the negative outcomes of transitioning to RE along with the proven uselessness of this technology to measurably reduce GHGs , the left leaning political community wants to embrace this failed strategy at an even more rapid rate and with greater conviction. In tying to understand this intellectual paradox, the push for a GND in the USA by solialist democrats highlights how this scientific debate has been hijacted by political ideology. Discussion focus by the GND climate alarmists is now about creating “nice clean green jobs for all” and painting a false nirvana where work is optional and a living wage is provided to those that wish to stay at home and write poetry all day.

    Interestingly, down here in Australia there does seem to be an increasing realisation of the policy failure of RE and a growing resistance to move further in that direction. Bob Brown’s failed excursions to QLD during the last federal election demonstrated an electorate that is now waking up to the harsh realities of transitioning to renewable energy. Bob’s own recent rejection of a large wind farm in his home state has also demonstrated a level of hypocrasy that can only further drive more people back to sensible rationalisation. This is not about the climate, this is really about trying to creat more Venezuelas, with an insane hope that socialism might work one day.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Well said, Serge W.

      Yes, insanity.

      Doing the same thing in the vain hope of a different outcome.

      • Stu says:

        BJ
        Get a grip. Renewable industry is trivial size alongside the $75 trillion oil industry. Never mind cartoons, you live in a dreamworld..

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          I see that your understanding of politics and the use of political power has not improved.

          Still all fairies at the bottom of the garden level.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Serge Wright

      What is the evidence of anyone proposing or:

      “painting a false nirvana where work is optional and a living wage is provided to those that wish to stay at home and write poetry all day.”

      Surely, this is false.

    • Stu says:

      “along with the proven uselessness of this technology to measurably reduce GHGs”. Please explain. If RE as you refer to it is generating power in lieu of alternative power from a source that emits GHG how is that not reducing GHG’s? Sure, the total power demand has been going up faster than renewables can replace existing plant, but that is a failure of policy not of the ability of RE to reduce the GHG load. Once again people are confusing stocks and flows. Go and look up “carbon flux”.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Still with the fairy dust and unicorns.

        Go check the carbon budget for building wind generators against the CO2 reductions from its lifetime of intermittent, unreliable, use. Don’t forget to include thd steel for the tower and the hundreds of tonnes of concrete needed for the foundations for each wind generator.

        And pray tell us whether you are happy to be on the operating table in a hospital relying on solar after dark, and wind on a still day. Very embarrassing when the lights go out as the surgeon is slicing into your guts. When solar and wind can reliabily and continuously provide power 24 hours a day, seven days a week, then talk to us. A medium sized hospital can use up to 40 MWH a day.

        • Serge Wright says:

          Stu,

          If you look at the outcomes across Europe as well as in our own backyard, you don’t need to be Einstein to realise the failure. In Australia, we have already spent over $30 billion dollars in subsidies for RE, meaning the total infrastrure spend has been in excess of $60 billlion and our total emissions have risen during this period. For this amount of money, you could build 12 x HELE coal plants that would produce 24GWh of electricity, instead of the ~3GWh that gets produced by RE (averaged) and the emissions reductions from the HELE coal plants would be several times greater.

          The situation in Germany is damning . After spending in excess of $100 billion dollars, emissions are basically unchanged. As an unwanted outcome of this exercise, they are now facing grid stability and energy price issues, which has lead to adverse economic and social outcomes. Perhaps the most damning chapter of their sorry tale lies in the fact that after 20 years of subsidising all of this useless infrastructure, the original turbines and panels now need to be replaced which will create a componding annual cost. Australia will face a similar challenge next decade as our early turbines and panels are now already greater than 12 years old.

          As a final point, if someone said to me 20 years ago that the government of today will pay companies large sums of cash to remain shut for extended peiods of time, I would have though this was a crazy joke. Yet here we are facing such a crazy reality and all driven by an insane ideology that has overtaken all logic and rational thought.

        • Stu says:

          “Go check the carbon budget for building wind generators against the CO2 reductions from its lifetime of intermittent, unreliable, use. Don’t forget to include the steel for the tower and the hundreds of tonnes of concrete needed for the foundations for each wind generator.”

          And have you added up the carbon budget for building a coal fired power plant? All that concrete and steel has huge carbon costs, in case you had not thought about it. And then once constructed it requires lots of energy to dig the coal, transport it, handle it, dispose of the ash and finally dismantle etc. zero sum game not. Oh and all the fuel for transport to and fro of all those workers to do the previously listed tasks. Get real you fossil.

          I think the words you left out above are “lifetime of power generation with no mining, transportation, handling, storage cost, just power generation with bugger all cost”. Correct.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So much cherry picking by you to avoid my point.

            I ask you to work out the carbon budget for a single wind generator to see if it actually does reduce CO2 emissions across its lifetime and you diverge into a comparison with a coal powered generator (you know, the type of generator needed to provide the power to actually build the wind generator, because they are not made out of fairy dust and unicorn f@rts). Then you mention the “huge carbon costs” of the concrete and steel for the coal generator, apparently forgetting that those were key elements of the task I set for you.

            Then you are apparently unaware that it takes very many wind generators to match (at least in theory, if the wind blows at the correct speed) the output of the coal generator. But you did remind me, don’t forget to add in the copper, steel and concrete for the additional transmission lines to take the wind power from its dispersed generation locations to the users. Coal generation, though you seem to be vacuous enough not to know this, is a very concentrated operation. Oh, don’t forget the much shorter operating lifetime of wind generators, so multiply your result by six or seven for a true comparison.

            Really Stu, you have so little understanding of the operations even of your favoured ruinables, much less of coal generation, you should stick to the fairy dust (or perhaps you should try angel dust).

  • Boambee John says:

    For those whose minds are not vompletely closed.

    “Climate scaremongering serves as a central strategy of the U.N.’s global governance wealth redistribution agenda.
    As then-Canadian Minister of the Environment Christiana Figueres told the Calgary Herald in 1988, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    Speaking in her capacity as FCCC’s Executive Secretary at a 2015 climate conference in Brussels, Figueres said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”
    In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev confirmed the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives — “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

    • spangled drongo says:

      BJ, do you think our stu’s problem is that he is too obtuse to understand that and really believes the “consensus” or that he is actually marketing the fakery bakery?

      IOW, a believer or a bull artist?

      I suspect a bit of both.

      BTW, stu, do you think that Bob Brown is a closet carbon boy?

      He shuts down hydro.

      He boosts coal mining.

      He shuts down wind gen.

      If he isn’t, he’s the carbon boys’ best friend.

      • Boambee John says:

        SD

        I think that Stu is an innocent abroard. Look at his previous comments that the Greens are a relatively small group, and therefore have only limited political power. Look also at his comment above about the ruinable industry being of “trivial” size.

        I wonder if he has any real clue what relatively small numbers constituted the Bolsheviks and the Nazis when they grasped power? Almost certainly not.

        It is touching to read what he says, but frightening to think that he really believes it.

        • stu says:

          “wonder if he has any real clue what relatively small numbers constituted the Bolsheviks and the Nazis when they grasped power? Almost certainly not.”. Please excuse the “french” but fuck me you are paranoid and delusional in regard to this issue. Oh, and regarding the “small numbers…. when they grasped power”, have you had a look at how your mate Donald is transitioning US “democracy” lately. Certainly he is undoing decades of progress in many fields of international cooperation including trade and no need to mention the EPA. Sleep well you poor old thing.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So you accept that a small number of dedicated revolutionaries can move an entire nation onto a radically different path?

            Small steps Stu, small steps.

            Now consider whether a larger group, with financial, ideological and ego driven ambitions (think Greens and the financial beneficiaries of ruinable energy projects) might be able to do the same, particularly with the support of the ego maniacs of the media.

            You truly do see the world in a purely binary fashion: climate warriors good, everyone else baaaad.

          • Stu says:

            “Now consider whether a larger group, with financial, ideological and ego driven ambitions (think Greens and the financial beneficiaries of ruinable energy projects) might be able to do the same, particularly with the support of the ego maniacs of the media.”

            Think about it. If the greens and renewable forces had one tenth of the power you say (think) they have we would now be on the way to fully renewable energy and GHG’s would be on the decline. You are entitled to think that CO2 is not a problem and we can burn all the coal in the ground but you can’t have an alternative fact (in Trump speak) that says the forces for good are out manouvering the leviathans of the fossil fuel regime, not to mention the grotesque power of the Murdoch empire, plus Jones and Bolt etc. if you do think that it only proves you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the crap that the vested carbon interests spew daily. In some places the voice of reason is gaining traction but in the home of the devil (Trump) that is far from the case. I feel for you, because one day soon you will see reality and be shattered that you were so easily duped. The carbon debate is bigger than than this Don Aitken world and you should look outside.

            Science, is science is science.

            Meantime your argument falls into the vox nihili space.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            I notice that in all of your paranoid ramblings about the eeeevil coal and other fossil fuel companies, you have not challenged that Figueres (and other UN and EU leaders) have stated clearly and openly that the purpose of the CAGW “scare” campaign is world economic reconstruction and wealth redistribution.

            As one of the survivors of the Holocaust said, “When someone says that they intend to kill you, it is wise to at least consider the possibility that they might mean it”.

            Your touching innocence means that you seem incapable of such a cynical/realistic thought. As for the influence of the Greens and the climate change subsidy harvesters, do you actually follow the news media? They get several times the space accorded to your eeeevil adversaries, virtually all of it favourable, while most space devoted to the fossil fuel companies is critical.

            But you keep waiting for that ruinable fairy dust. I hope the lights in the hospital do not go out when members of your family need them.

  • Stu says:

    BJ said “the purpose of the CAGW “scare” campaign is world economic reconstruction and wealth redistribution.”

    For a start that is a misquote of Trumpian proportions eg “I started speaking quickly to stop them chanting”. Second, even if part true it would be better characterised as the “ultimate result of current inaction” rather than purpose.

    Thank dog the real world is not following this stream of posts. If it was we would all be in deep trouble.

    The reds are under the beds again! Sleep well.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Even by your pathetic standards, that comment is off the planet.

      I did not say that, I referred to Figueres and other UN and EU luminaries saying it. You cannot even understand plain English. Those luminaries make their intentions quite clear to those with reasonable reading comprehension skills. This apparently excludes you.

      Actually, I think that they are more accurately described as fascists than as reds.

  • Stu says:

    “They get several times the space accorded to your eeeevil adversaries, virtually all of it favourable, while most space devoted to the fossil fuel companies is critical.”. Has it occurred to you that if what you say is true it could be because of the weight of the argument and that your emperor has no clothes. In any event I disagree with your statement. The news media persist in providing “balance” when that is just ridiculous. On one side you have science and on the other a tribe of charlatans and broken down old science guys speaking outside their sphere of knowledge (Happer and company) and nobody’s like you.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Give it up, you are not just embarrassing yourself, you are making yourself look like an idiot.

      You are even more out of your depth discussing politics than you are attempting to discuss technicalities.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      On one side you have science and on the other a tribe of charlatans and broken down non scientists speaking outside their sphere of knowledge.

      Fixed that for you Stu!

  • spangled drongo says:

    And our stu blithers on.

    Reloading as fast as possible to shoot any messenger that pops up.

    All the while unable to see, let alone shoot, their message.

    All the while denying, and blind to, our recent election results.

    All the while unable to provide any evidence for his argument.

    All the while unable to answer my simple question: name anything that is happening now, climate-wise, that hasn’t happened during the past with low CO2 levels.

    Give those ever-decreasing circles a rest, stu, and try reality.

    It’s much more relaxing.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Some facts for our stu:

    This year, the world will spend $US162 billion ($230bn) subsidising renewable energy, propping up inefficient industries and supporting middle-class homeowners to erect solar panels, according to the International Energy Agency. In addition, the Paris Agreement on climate change will cost the world from $US1 trillion to $US2 trillion a year by 2030. Astonishingly, neither of these hugely expensive policies will have any measurable impact on temperatures by the end of the century.

    • Stu says:

      Fact: “According to results from the 2019 OECD Inventory, OECD member states and partner economies provided around USD 140 billion in support for fossil fuels in 2017, 40% lower than the highest level in 2013 (Figure 1). Total government support in OECD and selected partner economies decreased by 9% between 2016 and 2017, a smaller decline compared to the 12% decrease between 2015 and 2016, and 19% between 2014 and 2015.”
      http://www.oecd.org/fossil-fuels/publication/OECD-IEA-G20-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Reform-Update-2019.pdf

      But where your figure for renewables came from remains a mystery.

      Meantime the IEA does say “The growth of modern renewables, which excludes the traditional use of biomass, has outpaced the increase of energy consumption in recent years. This has resulted in an increase in the share of modern renewables in total final energy consumption, reaching over 10% in 2017. Under the New Policies Scenario, this share is expected to grow to 15% by 2030, a number that is well below the 22% in the IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario.”. And those figures seem much more significant than ones I have seen you or one if your brethren claim in previous posts.

      And with those numbers, to say there would be no effect on global temperature by 2100 is just silly. Even a 15% reduction in burning of carbon fuels has an effect on the outturn temperatures. And we can expect a much greater shift in ratios well before then.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Even a 15% reduction in burning of carbon fuels has an effect on the outturn temperatures.”

        Converting to HELE coal generation can produce greater reductions at far lower costs, and the output does not suffer the intermittency problems of wind and solar. It comes all day, every day, regardless of day, night, clouds, clear sky, or wind velocity.

        Debating with Chris is much more satisfying than debating with you. He recognises that “Biofuels, lithium batteries and reafforestation etc are short-term responses but can never range broadly enough to cope”, while you are still chasing fairy dust solutions. Chris proposes solutions (reduce per capita emissions, reduce total population numbers) that will actually work, albeit over a longer time frame. You just seek a magical solution not based on practicability.

        You are never going to convince Don or most readers here of your magical solutions, perhaps you really should look elsewhere to find another pastime.

        • Stu says:

          “Converting to HELE coal generation can produce greater reductions at far lower costs,”

          How does converting to something that has lower emissions produce a greater reduction than something that has no emissions? Back to primary school maths class for you.

          And “You are never going to convince Don or most readers here of your magical solutions, perhaps you really should look elsewhere to find another pastime.”. I am not trying to convince you of any “magical” solutions. If you reconsider you see I merely try to convince you we have a looming problem and all possible solutions should be considered. And then of course we have future developments that may help with storage etc. The anniversary this week of Apollo 11 stands as a great reminder of what can be achieved with commitment, money and ingenuity. Eventually 400,000 people and lots of money achieved a remarkable feat that also took a lot of guts. Think what can be achieved when we reach the point where we have the same level of commitment as then but to solve the looming climate problem. Oh, wait on you don’t think we have a problem so ignore all this.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “How does converting to something that has lower emissions produce a greater reduction than something that has no emissions? Back to primary school maths class for you.”

            You really, really, do NOT want to calculate the carbon budget for building and installing a single wind generator (much less building the transmission lines to where the power is needed) do you? You are assuming that wind generators (and solar cells) are magically produced from fairy dust and unicorn f@rts, with no CO2 emissions at all.

            Primary school arithmetic seems beyond your capability.

            Are you an economist? They solve all problems by saying “First, let us assume …”

      • Mike Burston says:

        Browse well through that OECD report and they start comparing taxes on fossil fuels and offsets granted by each nation. Apparently Australia,among others, is reprehensible for allowing fuel rebates to continue. These are the “subsidies “ they want to eliminate

    • Neville says:

      Yes SD the waste of trillions of $ for a lousy ZERO return doesn’t seem to worry these dopey fools that follow the “Extinction rebellion ” loonies.
      BTW that now includes a number of councils across OZ and all around the world and some govts who have recently declared climate emergencies. This would be the joke of the century if it wasn’t so serious.
      Here’s the Ext Reb site in OZ and they include a silly message from poor little Greta as well. But I think we’ll have to ignore our clueless deniers on this blog. I’ve given them the data for co2 emissions for a long time and they still can’t add up very simple kindy sums. According to the deniers the non OECD co2 emissions are irrelevant.
      But they claim that OZ is responsible for 0.006 c of the temp increase since 1800 ( Concordia Uni study) and we must immediately declare an emergency and DO SOMETHING. SARC.
      The best definition of madness is to repeat an erroneous action over and over again and expect a different result. Gives us some idea of the dingbats we’re dealing with on this blog. Here’s that Ext Reb link.

      https://ausrebellion.earth/rebel-news/

      • Stu says:

        “But they claim that OZ is responsible for 0.006 c of the temp increase”

        Yes, a bit like world war 2. Little Australia sent lots of people overseas to fight the war. Of those 2 percent went to Bomber Command in England where they account for 20 per cent of Australian war casualties. Our contribution was trivial, such a small effort, why did they bother I hear you say. Much like the current issue eh. Something about being global citizens might be a good thing to consider.

        But do I now sense a whiff of panic in your posts that the argument is moving on and you are being ignored by the wider population. Yes, I thInk so.

        • spangled drongo says:

          What pathetic logic, stu.

          When are you going to man up, produce some measurable evidence and answer my simple question?

          • Boambee John says:

            SD

            Probably after he (never) answers my question about the carbon budget to build and install a single wind generator? And then compares it to the CO2 emissions saved across its short lifetime.

            I hope that Stu can assure us that he has cut himself off from the grid, uses only renewable power, only when it is available, eats only food grown sustainably within walking dsitance of hi home, got rid of his car, and walks everywhere. It might seem trivial, but I am sure he would wish to lead by example? As a good global citizen!

      • spangled drongo says:

        Neville, Maurice Newman recently commented on the stupidity of Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore and her councillors and their declaration of a “climate emergency”.

        “Their gullibility matches that of audiences at the UN climate conference in Poland and the Davos World Economic Forum who sat spellbound as 16-year-old Greta Thunberg lectured them on climate catastrophism.

        Australian National Univer­sity research confirms our per capita renewables deployment rate is four to five times faster than in the EU, the US, Japan and China. Contrast this with a world that, for the first time since 2001, saw no year-on-year growth in renewable power capacity.

        With Australia already leading the world, how much more is the government expected to do? How many more billions must taxpayers and industry pay?

        Virtue signalling is one thing, but it is deceptive for the City of Sydney Council to claim that by next year it will use 100 per cent renewable energy. It surely must know that in NSW 80 per cent of electricity is coal-generated.

        * * * *

        Potsdam Institute director Ottmar Edenhofer confirms this: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” he warns. “This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

        Former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres agrees: “The whole climate change process is a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.”

        This is orthodox Marxist, socialist ideology and the West is being bullied into parting with trillions of dollars for the privilege of surrendering to an authoritarian central government. When enough people grasp this, the climate change delusion bubble will burst. Perhaps this explains why desperate organisers of protests such as the Extinction Rebellion are now resorting to violence.”

        https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/climate-change-signals-part-of-socialist-plot/news-story/a29d692e6efed92606cdf4e56315c0be

        • Stu says:

          Maurice Newman, the man chiefly motivated on this issue by his opposition to wind farms anywhere near his farmland. Nuff said really,

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Nuff said really,”

            No, not “nuff’ at all, stu.

            Your usual messenger shooting is pathetic.

            Man up and tackle the message for a change.

            Oh, I forgot.

            You only do messengers, hey?

            Well, that and question-and-evidence-dodging, too.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So, just like Bob Brown then?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Richard di Natale has also supported Brown.

            It seems that wind farms are not environmentallly appropriate. Repent and speak no more of these sinful items.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Really, our denialists have a persistent problem – complete inability to, either access, read, or use source materials.

    Here is one mischievious quote:

    Serge Wright’s claim that some were: “painting a false nirvana where work is optional and a living wage is provided to those that wish to stay at home and write poetry all day.”

    If they read their actual source document correctly you will see the precise, contrary statement, specifically…

    “The actual resolution that outlines the Green New Deal does not include the “unwilling to work” part, but the overview document, released by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s office, does include the “unwilling” language. ”

    So could all slow learners read again:

    “The actual resolution that outlines the Green New Deal does not include the “unwilling to work” part, ”

    Does not – means does not. Where is there any mention of poetry or living wage?

    Similarly no one is proposing creating “nice clean green jobs for all”.

    This is all just fantasy and crude falsification.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s my comment from 12 th July above. But it didn’t sink in then, so I suppose the silly fool will still fail to understand the very simple kindy sums involved.

    “Perhaps Stu can try and understand some more real world data to start to wake him up a bit more? Wiki has given us the percentage increase of co2 emissions per country from 1990 to 2017.

    China 453% increase, USA 104% increase or line ball since 1990, India 404% increase, Germany 78.2% or less than 1990, UK 64% or less than 1990. BTW world increase in co2 emissions from 1990 to 2017 is 163% and this is while the developed OECD countries have flat-lined over that period of time. Wakey, wakey”?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

    • Boambee John says:

      Neville

      Stu is not interested in data. Stu is on a mission from dog, to single handed save the planet by leading by example. Stu intends to live a carbon-emission free lifestyle as an example to all Australians, so they will copy him as an example to the world.

      He is almost there, but is still having some difficulty working out how not to exhale CO2.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Again with the poor reading comprehension. He is simply making the eminently reasonable point that nothing Australia does will have any measurable difference to global CO2 levels.

        And that includes destroying our economy and impoverishing our population to “set an example” for the rest of the world.

    • Stu says:

      So what are you saying? Are you suggesting we should increase our emissions to match China? Sure sounds like it. Oh and by the way please tell us how you are going with changing national and state policy on this issue. Not well I suggest.

      • Neville says:

        Silly Stu needs to take a long rest and then start to somehow understand simple logic and reason. Oz population is just 25 mil so we don’t need to match China’s soaring co2 emissions EVER. In fact it would be mission impossible, even if we were stupid enough to try.
        Why do we have to explain everything to this fool? You’d think we were talking to a very slow 3 year old, but he doesn’t seem to exhibit any shame when we highlight his abysmal ignorance.
        Stupid doesn’t even begin to describe him and i suppose he thinks that Dr Hansen was kidding when he described the super expensive Paris hoax as”just BS and fra-d”?

  • Boambee John says:

    My comment at 1738 should follow, not lead, Stu’s at 1703.

  • Stu says:

    The continual reference to standard lobby group tropes such as “climate has always changed, they are in it for the money, the seas are not warming, the ice is not melting, the models have poor parameters, there is no certainty etc” proves the linkage to the deception machine apparatus. Which by the way takes its lead from the same playbook used by the tobacco danger denial lobby. And many of the same people were involved initially.

    Here is a quote from an article about Naomi Oreskes book “Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming”

    “ How did deniers such as these become so good at what they do? There are many common threads as detailed above, but it was probably their understanding of the culture of science that has enabled them to so successfully turn it against itself. By reframing politically driven trawling through the science to find results that support a predetermined position, they have tapped into scientists’ natural tendencies to be suspicious of new results. By using physicists’ confidence that they can understand any new field without too much study, they provide just enough misinformation (and false authority) to fool the unwary into thinking that mainstream specialists had missed out on some bone-headedly obvious factor—for example, that water vapor was a greenhouse gas, or that ozone reactions depend on temperature, or that correlation does not prove causation. And by appealing to the scientific community’s normal sense of fair play, they have parlayed their fake controversies and unjustified attacks on individual scientists into getting “equal time” in many media and political outlets.“

    A pretty good explanation and I recommend the book, it is very informative.

    • Boambee John says:

      Naomi Oreskes, now there’s a completely unbiased and disinterested source – NOT!

      I’m fascinated that you think that her babble negates the concept that the climate has always changed? Are you a climate change denialist?

      And you are absolutely certain that no climate propagandist (Gore? Flannery? Garnaut? Stern?) was in it for a combination of money and ego stroking? And no company harvesting subsidies for ruinable projects was ever after money? You really are a right little denialist, aren’t you?

      And the models that routinely fail to make reasonable projections of the future, they do not have a problem with “poor parameters”?

      Back to the angel dust Stu!

    • spangled drongo says:

      “A pretty good explanation and I recommend the book, it is very informative.”

      But only for the already stu-pid, stu.

      As in those stu-pid enough not to realise that when they propose something, they have to support it with evidence.

      When will you be able to provide that, instead of just blither and straw men, do you think, stu?

      And failing that, at least have the intelligence to admit that you don’t know.

      • Boambee John says:

        Oreskes’ qualifications are in history and earth sciences/engineering and materials. But she knows absolutely that no physicist could ever comment usefully on a subject that has a strong element of atmospheric physics. But she can, because … oh, shut up!

  • spangled drongo says:

    Check the economics of the “solution” to this non-problem, stu:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/21/wind-farm-back-of-the-envelope-economic-analysis/

  • Stu says:

    Read the book. Oreskes is not promoting any particular position on climate change beyond showing the trail of money and malign influence from the carbon interests so they can keep their money machine working a little longer. It really is laughable that you guys think any money floating around with Gore or anyone else comes within fractions of fractions of fractions of one percent of the cash the carbon fuel interests are banking every year. I cannot understand how you cannot see that. Read her book and come back to me. You really have been taken in by the greatest mis information campaign in history. And BTW, she is just one source of the same material. If you took your eyes out of the propaganda mill you would see the reality. Even Exxon, knew early on, researched the subject, then buried the data. But in case you did not know, it has now all come out through FOI and legal discovery processes.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “. It really is laughable that you guys think any money floating around with Gore or anyone else comes within fractions of fractions of fractions of one percent of the cash the carbon fuel interests are banking every year. I cannot understand how you cannot see that.”

      I am really astonished that you cannot see that the “carbon fuel interests”, unlike Gore et al, actually deliver something, namely reliable, uninterrupted, power. You might not like that, but it is a fact. Then, out of all that money, they have to pay taxes, their staff, maintenance of their facilities, and often legal costs to beat off frivolous lawfare suits. Then their shareholders get some of what is left.

      Rumour has it that Gore’s wealth from climate change propaganda passed $100 million some years ago. Not bad for a failed politician?

      • Stu says:

        Even if I accepted that those numbers are real, which I don’t, they are still trivial. How did Bob Hawke end up with $20 million? Old pollies make lots giving speeches and consulting. In US terms &100 million is chicken shit. Why cant you admit that the fossil industries have so much more to lose that they will do anything to keep on with business as usual. Their profits are in the trillions.

        And have you read Oreskes yet? Clearly you did not before you posted because you appear to think it is about the science. It is not, but there you go.

        Meantime your refusal to acknowledge basic facts reminds me of an interesting article on why god botherers continue to go door to door in spite of continual rejection of their evangelical message. The answer is that the process is meant to be painful so the participants return to the tribe for mutual support and reassurance and it is not about conversion at all. Then it hit me, it is just the same with climate change denial. Those who have been brainwashed by the carbon forces seek refuge in places like this web site where they can mutually back scratch and get reinforcement of their religious like zeal. Chris and I are here just to make you feel good. But you wont step out into the real world of climate science research and find the truth. If you did you would be shocked.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “Meantime your refusal to acknowledge basic facts reminds me of an interesting article on why god botherers continue to go door to door in spite of continual rejection of their evangelical message. The answer is that the process is meant to be painful so the participants return to the tribe for mutual support and reassurance and it is not about conversion at all.”

          Look in the mirror Stu, you have just perfectly described your activities here. You go from thread to thread, banging on about your beliefs in spite of our continual rejection of your message. You turn to Chris for comfort (not that he seems to offer you much, perhaps you embarrass him). Occasionally you seem to despair, and announce that you will abandon your thread to thread evangelism, but you always return.

          Having been brainwashed by alarmist forces, you desperately try to convert others to your cause. If you did some real research, you would be shocked.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Then it hit me”

    Isn’t it amazing what actually “hits” you, stu?

    But what refuses to “hit” you is the fact that you alarmists have been using the religion message for the last 30 years to promote your propaganda and brainwash the kiddies.

    Yet all the while denying the essential service of the “carbon interests” you avail yourself of on a daily basis.

    No hypocrite like a religious hypocrite, hey stu?

    BTW, when are you going to allow a bit of empirical evidence to “hit” you?

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    The following was posted while you were in one of your intermittent “take your bat and ball and go home” phases. You might like to take it to heart.

    “Boambee John
    July 13, 2019 at 7:11 pm

    Stu

    While you are lurking out there, go back to Don’s article, read his arguments carefully, then answer them point by point, laying out your evidence clearly and logically in your response.

    Then you might have some chance of changing his mind.

    Your mixture of emotion and random links won’t cut the mustard.”

    You are still relying on emotion and random links. Oreskes?? Really!

  • Stu says:

    BJ. It is not for me to convince Don of anything. He is quite an accomplished guy in his field and I am not a climate scientist. All I can do is point to sources of scientific study on the subject. I know you never actually check any of those sources, your misguided comments prove that. Don may check some but probably does not have time as he has many balls in the air. I think all he is dong is getting some amusement from the cat fight he has started. So there is no point in me doing anymore than I have done let alone repeating what I have said before.

    You dismiss Oreskes outright, presumably based on something like the laughable Jonova post from 2012. Anyone who uses the 31,500 scientists clap trap can be immediately dismissed as deluded as that “petition ” was such a crock. Many of the PhD’s in it include such illustrious people as Donald Duck, Edward Teller, Albert Einstein to name a few. Or did you not know that?

    Anyhow never mind because as stated before you are losing and clutching at straws. The climate itself may be moving faster than worst predictions so it may not be long for truth to out. And also the political and societal aspect is definitely moving on without you. It is not just the age profile of denialism on show it is the naked reactionary approach. The saying goes that the only constant is change and that includes energy. But you cannot put down your bigotry long enough to even acknowledge, leaving the economics out of it for a moment, that the world would be a nicer place if all the energy was clean and non polluting. You are so afraid of change. On the issue of climate change you are losing and had better regroup fast before it moves further away from you.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Unlike you, I took Don’s question in his headline as more than rhetorical.

      “Anyhow never mind because as stated before you are losing and clutching at straws. The climate itself may be moving faster than worst predictions so it may not be long for truth to out.”

      Keep whistling in the dark Stu, you will be past the cemetry soon. Not much enthusiasm in Queensland these days for sacrificing their futures on the altar of CO2 symbolusm, was there?

      I see you are still dreaming of “clean and non-polluting” fairy dust and unicorn f@rts. Unlikely in your lifetime, mine, or our childrens’.

  • Neville says:

    Amazing that anyone would link to Oreskes, but that just proves the stupidity of their arguments. Here’s a question, just how clueless are the Labor and Green’s parties?
    I’ve explained before how Plibersek couldn’t tell Jones the level of co2 in the atmosphere and stupid Shorten thought you could charge an EV in about 12 minutes.
    These dopey responses were from the leader and deputy leader at the last Fed election, just mind boggling but true. I could go on but I’ll now return to the Greens and their fed leader Di Natale.

    On ABC Insiders this dope said the only way to address drought in OZ is to deal with climate change. But Lomborg has a PR study that shows that we could have full compliance with Paris 2015 ( not happening) and still make no measurable difference to temp or climate by 2100. OH and OZ emits a WHOPPING 1.08% of global co2 emissions.SARC In fact every Aussie could stop emitting co2 today and the result would be a big fat ZERO. We’d still have droughts and flooding rains in ten years, 50 yrs and in 100 yrs. Just look up ENSO and IOD data.
    What doesn’t this clueless fool understand about very simple kindy maths? Yet these Greens dodos get very strong support in so called educated, elite inner city electorates. Unbelievable but true.

    OH and rainfall overall across all of OZ has increased over the last 120 years and substantially so since 1970. Look up the BOM data for yourselves and definitely don’t listen to the Greens & Labor con merchants.

    https://iview.abc.net.au/show/insiders-the-interviews

  • Neville says:

    BTW here’s BOM’s OZ rainfall anomaly over the last 120 years. Note the very dry period between 1921 to 1949 when co2 levels were way below present day.
    But the dopes on this blog aren’t interested in accurate data and evidence, they prefer Di Natale’s fantasies and pixie dust science. Let’s waste trillions $ for nothing science, you just have to believe.

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

  • Stu says:

    Just to remind you, this is not all about Australia. It is a global problem. And total rainfall across Australia on its own is not a very good measure of anything.

    And by the way good to see BJ did not take the bait and do any fact checking. Teller actually did sign (even promoted) that sham petition and they have scrubbed Donald Duck from the list. But it was a good test. Just what I expected, non discerning internet followers don’t fact check.

    • Neville says:

      So Stu, why doesn’t Di Natale know this info? And are you sure that global rainfall is lower today when compared to the last 120 or 500 or 1,000 years?
      Note that Africa is the poorest continent but the people overall are doing much better and have a longer life exp and more calories per day than 30, or 50 or 100 years ago.
      At the time of the Ethiopian drought people had a much lower life exp and 100s of thousands starved to death. Africa’s pop then was 551 mil and today is 1300 million. Work it out for yourself and try and understand our greening planet.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      At last, you notice that the problem is global. Look at the figures posted above, where you posted an inane response about Australia copying China. You completely missed the point. China, and India, have no intention of destroying their economies in the vain pursuit of your dream.

      Absolutely nothing that we do here will have any influence. China and India will continue to increase their CO2 emissions by amounts greater than Australia’s total emissions. Australia could completely close down tomorrow, and they will take no notice of our “good global citizenship”, and our sacrifice will be for nought.

      However, if you wish to make a difference, you need to go to Dehli or Beijing. Enjoy the trip!

      Or you could start to think about adaptation to the changes that you believe to be inevitable. Work to guarantee reliable, continuous, electric power. Double insulate your home. Invest in more air conditioning (reverse cycle, in case the solar scientists are correct). Lobby for sea walls in coastal areas. You know, useful stuff, not pointless howling at the moon.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “And by the way good to see BJ did not take the bait and do any fact checking. Teller actually did sign (even promoted) that sham petition and they have scrubbed Donald Duck from the list. But it was a good test. Just what I expected, non discerning internet followers don’t fact check.”

      Or already have?

      BTW, you refer to the “sham petition”. Which was the bigger sham, a petition that had Mickey mouse actually scrubbed, so it was actually reviewed, or the bogus 97% claim that has been thououghly debunked, but is still being touted around?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Given that satellite data has now proven global warming, most denialists have switched to blowing smoke over the rate of warming.

    But it wasn’t so long ago they were predicting cooling.

    Further proof is now at hand, with Earth-bound measurements – particularly ice melting.

    Also new record temperatures are being set almost every time you listen to the news. Here is a recent typical item:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49040058

    The previous record was 2016, so record breaking is now a frequent occurrence – and it will continue forever.

    Tough luck for future generations, BUT we are to blame.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      So what are the practical measures that you recommend to stop the rise in world population, and reverse it, in a time frame that will have any impact?

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee John

        Due to the quality of most on this blog – it would be rank stupidity to consider that issue here.

        It is an adult issue for adults who behave as adults.

        • Boambee John says:

          OK, so you have nothing specific to offer, or else you fear that the methods you recommend will cause horror.

          • Chris Warren says:

            As I suspected…

            Due to the quality of most on this blog – it would be rank stupidity to consider that issue here.

            It is an adult issue for adults who behave as adults.

          • Boambee John says:

            Ah, that bad. Right, thanks for the brief.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “it would be rank stupidity to consider that issue here.”

            When did that ever stop you, blith?

            And when was anything done by the climate catastropharians, ever adult?

            Not only that, you’ll hurt little Greta’s feelings.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “The previous record was 2016, so record breaking is now a frequent occurrence – and it will continue forever.”

    Please tell us all how much hotter those places were during the Holocene high stand.

    Y’know, blith, when sea levels were 3 metres higher than present.

    And CO2 levels were so much lower.

    I won’t embarrass you with all the sci papers showing that.

    • Stu says:

      BJ wrote “BTW, you refer to the “sham petition”. Which was the bigger sham, a petition that had Mickey mouse actually scrubbed, so it was actually reviewed, or the bogus 97% claim that has been thououghly debunked, but is still being touted around?”

      I cannot let that pass. The sham was an open letter “anyone can sign” piece of rubbish that has been totally debunked. The 97% is from a whole series of meta data studies of published scientific papers. These seven plus studies have not all been debunked in any published peer reviewed place. And some of them even correlate science expertise with the consensus in a pretty convincing demonstration. In other words, the greater the expertise the higher the consensus of the authors of the studied papers.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Don’t blither, stu, just give us details of YOUR 97%.

        Plus your supporting evidence.

        Or is it just like the rest of your evidence?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu “forgot” to mention that Oreskes was one of the originators, the other was that fool Cook from the uni of qld.

          Top sources, top sources!

      • dlb says:

        Stu,
        go and have a look at Cook’s “97%” paper and tell us if it was done properly? I had a look and it, and found it to be one giant straw man exercise.

  • Boambee John says:

    Is coal becoming a strandedcasset? Some countries don’t think so.

    “Bangladesh is urging Australia to take advantage of an “enormous opportunity” to export coal and liquefied natural gas to the developing country, which is experiencing surging demand for the fossil fuels.

    The country of about 165 million people has a slew of coal-fired power stations coming online over the next five years and will be importing about 45 million tonnes of coal by 2025, worth a predicted $4 billion to $5 billion annually.”

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a wonderful hero for Stu and the other fools to worship. This delusional dope ticks all their boxes and even has that inability to understand very simple kindy sums.
    His hypocrisy is typical of the layabouts and gutless parasites that infest these grand green movements.
    He glues himself to the road and then goes home to Mum and Dad’s plush mansion to recover and get ready for another hard day of spine bashing.
    Who knows he might become another Bob Brown, he certainly looks stupid enough and seems hypercritical enough to rise to those heights. SARC.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7267721/Extinction-Rebellion-protester-20-lives-parents-emission-spewing-five-bedroom-mansion.html

  • Neville says:

    China is the world’s largest emitter of co2 and continues to build new coal power plants at home. But it is also planning and building new CF plants around the world.
    OZ is able to sell coal all around the world, but is not allowed to use this cheap, reliable energy here at home. And OZ emits just 1.08% of global co2 per year. Unbelievable but true.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-coal/china-energy-to-expand-ultra-low-emission-coal-fired-power-executive-idUSKCN1UD0J9

    • Boambee John says:

      The kind of “sanity” that only adults can discuss with adults?

      Why do I suspect that such “sanity” involves eggs and omelettes?

  • Stu says:

    SD asked for details of the 97%. BJ rubbished Oreskes and Cook without providing any evidence. But that is hardly new here.

    “Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

    1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

    2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.” – Skepticalscience.com

    Further. The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Astronomical Society
    American Chemical Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Physics
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
    British Antarctic Survey
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Environmental Protection Agency
    European Geosciences Union
    European Physical Society
    Federation of American Scientists
    Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
    Geological Society of America
    Geological Society of London
    International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    National Center for Atmospheric Research
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Royal Meteorological Society
    Royal Society of the UK
    The Academies of Science from 80 different countries all endorse the consensus.

    NAS consensus

    13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

    Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
    Royal Society of Canada
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Academie des Sciences (France)
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
    Indian National Science Academy
    Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
    Science Council of Japan
    Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
    Russian Academy of Sciences
    Academy of Science of South Africa
    Royal Society (United Kingdom)
    National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

    Now please show me the basis for the refutation of all of that? And when you have done that go and check all these studies out. As usual since day one it has been science on my side and faux facts and science on yours.

    “In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them”

    • Boambee John says:

      I see that our resident evangalist is again calling on his prophets to strike down the heathen.

      • Stu says:

        Once again, on cue, you inadvertently prove my point about your refusal to confront facts , thanks.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Sorry, stu, you’re the one who is fact and evidence free.

          Both for your CC [ still waiting for any evidence ] and your 97%:

          http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-unrepresentative/

          Why don’t you come clean and admit you don’t have either.

          • Stu says:

            SD “Sorry, stu, you’re the one who is fact and evidence free”

            Oh please get real. I gave you the pointers. You rely on Jo Nova (real name Joanne Codling ??) who only has a BSc in microbiology and criticise Prof Oreskes (many quals in her field) and J Cook Asst Professor also well qualified, not to mention all the stuff I quoted. If you cant follow simple research tools I can’t help you. It is indicative that you never seem to quote research directly, only through proxies like Nova. Next you will be quoting Malcolm R again I suppose.

            As usual you rely on Nova to rehash something she picked up from a noted prior climate change denier who only seems to be qualified in economics and who now apparently agrees that a consensus exists on AGW, but disagrees with the Cook et al methodology. He has been harassing Cook since 2013 so I can see why Cook does not want to deal with him. Can you imagine how many silly letters he gets from cranks.

            Don, if you are still following, can you please enlighten these guys about following scientific citation and credibility etc, they are just plain annoyingly silly.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            You “get real”.

            “criticise Prof Oreskes (many quals in her field) and J Cook Asst Professor also well qualified,”

            Earlier, you acknowledged that Oreskes is not a climate scientist. Going by the standard you apply to sceptics, her qualifications “in her field” are not relevant.

            Cook’s qualifications are psychology and physics. Earlier you approvingly quoted Oreskes bemoaning physicists commenting on climate science, now you extol it.

            What relevance has Nova’s alleged real name have to do with anything? But you “forgot” to mention that her husband, with whom she apparently works closely, held a senior position at the Australian Greenhouse Office before he saw the light.

            Discuss the work Stu, not the worker.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          You need to confront facts and accept reality.

          Despite all your blither, with claims that the young are all onside, and will roll over the old fossils, you will not accept the reality that you have occasionally stated yourself.

          Nothing that can be done here will affect the trajectory that you believe with all your heart the world is now on.

          China and India will each continue to increase their CO2 emissions annually by amounts that exceed Australia’s total emissions. Close Australia down, the impact is zero, zilch, nada.

          All of your evangelism, even if everyone on this blog accepted it, is for naught. Give it up, go enjoy yourself with your grandchildren. If you are correct, we are all doomed. If you are wrong, you will have a much better relationship with them.

          You might be able to have some effect if you could persuade governments to stop wasting money on subsidising current renewables and battery technology, and try for a genuine breakthrough. But then you will really find out about vested interests, as the beneficiaries of the current regime pile onto you.

          • Stu says:

            No you need reality. I agree, nothing I say will change the future or probably influence anyone, but one can hope. As I keep saying though it is you that needs reality. Without you and I the governments around Australia and industry are taking steps to reduce emissions, and renewable energy is increasing and coal power dwindling which is great. You are the one bleating that it is all waste of time and money not me.

            You are like the nuts on another website I follow who are still bleating that the Multi mode roll out of the NBN is the greatest disaster of all time. Maybe it is, but it is nearly complete and their continued bleating for six years has changed nothing.

            Let’s assume for a minute that AGW is a hoax, that all the climate scientists and governments have conspired to dupe the world. But a small band, you included have worked it out. Then so what? Your carrying on here is changing nothing. Denial is closely related to cognitive dissonance. I think you have a problem.

            As for China you overlook a key fact in your forecasts. For reasons as much to do with air quality as climate they are aggressively moving to clean energy. Sure their total CO2 is still rising but you don’t allow for the increase it would be without the clean energy programs. China has always taken the long view and will be a shining star. And BTW that is how they are dealing with DT, they will wait him out.

            So, far from being concerned I believe humankind is much smarter than you and will solve the problem that you wont even agree is looming.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So China is still increasing emissions, but that is OK, because the increase might have been more. This passes for logic in your mind? You accept that nothing we do will make a didpfference, but demand action anyway? And you talk about cognitive dissonance?

            But you agree that nothing you or I do will make any difference, but still demand that I get on board? Why? This is an effort worthy of Pravda.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stop shooting the messenger, stu.

            Not only can you never produce a message that means anything [IE evidence] you are in complete denial that evidence is essential to the debate.

            Your love of consensus doesn’t count for anything if they are all wrong.

            And if, like you, they can’t produce any evidence for you to quote, no matter what their “quals” might be, they certainly are.

            Malcolm Roberts has it figured out a lot better than you do.

  • Karabar says:

    “The current warming has been caused by greenhouse gas emissions, notably carbon dioxide”
    AS you know, Don, Science is a process used to find the Truth, not by proving an hypothesis, but by disproving it.
    In the month of July 2019 alone, FOUR scholarly, peer reviewed papers have been published in the USA, Germany, Finland, and japan that DISPROVE the silly CO2 hypothesis.
    The authors of these papers are Ed Berry, Hermann Harde, University of Finland, and University of Kobe, Japan.
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice
    http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13&__s=hmojxf7tq4ji8pesfvu1
    http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=161&doi=10.11648/j.earth.20190803.13&__s=hmojxf7tq4ji8pesfvu1

  • Stu says:

    You have a comprehension problem. Of course the lower the final CO2 level when it finally stabilises, the better the outcome. And I am not saying you have to get on board with my position. I am saying you are on the wrong bus and have pointed out why, many times. But your cognition problem blinds you to reality. Never mind, clearly you wish to continue raging against current climate policy. While that policy is still short of where it needs to be it is moving in the right direction. Enjoy the ride. And BTW, it looks like everyone else here has switched off and quite rightly. So save your finger for other correspondence.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      You wrote that China is “aggressively moving to clean energy”.

      Strangely, they are doing this by building hundreds of new coal fired power plants.

      Watch what they do, not what they say.

      But to console you, let me say “Brother, I believe!” That the Chinese will pursue their best economic interests, as will the Indians.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee John

        You are sounding like a broken – Neville, just playing the same old, out of date, tune.

        Very boring.

        • Boambee John says:

          So, just like you and Stu?

          • Mike Burston says:

            Persistence must be emphasised at Global Warming School, alongside less emphasis on telling the truth. It’s the same on other sites I’ve noticed how we’re led down ever more complicated explanations without explaining why temperature hasn’t increased while CO2 has. Always trying to have the last word. Trying to make contrarians leave the arena.
            Don’s post on street trees was much more interesting but went nowhere. No economic implications

          • Chris Warren says:

            Mike Burston

            “…without explaining why temperature hasn’t increased while CO2 has. ”

            A rather silly comment at this stage.

            Probably best if you stick to eucalyptus and street trees.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Yet even the IPCC acknowledged the “pause” in the early 2000s.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Pause ????

            No reference to actual IPCC ?????

            If there was no global warming any increase would be followed by an equal decrease – NOT a pause or levelling off.

            The fact that there was only a so-called pause, when otherwise there would have been a fall – proves global warming is a fact, and is now strong enough to cancel natural variability.

            Burston was not talking about any “pause” dogma.

            The past existence of a pause is ONLY because of ongoing increasing temperatures.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            “If there was no global warming any increase would be followed by an equal decrease – NOT a pause or levelling off.”

            This is the most coherent paragraph in an incoherent post. Are you saying that temperatures would be on a perpetual sine wave but for global warming? Over what cyclic period? Days? Weeks? Years? Decades?

            The rest is too incoherent to comment on.

          • Chris Warren says:

            So you fail at comprehension too?

          • Boambee John says:

            No, you fail at written expression.

            Taken at face value, your words imply that the only natural variations are cycles above and below a mean.

            To use your own words, this is a “rather silly comment at this stage.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Ah yes, the Wreck of the 0l’ 97:

    An Information Quality Act Correction Request Regarding NASA’s Claim that 97 Percent of Scientists Agree on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Out of a total of 10,257 scientific faculty members at major institutions, only 79 were counted in the final tally by the author. That is a mere 0.07% of the total number of scientific faculty to whom the survey was sent:

    The 2013 Cook Study
    In this study, Cook and his team collected all published peer-reviewed papers from 1991 through 2011 that use the terms “global warming” or “global climate change.” Those totaled 11,944 papers. The Cook team then examined the title and abstract of each paper and based only on that (no examination of the body of the article), and attempted to classify each paper as one of the following categories:

    • 64 papers explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (affirming that at least half of the global warming is due to humans),
    • 922 papers explicitly endorsed AGW without quantification (affirming that humans cause global warming to some unspecified degree)
    • 2910 papers implicitly endorsed AGW (e.g., “carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change”)
    • 7930 papers did not state a position on AGW
    • 40 papers were uncertain as to AGW
    • 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW (affirming the possibility for natural causes to explain the increase in temperature)
    • 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without quantification (affirming that there is little support for catastrophic global warming)
    • 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification (affirming that the human contribution to global warming is negligible)

    https://cei.org/sites/default/files/IQA_NASA_97_Percent_Final.pdf

  • spangled drongo says:

    How John Cook arrived at a totally dishonest 97%:

    “Cook et al. also emailed 8,547 paper authors to obtain additional information on their AGW views. Only 14% of the authors responded. Of those who responded, 62.7% self-described themselves as endorsing AGW, 35.5% stated they had no position, and 1.8% rejected AGW. If one considers only those that responded with a position (62.7 + 1.8 = 64.5 % of the total), this produces the 97% figure (62.7/64.5 = 97%). However, this data does not support any claim concerning the 35.5% of scientists who took no position on AGW. Nor does the data support any claim concerning the 86% who did not respond. The data does not include all climate scientists, only those that were willing to respond and who explicitly stated they had a position on the issue.”

    But is speaks volumes about the honesty of those that keep spouting “97% of scientists believe in AGW” and the “consensus” generally.

    • Boambee John says:

      I look forward to Stu’s logically argued defence of the 97% argument (which note carefully, such as it is, is only derived from climate scientists, not as is often implied, from ALL scientists).

      • Stu says:

        Bloody hell! Are you really as thick headed and slow to comprehend as you seem? All along it has been about climate scientists, not like your “any brand will do” petition. Here is a quote from NASA (many more the same but NASA has cred).

        “ Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Not as thick headed as the person a couple of threads back who referred to it as a survey of scientists, without using the “climate” qualification.

          At the time, I posted evidence that it was only of (a very limited sample of) climate scientists.

          NASA apart, some of the more enthusiastic alarmists make a habit of dropping the qualification, presumably because they are silly enough to think it increases the credibility of a shonky figure.

          Now, I still look forward to your detailed defence of the derivation of the 97% figure.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Those were all climate scientists that John Cook performed that study on, stu.

          And Nasa is obviously telling lies.

          That is the reason for the Information Quality Act Correction Request that was made last month.

          When the climate blitherers repeat a lie often enough, the stu-pids of this world are only too happy to believe it very quickly.

          • Boambee John says:

            SD

            Stu did not notice that of the almost 12,000 papers that Cook et al reviewed, some two thirds did not take a position on global warming. They would have been the ones who tossed a mention of global warming into their grant applications and study titles to improve their chances of getting a grant. About a quarter implicitly endorsed the concept.

            About one in twelve accepted that humans contributed to global warming, but did not quantify that contribution. I accept that humans have contributed to global warming, but have seen no substantive evidence that the contribution is significant, so if asked, I would have fitted into that group!

            Less than one percent were willing to claim that humans were responsible for 50% or more of global warming.

            Hardly a ringing endorsement, and certainly NOT a consensus.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Sometimes it is hard to get papers published – but you can always make them available online …

    http://lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf

    So what else do you need to answer the question at the top of the thread?

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Thanks for that link. I have downloaded and skimmed the paper, and will read it in detail later.

      My quick skim leads me to a serious question. Why focus on “deep adaptation” only following a societal collapse? Surely it is better to focus on pre-emptive adaptation before collapse, or to prevent a collapse?

      That said, I am sure that Lord Monckton will be pleased to hear that you approve of publication outside the peer reviewed journals.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        I have now read the paper.

        If you regard taking all of the worst case forecasts, predictions or projections together, and assume that doom is inevitable, perhaps that paper is all that you need to answer the question. Whether it is a reasonable approach, given the dismal record of failure of CAGW forecasts, is another question.

        Strangely, I think that the author might be at least not unreasonable when he forecasts sudden societal collapse. However, I think such is more likely to be the result of the collapse of the electricity generation system than environmental change. See Venezuela for the possible speed of such a collapse and the results.

        No electricity means no reticulated water, no sewerage, no food preservation or distribution systems, no working hospitals except at the most basic level, and much more (actually less).

        The author flirts with survivalism, but moves quickly to a bucolic fantasy of communities working together in a more civilised version of medieval life, possibly based on his vision of a “new” university rather like an old monastery. He needs to get out more.

        Cities of millions with no basic services will collapse into anarchy rapidly, with murder and mayhem in the streets. Somewhere like Sydney would be lucky to be able to support one or two percent of the current population at subsistence level.

        Pre-adaption might reduce the problem, but reliable electricity will be the bedrock of future civilisation.

        In summary, academic wishful thinking on a foundation of worst case analysis.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Due to the intransigence by many – we need to keep the worse case scenario in view. Population plus industrial catch-up from China, India, Africa and South America, means that unless some new factor emerges, CO2 will continue to accumulate and all environmental ice will melt.

          It is now obvious.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Perhaps so, and I can see a viable case for it in respect of electricity supply. However, worst case planning can be a recipe for massive waste on irrelevancies while ignoring small tasks that can mean big improvements. See defence planning in past years for eome horrible examples.

            But some of his “data” were clearly wrong. As a simple example, half of the coral reefs in the world are not dead. His utopian fantasies of a bucolic life in the aftermath of a total societal breakdown are almost laughable. He has no clue about life outside the ivory tower.

            A cautionary fable, but not a practical guide.

            And nothing about the future is “obvious”. As the American said, “Prediction is easy, but only about the past”. The future remains murky until it happens.

          • Chris Warren says:

            There is no point making denialist statements such as:

            “But some of his “data” were clearly wrong. As a simple example, half of the coral reefs in the world are not dead. ” with no evidence or reference.

            You also did not do the author the consideration due to them by checking their references for their statement.

            You have engaged in pure, strict, denial.

            A simple search will give you more facts:

            “As a result, over 50 percent of the world’s coral reefs have died in the last 30 years”

            [ http://www.secore.org/site/corals/detail/coral-reefs-are-dying.23.html ]

          • New Guinea seas have coral thriving next to underwater fumaroles releasing CO2. Coral bleaching can be attributed to a run of low tides coinciding with midday

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Have you followed tge Ridd case? Other than in the fantasies of alarmists, where is the actual, photographic, evidence that half of the world’s coral reefs are dead? Has tourism to tropical reefs collapsed? Are tour operators and divers reporting this tragedy on a daily basis? Are journalists visiting these ruined reefs and returning with video?

            Likd the author, you seem to enjoy disaster porn. Do you share his vision of a new utopia rising smoothly from the cataclysm of a sudden societal collapse, perhaps with yourself as the wise, firm but benevolent leader?

            All fantasy.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            Ridd’s case is being appealed.

            It is not up to any individual scientist to rant and rave as if they alone know the truth.

            If Ridd can no longer contribute to a discipline, and behaves like some on this blog, then he has no place in any collegiate environment.

            Modern universities are not ivory towers.

            Please turn off your fevered imagination as it is rendering your posts into schoolboy finger painting.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            “It is not up to any individual scientist to rant and rave as if they alone know the truth.

            Modern universities are not ivory towers.”

            You are certainly correct on both points here.

            It would be nice if the committed alarmists would not ” rant and rave as if they alone know the truth.”

            Also, modern universities are far from disinterested “ivory towers” where reasoned and civilised debate can take place. Instead, they have become bastions of orthodoxy, where dissenters like Ridd are treated in a manner that makes ISIS look reasonable.

            Having already spent some $650,000 on legal fees only to have a court reject every one of its arguments, JCU will now spend even more appealing the offence to its orthodoxy.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Scientists alone do know the truth, and you should not try to imply they rant and rave.

            This practice is for SkyNews, and some inveterate individuals on this blog.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            It was you who introduced the expression “any individual scientist to rant and rave as if they alone know the truth.” Now you say that “Scientists alone do know the truth, and [I] should not try to imply they rant and rave.”

            I assume that you define scientisis in the usual alarmist manner, as those who say things with which you agree.

            More alarmist denialism!

          • Chris Warren says:

            There is a difference between individual scientist and scientists.

            You missed it.

          • spangled drongo says:

            BJ, you are not genuflecting to the consensuals like you should.

            When our blith screams “validation by consensus” he’s serious.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Would that difference between an individual scientist and a consensus (collective noun?) of scientists be much like that betweem Lavoisier and the consensus of Phlogiston theorists?

            More seriously, are you saying that once a “consensus” is supposedly reached, that all other scientists should join the consensus or forever hold their peace? If so, your understanding of genuine scientific method is more limited than I had thought.

            Indeed, it is so poor as to preclude you from any real scientific discussion.

  • Neville says:

    BJ you’ll find that your holy fool uses his fantasy world as his only go to support for his ongoing nonsense. The data for human well being are available from many sources like the world bank, world health org, the UN and our world in data etc. I’ve linked to these accurate sources in the past 2 months.
    Everything is rapidly improving today and humans are now much healthier, wealthier and have longer life expectancy etc. The forecasts for the future are also much more optimistic than most people understand.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “But some of his “data” were clearly wrong. As a simple example, half of the coral reefs in the world are not dead. ” with no evidence or reference.”

    Our blith is so unaware of the recent judgement against JCU for the way they prevented one of their professors from telling the truth about the true coral situation on the GBR that it does not even occur to him that these “experts” at JCU that won’t allow the truth, might not be too interested in it themselves, for many obvious reasons.

    I wonder if that is hubris, stupidity or denial?

    Or all three?

  • spangled drongo says:

    In regard to coral reefs, the scientists say: “Multiple lines of evidence indicate that the majority of warmer water coral reefs that exist today (70-90%) will largely disappear when global warming exceeds 1.5°C.”

    We have already warmed 1c of that 1.5c and during the Holocene there is records that we were possibly 6c warmer than present.

    Seeing as coral is currently so healthy and it also survived the ~6c warming so well, what is the possible logic that it won’t survive another 0.5c?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Ah, the things you can do with assumption-based models. No wonder our blith can make his own rules and his rationality takes flight:

    “It’s all so obvious. If researchers start with models that don’t work, they can find anything they look for — even abject nonsense which is the complete opposite of what the models predicted.”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/the-pause-in-global-warming-shows-co2-may-be-more-powerful-say-hello-to-hyperwarming-wierdness/

  • Boambee John says:

    Where is Stu? I am still looking forward to his robust defence of the 97% process.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Boambee John

    Please turn off your feverish imagination – I never mentioned consensus.

    It is all in your head.

    Please cut out all your childish snarks and provocations.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      I concede your point, you did not actually use the word “consensus”. What you wrote was:

      “Chris Warren
      July 25, 2019 at 2:14 pm
      There is a difference between individual scientist and scientists.

      You missed it.”

      It seems that you do not like the idea of one scientist having and voicing an opinion, but are happy with more than one doing so. Do the more than one have to agree (become part of a “consensus”) or are they allowed to debate?

      Seriously, do you have a clear position on anything other than the world is doomed by climate change? You demand that papers by Monckton that were not published in the “reputable” peer reviewed journals be ignored, but are now touting a paper that the author admits was rejected by a peer reviewed journal?

      You are not a serious contributor, as your mind is totally closed.

      But I shall continue to highlight your inconsistencies and hypocrisies.

      • Chris Warren says:

        It seems that you do not like the idea of one scientist having and voicing an opinion, but are happy with more than one doing so. Do the more than one have to agree (become part of a “consensus”) or are they allowed to debate?

        Wrong and silly.

        This is provided for in the JCU Enterprise Agreeent.

        Close down your imgination and manufctured trolling.

      • spangled drongo says:

        BJ, here is another little something to remind blith of his “inconsistencies and hypocrisies.”

        Our stu also consistently claims that medieval warming didn’t happen in the SH.

        But it sure confirms a broken hockey stick with temperatures warmer than now.

        With the publication of this paper, the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) has now been confirmed on all four continents of the southern hemisphere:

        https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/06/medieval-climate-anomaly-now-confirmed-in-southern-hemisphere-on-all-four-continents/

  • Chris Warren says:

    What would it take for me to cease being a sceptic about the horrors of ‘climate change’?

    Just keep aware of historic increasing temperatures.

    “Global warming skeptics sometimes say rising temperatures are just another naturally occurring shift in Earth’s climate, like the Medieval Warm Period of the years 800 to 1200 or the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling that spanned from roughly 1300 to 1850.

    But a pair of studies published Wednesday provides stark evidence that the rise in global temperatures over the past 150 years has been far more rapid and widespread than any warming period in the past 2,000 years — a finding that undercuts claims that today’s global warming isn’t necessarily the result of human activity.

    “The familiar maxim that the climate is always changing is certainly true,” Scott St. George, a physical geographer at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, said in a written commentary about the studies. “But even when we push our perspective to the earliest days of the Roman Empire, we cannot discern any event that is remotely equivalent — either in degree or extent — to the warming over the last few decades.”

    More at: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/climate-scientists-drive-stake-through-heart-skeptics-argument-ncna1033646

    • spangled drongo says:

      “…..we cannot discern any event that is remotely equivalent — either in degree or extent — to the warming over the last few decades.”

      That must be why mean sea levels at Ft Denison are 6 cms lower than they were a century ago, hey blith?

      Yet they have been 3m higher during the Holocene?

      When CO2 levels were below 300 ppm?

      When are you ever going to stop blithering, believing and bed-wetting and try going outside to check the real world for a change?

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Was this published in a reputable, peer reviewed, journal, or did you grant it an exemption, as you did for that character who wrote about complete societal collapse?

      Was the “hockey stick” used to estimate the temperature progression back to “the earliest days of the Roman Empire”, or has a different proxy been used? If a new proxy was used, then, unlike that used to produce the “hockey stick”, did the proxy temperature match the recent recorded data, or was it again necessary to “hide the decline”?

  • spangled drongo says:

    You better go and study those papers properly, blith.

    Other findings include confirmation that earlier temperature fluctuations had been dominated by volcanic activity and other warm and cold periods, such as the Little Ice Age and mediaeval warm period, were not uniform geographically or over time.

    “We conclude that the end of the Little Ice Age was marked by the recovery from a sequence of volcanic eruptions, which makes it difficult to define a single pre-industrial baseline,” the Bronnimann paper says.

    The finding has implications for how much of the warming to date can be attributed to human activity.

    Not to mention the usual fakery at bakery activity.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Another global warming threshold approaches…

    “And yes, there is a limit.

    When the air temperature exceeds 35°C, the body relies on the evaporation of water – mainly through sweating – to keep core temperature at a safe level. This system works until the “wetbulb” temperature reaches 35°C. The wetbulb temperature includes the cooling effect of water evaporating from the thermometer, and so is normally much lower than the normal (“drybulb”) temperature reported in weather forecasts.

    Once this wetbulb temperature threshold is crossed, the air is so full of water vapour that sweat no longer evaporates. Without the means to dissipate heat, our core temperature rises, irrespective of how much water we drink, how much shade we seek, or how much rest we take. Without respite, death follows – soonest for the very young, elderly or those with pre-existing medical conditions.

    Wetbulb temperatures of 35°C have not yet been widely reported, but there is some evidence that they are starting to occur in Southwest Asia. Climate change then offers the prospect that some of the most densely populated regions on Earth could pass this threshold by the end of the century, with the Persian Gulf, South Asia, and most recently the North China Plain on the front line. These regions are, together, home to billions of people.”

  • Stu says:

    And regarding Jo’s dodgy figures:

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

    “A misleading graph purporting to show that past changes in Greenland’s temperatures dwarf modern climate change has been circling the internet since at least 2010.

    Based on an early Greenland ice core record produced back in 1997, versions of the graph have, variously, mislabeled the x-axis, excluded the modern observational temperature record and conflated a single location in Greenland with the whole world.

    More recently, researchers have drilled numerous additional ice cores throughout Greenland and produced an updated estimate past Greenland temperatures.

    This modern temperature reconstruction, combined with observational records over the past century, shows that current temperatures in Greenland are warmer than any period in the past 2,000 years. That said, they are likely still cooler than during the early part of the current geological epoch – the Holocene – which started around 11,000 years ago.”

    But I expect the broken record about proof and 97% will chime back in here anyway.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “That said, they are likely still cooler than during the early part of the current geological epoch – the Holocene – which started around 11,000 years ago.”

      Yes we’re still waiting for you to tell us what’s happening today with CO2 levels at 410 ppm that didn’t happen then, when CO2 levels were below 300 ppm.

      Go on stu, give it your best shot.

      • Stu says:

        How about starting with the end of the glacial and start of holocene being kicked off by orbital changes etc as per normal for millions of years followed by a rapid rise in temperature then the long term slide back to the next glacial until “clever” humans stuffed up the normal patterns. But never mind I can imagine your fixation on the so called MWP and LIA. And BTW have you been following NH weather lately?

        • spangled drongo says:

          So you reckon we were on our way to the next glacial when all those thousands of bats and birds dropped dead at Rose Hill in 1791?

          Which hasn’t happened since?

          And you have records of the Sirocco effect in Europe going back to the MWP and further, hey stu?

          How do you think Hannibal would go today getting his elephants over the alps?

    • Chris Warren says:

      I am not sure what Nova’s dodgy figures are but the temperature pattern for the last 2000 years has been reviewed and depicted in panel a, fig 1 of:

      Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era, PAGES 2k Consortium, http://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0400-0

      It seems to show warmer conditions in medieval period plus cooling as you would expect based on Milankovitch with relatively recent artificial warming due to human interference in the carbon sinks/sources balance. This supports the approach of Ruddiman. Fossil fuels were not the original source of global warming – they merely multiplied the earlier trend.

      Denialists have been manufacturing all manner of unscientific claims as exposed at carbonbrief.org.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “I am not sure what Nova’s dodgy figures are”

        Very easy for you to check, blith. There’s a lot you need to learn.

        “Who’s denying a million raw data points?

        This new global temperature reconstruction by The Pages Consortium miraculously agrees with the models yet disagrees with hundreds of stalagmites, corals, ice cores, trees, lake sediments, mud from the ocean floor, pollen dust and 6,000 boreholes. It disagrees with the history of people’s like the Vikings. It disagrees with plants that grew and with trees that survived “above the snowline” that’s shouldn’t. This map shows just some temperature estimates from all around the world during medieval times relative to today.”

        And don’t forget this:

        “University of Exeter

        A decade without any global warming is more likely to happen if the climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions, new research has revealed.

        A decade without warming is even more likely to happen if CO2 is irrelevant. Did the experts forget to mention that?”

        More rubbish from Nature Climate Change that Jo highlights.

  • Stu says:

    And just wondering if that Richard Toll that Nova bangs on about is a fictitioys character. Are sure she is not referring to that town in Senagal? LOL

    • spangled drongo says:

      Richard Toll is just one polite scientist of the many thousands that Cook took advantage of.

      Imagine a sceptic claiming 0.07% as 97%?

      What would be said by the consensuals?

      An Information Quality Act Correction Request Regarding NASA’s Claim that 97 Percent of Scientists Agree on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

      Out of a total of 10,257 scientific faculty members at major institutions, only 79 were counted in the final tally by the author. That is a mere 0.07% of the total number of scientific faculty to whom the survey was sent:

      • Stu says:

        Your continual reference to and condemnation of “Cook” demonstrates your lack of research and balance. He alone was not the only author of that paper yet you seize on him in a fine demonstration of ad hominem attack. He was part of a group who staunchly defend their individual papers on the subject prior to the joint effort. Perhaps you could be more explicit with your references and lessen your crime, slightly.

        • spangled drongo says:

          You mean you think that criticising someone for manipulating and falsifying 0.07% of scientists into a claim of 97% is ad hom?

          You actually deny the facts and the maths?

          I’ve given you the links above for all the details including that request to NASA under the Information Quality Act last month to rightfully get them to delete that seriously flawed 97% claim.

          You need to live in the real world, stu.

          • Stu says:

            “You mean you think that criticising someone for manipulating and falsifying 0.07% of scientists into a claim of 97% is ad hom?”. Would you be prepared to stand by that statement in court? Probably not. You don’t know what you are talking about. It sounds like you are on the same level as A Jones with his 3% of 0.4% mixing of stocks and flows, meaningless bullshit. And BTW, what level of weather activity turning into climate will you concede you are totally wrong?

          • spangled drongo says:

            Did you read the details in the links that have been quoted for years and now are being reported to NASA?

            On what grounds do you deny those figures?

          • spangled drongo says:

            BTW, you should stop blithering about Alan Jones’ figures on emissions and either quote him properly or give up.

            And also try rephrasing this to make some sense: ” what level of weather activity turning into climate will you concede you are totally wrong?”

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            I haven’t listened to Alan Jones for years, but you seem to be a keen listener. Please give us the details, so we can come to an informed judgement.

        • Boambee John says:

          “fine demonstration of ad hominem attack”

          This from a specialist in ad hom attacks! Wasn’t Cook the lead author?

          • Stu says:

            Yes like you are the lead author here – NOT.

          • Stu says:

            And I should have added, Cook was the lead author, but the paper was covering the published work of all the others as well. You dnkt attack them!

          • spangled drongo says:

            We are only too happy to condemn the rest of the dumb, errant authors particularly Nutticelli but we have to consider your limit to understanding what and who we are talking about. At least you get Cook.

          • Stu says:

            So let us try a different tack. You dispute the 97% but unless you are in complete denial (which you seem to be) you will have to concede that the weight of published papers on climate science is very much on the side of AGW and that your position is in a dismal minority. Yes? Not to mention current trends in global “weather”.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Referring to a well known paper by the name of the lead author is a convenient shorthand method. A pedant might insist on adding “et al”, but the practical difference is nil.

            And you are hardly one to be criticising looseness in others’ phraseology.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            ” you will have to concede that the weight of published papers on climate science is very much on the side of AGW and that your position is in a dismal minority.”

            Your short term memory loss is playing up again. I have conceded on several occasions that there is a warming human influence on global climate.

            Where I differ from you is in two points. First, the actual scale and significance of that influence are far from clear. Second, whether the effects will be catastrophic is also unclear. So far the effects have been broadly beneficial.

            But you keep pushing that strawman around in a barrow, I suppose it strokes your ego to do so!

          • Stu says:

            “Second, whether the effects will be catastrophic is also unclear”.

            Are you familiar with the concepts of risk management and insurance? So, there may be no catastrophe, all good. Or there maybe, so prudence says take action to prevent or offset. You are happy to simply run the risk, yes? Do you insure your house against fire and storm? Probably yes. Why the different approach?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Yes, I do insure, but if the premiums become too high relative to the risk, I would consider what value there might be in continuing the policy.

            You advocate paying any premium, however high, regardless of risk.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            “First, the actual scale and significance of that influence are far from clear.”

            Only a denialist would hide behind such a threadbare blanket.

            But it is obvious now.

            If CO2 continues to increase – temperature increases. Ice environmental ice is melting – it will continue until no more ice is left.

            The scale is firstly most Northern Hemisphere – then with some lag, most of Southern Hemisphere.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            I was talking about the scale and significance of actual measurements, not the output of computer models, particularly those with a poor performance record.

  • Neville says:

    So once again the blog donkeys have returned to their BS of so called mitigation. I’ve asked them forever to tell us how we can mitigate their so called risk and they always run away and hide.
    So come on give us a useful measured example that would make a difference by 2040 or 2100 or for thousands of years? OH and don’t forget China, India and non OECD countries and their soaring co2 emissions since 1990.

    • Chris Warren says:

      A totally irrrelevant consideration.

      Emissions must equal sinks.

      If current steps are inadequate – we need new steps. So who is stopping hydrogen? Who is not producing EV’s? Who is not dealing with population issues?

      If you are not part of the solution – you are part of the problem.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        EVs need large scale, contiouous power available if they are to be practical. Renewables, in their current state of development, cannot provide this without continuous fossil fuel or nuclear backup.

        Tell us your concrete proposals to resolve the population issue. Until we know the proposed measures, it is impossible to decide who is stopping them from being implemented.

  • Neville says:

    The new Scafetta study throws more doubt on their so called CAGW. Could a lot of the global temp increase just be a NATURAL recovery from the LIA and the UHI effect?
    Certainly nothing would change by 2040 or 2100 or beyond if we followed their so called mitigation, because the non OECD aren’t listening. And question 20 Q&A from the RS+ NAS report also disagrees, whether we cease all co2 emissions today or not. Here’s the latest Scafetta study.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/china-is-warming-fastest-where-the-cities-are-not-where-the-models-predicted-classic-uhi/

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      This is stock-in-trade denialism.

      The recovery from the Little Ice Age was caused by increased GHGs.

      You do not know the meaning of the word “Certainly”

      Urban heat makes matters worse.

  • Neville says:

    Contrary to most of the nonsense from the MSM China continues to increase the tonnage of coal used to service their future energy needs.
    In fact China produced 3.55 billion tonnes of coal in 2018 and they also import coal from Australia, Indonesia etc as well. China now generates 66.7% of their total energy from coal p.a while the USA now generates just 17.1%. Cheap fracked gas is now the preferred fossil fuel in the USA energy mix. Here’s that China link.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-coal/china-boosts-coal-mining-capacity-despite-climate-pledges-idUSKCN1R712Z

    • Chris Warren says:

      Most competent bloggers will understand that the key to carbon emissions is per capita emissions, not whether this or that country is increasing coal.

      It is unsustainable that some have a living standard based on high per capita emissions while trying to suggest that nations with far less should somehow remain in their less developed condition.

      So we (in developed economies) need to set a sustainable per capita lifestyle ourselves and then have this as a global benchmark.

      • I’m not sure we need a ceiling on a harmless plant food but I’m sure they Indians won’t object to catching up with Adani coal

        • Chris Warren says:

          Yes – that is the problem, not a solution.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            “So we (in developed economies) need to set a sustainable per capita lifestyle ourselves and then have this as a global benchmark.”

            Clearly, you do not see any great urgency to solving the problem.

            Establishing the detailed techniques for a “sustainable per capita lifestyle” and then implementing them across the developed world to set an example is, like reducing world population, the work of decades, not days.

            Fantasy, fairy dust and unicorn f@rts!

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            We have no choice.

            You are just heckling from the sidelines to appease denialists who send you their scripts.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            No-one has sent me anybscriprs.

            Where do you get yours from?

          • Chris Warren says:

            You get your scripts from denialist websites, I get mine from NASA, Royal Society, BOM, Nature magazine, Scientific America, CSIRO, ANU etc.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Slander!

            Perhaps you could list for other readers the “denialist” websites from which I have quoted?

            This might be a shock to you, but I am quite capable of looking at the empirical data and coming to my own conclusions.

            Are you?

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            PS, you should take to heart the motto of the Royal Society (from Wiki):

            “Nullius in verba (Latin for “on the word of no one” or “take nobody’s word for it”, literally “of not any in words”) is the motto of the Royal Society. John Evelyn and other fellows of the Royal Society chose the motto soon after the Society’s founding in 1660.”

            By all means read their material, and that of the others you mention, but also do your own independent thinking. It is a difficult process, but satisfying.

            And on the subject of scientific consensus, remember the Phlogiston Theory.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            You are not able to use empirical data. In fact you never do.

            That is the main tactic of denial – cherry-picking data and reporting in fake journals based in such places as Pakistan.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            More slanders. What are these Pakistan based journals of which you speak? Not my sources.

            Try again!

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            Why did you corrupt my statement???

            I said “such as Pakistan” – this does not mean Pakistan.

            So can I assume you have not read Ed Berry’s paper? It seems you have not read anything but simply served up denialists scripts from others such as the silly claim that Australia was a “sink”.

            Where was this served up to you? Was it from a website using papers from the Science Publishing Group?

            So who gave you the – Australia is a sink – script?

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            “Such as Pakistan” does not mean “Pakistan”? Perhaps I might say that “idiots like you” doesn’t mean you are an idiot? It would be just as logical.

            You do realise, don’t you, that Alice Through the Looking Glass was not intended as a guide for public service writing techniques? Words really have meanings, and those cannot be changed just to suit you.

            As a matter of routine, you serve up others’ talking points. You might gain from deep consideration of the motto of the Royal Society. Don’t asume that everyone operates in the same way as you do.

  • spangled drongo says:

    This article in yesterday’s Austalian shows in great detail the scientific flaws awa the complete dishonesty and corruption in our “climate science”.

    A great insight into the “consensus” that our climate crisis “experts” here, continually sing the praises of.

    Peter Ridd explaining his court case experience:

    “I watched and thought, if only this guaranteed questioning of evidence occurred in the
    environmental sciences. I am used to one side hijacking the debate and excluding opposing ideas
    and evidence. In the case of the Great Barrier Reef, I am one of the few experts on the
    movement of mud, sourced from farms, that is supposedly killing the reef. My group has
    collected more data on this issue than all the other groups put together, yet I am excluded from
    the ‘consensus” group of marine biologists that tells the government that the reef is smothered
    by mud. Our work indicates that this is a ridiculous proposition with no evidence to support it.

    In Australia we would never accept a rigged legal system where the prosecution, defence, judge and jury were effectively the same person. We would not accept them excluding evidence they did not like….

    But the biggest problem of all is that the science institutions and the state and federal chief scientists are still claiming there is no problem to be solved. While they keep their heads in the sand and continue to produce demonstrably inaccurate scientific conclusions, public trust in
    them will fall even more. If they were running a court system, it would be like a banana republic
    court where politics is often more important than the truth.”

    Please bear this in mind, blith’n’stu, when next you try to sell us and tell us about the “consensus”

  • spangled drongo says:

    If only Climategate and a few other climate science shortcomings had been brought before a court we may not be in the stupid political position we now are.

    Here is the link to that story:

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/lawyers-show-scientists-how-to-seek-out-the-truth/news-story/a80d42264fec5d1207d850301bd246c6

  • spangled drongo says:

    This needs to be repeated for the slow learners:

    Fundamentally, in the legal field, both sides must be heard and open to question. On the other hand, in environmental science, Peter Ridd is “used to one side hijacking the debate and excluding opposing ideas and evidence. In the case of the Great Barrier Reef, I (Peter Ridd) am one of the few experts in the movement of mud, sourced from farms, that is supposedly killing the reef. My group has collected more data on this than all other groups put together yet I am excluded from the ‘consensus’ group of marine biologists who advise the Government. that the reef is smothered by mud.” In the legal system, “we would not accept them excluding evidence they did not like.”

    I think I’ll send that article to the ABC.

    • Neville says:

      SD I ‘m sure you would be wasting your time. The ABC donkeys and con merchants are some of the worst offenders on the issue of their so called CAGW.
      Don’t forget how they employed that Flannery fool to hype concerns about CAGW and ABC’s Robyn “100 metres of SLR” Williams ? But there’s been SFA SLR since Wiliams made that statement so he has a lot of catching up to do.
      He must be about 10 metres behind since he said that to Andrew Bolt at least 10 years ago.
      In fact recent Kench et al and Duvat etc studies show that most coral island atolls are now growing in size.

      • spangled drongo says:

        You’re quite right of course, Neville. Casting pearls among swine, seeds on stony ground etc. but I did it anyway just in case it found a stray real-worlder there.

        They do say that nature abhors a vacuum, so you never know.

        BTW did you see this re US “heatwaves”:

        The five hottest July 26th’s in the US were 1930, 1931, 1936, 1939 and 1952.

        https://realclimatescience.com/2019/07/five-hottest-july-26ths-in-the-us/

        • Stu says:

          Well bugger me, it is just like the side show, “pick a card, any card and I will tell you it is the Ace of diamonds”. Come on, you can do better than that sham. Fail

          • spangled drongo says:

            A card describes a climate “expert” very well, stu.

            Here’s another of your cards:

            Seawater can’t become acidic, at least not under real world conditions. A study of seawater pH near active volcanic CO2 vents in the Mediterranean (Kerrison et al., 2011) found that the pH immediately adjacent to the vent was still alkaline, despite being subjected to the equivalent of nearly 5,600 ppm CO2.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/25/the-total-myth-of-ocean-acidification-science-edition/

          • Stu says:

            Once again you cling to very narrow threads and leap to grand conclusions, backed up as usual by good ol whatsy. There is a difference between something becoming “more acidic” by trending to a lower pH over time and something becoming “acidic”. And the former is just as bad for the environment. Here are some words from NOAA.

            “For more than 200 years, or since the industrial revolution, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels and land use change. The ocean absorbs about 30 percent of the CO2 that is released in the atmosphere, and as levels of atmospheric CO2 increase, so do the levels in the ocean.

            When CO2 is absorbed by seawater, a series of chemical reactions occur resulting in the increased concentration of hydrogen ions. This increase causes the seawater to become more acidic and causes carbonate ions to be relatively less abundant.

            Carbonate ions are an important building block of structures such as sea shells and coral skeletons. Decreases in carbonate ions can make building and maintaining shells and other calcium carbonate structures difficult for calcifying organisms such as oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton.

            These changes in ocean chemistry can affect the behavior of non-calcifying organisms as well. Certain fish’s ability to detect predators is decreased in more acidic waters. When these organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk.

            Ocean acidification is affecting the entire world’s oceans, including coastal estuaries and waterways. Many economies are dependent on fish and shellfish and people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein.”

            Oh, never mind, back to your ferreting.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “This increase causes the seawater to become more acidic.”

            I am stunned that an organisation like NOAA is unaware of the difference between “more acidic” and “less basic”. Until pH reaches 7, the seawater remains basic. It becomes neutral at 7, and only then becomes acidic.

        • spangled drongo says:

          You mean more acidic like:

          The pH has dropped from 8.1 to 8.1, rounded to 1 decimal place.

          Like you stu, the message from NOAA is they are good at blithering their POV but can’t quantify any of it.

          Please address the message yourself to make a sensible argument.

          Oh, I forgot, you only do messengers.

          • Boambee John says:

            SD

            I suspect that NOAA has used the more emotive “more acidic” rather than the accurate “less basic” as a typical sleazy alarmist trick to frighten the scientifically ignorant. They have found a receptive audience!

          • spangled drongo says:

            Yes BJ and guess who’s a sucker for emotive?

          • Boambee John says:

            Sorry, long day driving.

            “Alkaline”, not “basic”.

  • Stu says:

    It is amazing that you guys are such experts and know more than all the organisations, institutes and government agencies all over the world. I am impressed with your egos and arrogance but not your “knowledge”.

    • spangled drongo says:

      It’s interesting that you feel so confident in your beliefs, stu, but when we’ve never had any measurable evidence from ” all the organisations, institutes and government agencies all over the world” that you worship, I would think the rational response would be and should be, scepticism.

      The “knowledge” should come from those friends you mention who never stop making the alarmist claims, surely.

      It’s about as forthcoming as your “evidence”, hey?

  • spangled drongo says:

    But facts and fizziks don’t count.

    The Andrews govt has just introduced a new law that would allow self-declared trans women, who possess a penis and have not undergone any sex-reassignment treatment, to change the sex that appears on their birth certificate, giving them access as women to equal opportunity protection.

    However a former state and federal human rights commissioner, said that, if enacted, the legislation could allow a Down Under version of Canada’s Jessica Yaniv case, in which a trans woman has lodged anti-discrimination complaints against 16 beauticians who did not want to handle her penis and testicles in order to grant her wish for a brazilian wax.

    Victorian Attorney-General Jill Hennessy said: “Everyone deserves to live their life as they choose, and that includes having a birth certificate that reflects their true identity.”

    If you can do that for sex, surely you can do it for climate.

    Just pass a law:

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/new-victorian-sex-law-a-gender-headache/news-story/a2c5881bc9f572ff8096461486ac96bb

    • Neville says:

      Correct SD, this is the type of creep and pervert who is encouraged and promoted by the left wing loonies at every opportunity. Bolt discussed this on the Bolt report this week.
      The Canadian PM is just the type of lefty extremist to lead on these sort of perversions. I pity the poor beauticians who have to put up with this type of scumbag and they shouldn’t have to carry out any of this crap against their will in their own workplace.

    • Boambee John says:

      Well, our previous Prime Minister did express his view along the lines that “The laws of mathematics (or perhaps he said physics, he might not know the difference) are very commendable, but in Australia, the laws of Australia apply”.

  • Neville says:

    More on the corruption and fra-d of wind farms in the USA. If you take away the endless billions $ in taxpayer subsidies the whole mess would fall in a heap. And no change to climate or temp at all.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/25/revision-to-wind-farm-back-of-the-envelope-economic-analysis/

    • Chris Warren says:

      If you take away all the subsidies for farmers the whole mess would fall in a heap.

      If you take away all the subsidies for hospitals the whole mess would fall in a heap.

      If you take away all the subsidies for wind farms more CO2 will accumulate in the atmosphere.

      • Boambee John says:

        Two of these are more important than the third.

        BTW, take away reliable power and hospitals fall into a heap.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Noone is taking away reliable power for hospitals – this is a denialist script drafted by falsifiers.

          Reliable power is only being taken away from pensioners.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            You are, of course, quite correct about hospitals and power. They all have banks of back-up diesel power, and sometimes lead-acid batteries.

            These are, also of course, very environmentally friendly!

            Is leaving pensioners to shiver and die in the cold part of your population reduction policy?

          • Chris.Canberra@gmail.com says:

            Where do nutters get the idea that pensioners are left to die???

          • Chris Warren says:

            Where do nutters get the idea that pensioners are left to die?

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            You are the one who said that pensioners were having reliable power taken away.

            No reliable power, no reliable heating, cooling, refrigeration. These losses do have adverse effects.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            The question was:

            “Where do nutters get the idea that pensioners are left to die?”

            Where did you get your script about Australia being a sink?

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            “Reliable power is only being taken away from pensioners.”

            If you are not aware that taking away reliable power from pensioners in winter will increase their death rate, then your knowledge base is very limited.

            Then you asked:

            “The question was:

            “Where do nutters get the idea that pensioners are left to die?”

            From nutters who seem to gloat at the idea of saving the world by placing pensioners at greater risk of dying, obviously.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Evidence?

            You may have to go overseas to get any example.

            This does not happen in Australia.

            Where did you get your script about Australia being a sink?

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            So you start by saying that “Reliable power is only being taken away from pensioners.” And finish with “You may have to go overseas to get any example.

            This does not happen in Australia.”

            All in under 24 hours.

            Your short term memory loss is getting worse. Are you sure you have never been given a link to the sinks work? You might have forgotten, just as you have forgotten to detail your policies to reduce world population.

            Other than by freezing pensioners to death, that is.

      • Chris Warren says:

        John Boambee

        Where did you get your script about Australia being a sink?

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          I made a brief reference to Australia being a sink a few threads ago. What is this obsession of yours? It was not a script (unlike much of what you post), simply a comment.

          When will you give us the detailed policies to reduce the world population?

          • Chris Warren says:

            So what was the basis for such a comment or was it just a deliberate fabrication?

          • Boambee John says:

            If you are not capable of searching to answer your question, don’t expect me to do your work.

            Now, about those policies to reduce world population …

            Still crickets …

        • Boambee John says:

          No.

  • spangled drongo says:

    David Leyonhjelm puts it very well:

    Australia’s carbon sacrifice is pointless

    “Imagine a librarian sitting in the corner of her library, wishing that her noisy library was quiet. But the only thing she does to make this happen is to be quiet herself.

    There might be dozens of people scattered around the library, but she wouldn’t try to work out where the noise was coming from. Nor would she ask the noisy patrons to keep it down, perhaps by persuading them of the benefits of a quiet library.

    She would simply sit in her corner, quietly telling herself she was doing the right thing and setting a good example.

    This recipe for frustration and failure is akin to Australia’s approach to greenhouse gas emissions. While we sit in our corner of the world, promising ourselves to reduce our emissions over the decade ahead, the rest of the world increases theirs.”

    https://www.afr.com/news/economy/our-carbon-sacrifice-is-pointless-20190228-h1btd7

  • spangled drongo says:

    Here’s a must-read for our blith’n’stu.

    And before they shoot the messenger:

    About the Author

    Dr. Rex J. Fleming is a mathematician with a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from the U. of Michigan. He has over 50 years of experience as a scientist and manager in weather and climate research. He has published peer reviewed scientific papers from 1971 to 2018…….

    But check the message:

    This book provides a complete review of the role of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and reveals detailed information about the subject of climate change. Many different science disciplines are visited and discussed and each area is introduced with a brief summary written to appeal to a broader audience. The logic of CO2 involvement in changing the climate is investigated from every perspective: reviewing the historical data record of Ice Ages with vast ice sheets, noting the interglacial periods of little or no ice, examining in further detail the 20th century data record and evaluating the radiation role of CO2 in the atmosphere. The radiation calculations, using the appropriate equations and data are reviewed in great detail. The results of this review and examination reveal no role of CO2 in any change of the Earth’s climate.

    https://www.amazon.com/Carbon-Dioxide-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/3030168794/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=rex+fleming&qid=1563890818&s=gateway&sr=8-3

  • spangled drongo says:

    But we mustn’t forget the European heat waves.

    Particularly that 122 f [50c] in France in 1930:

    https://i.stack.imgur.com/aPaJd.png

    Or the US [Greenland Ranch California].

    That 134 f [57c] in 1913:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Image1498_shadow.png

  • Mike Burston says:

    We’re still expected to read arcane scientific papers without being given an answer of why the world hasn’t warmed in lockstep with CO2 emissions.
    There’s effectively only one customer for science, the government. If we uncoupled that link, or even cautiously reduced funding for science, global warming might miraculously be solved

  • spangled drongo says:

    Comment number 500.

    Numerous Studies Confirm Geothermal Heat Melting Greenland Ice Sheet:

    “it’s way past time for the media, responsible scientific organizations, and political entities seeking the truth to step forward and inform the public of the significant, dominant role of Greenland’s extensive geothermal heat flow in melting glacial ice.

    Silence by these entities is no longer a truthful option because it indirectly supports the notion that manmade atmospheric warming is the 100% proven cause. It’s not.”:

    https://principia-scientific.org/numerous-studies-confirm-geothermal-heat-melting-greenland-ice-sheet/

    • Stu says:

      Yes and when you add that to the surface melting caused by weather changes due to AGW it is a really bad story, yes.? Or do you claim the geo heat is melting the top? Such a claim by you would not surprise me. And also dont forget the geothermal stuff did not just start, so it is a zero sum claim in terms if current conditions.

      • spangled drongo says:

        You mean you can actually tell by the rate of change in sea levels, stu?

        Or did you actually check how much cooler Greenland is now than in the early Holocene:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/08/greenland-is-way-cool/

      • spangled drongo says:

        That paper on the history of Greenland is all the more reason, stu, for you to man up and tell us what is happening today, climate-wise, with CO2 at 410 ppm that hasn’t happened during the Holocene with CO2 at less than 300 ppm.

        When are you going to be honest enough to deal with that simple question?

        • Stu says:

          Well for a start Greenland is melting as you now admit and the Arctic sea ice is on a long slide down

          And recent studies have confirmed it is now warmer than in millennia.

          Further the rate of warming is unprecedented.

          CO2 is higher now than since before humans. Whether it leads or lags temperature it is an amplifier and that is what we are seeing.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Greenland is melting every summer. Like most glaciers around the world.

            Just not net melting even with all the geothermal activity.

            “And recent studies have confirmed it is now warmer than in millennia. Further the rate of warming is unprecedented.”

            How do you extrapolate that from that paper, stu, when Greenland is the coldest it has been for at least 10,000 years?

            “CO2 is higher now than since before humans. Whether it leads or lags temperature it is an amplifier and that is what we are seeing….er…claiming and pontificating, anyway.”

            Fixed it for you, stu.

            But you are incredible!

            Still no evidence.

            But that doesn’t stop you just bleating your belief.

          • Stu says:

            SD, where do you find that rubbish? It must be lonely in that vacuum you live in.

          • spangled drongo says:

            It’s a peer-reviewed paper, stu. Go and read it. I’ve given you all the links.

            Fully supported by current and paleo observations.

            But are you saying you only believe the ones derived from models?

            Why am I so surprised? NOT!

          • Stu says:

            Pal reviewed not peer reviewed

          • spangled drongo says:

            R U Kidding???

            Any evidence for that waffle?

            And guess which side of the “debate” your pal review is on?

          • Boambee John says:

            Peer review/pal review.

            Which it is, to Stu, depends upon whether he likes the conclusions.

            Swear an oath Stu that no alarmist “pals” have ever reviewed each others’papers.

  • spangled drongo says:

    How long before the blitherers accept nuclear?

    When even Bob Brown turns against wind turbines you know the technology’s moment has all but passed. And the Greens patron saint is not the only one to lose the faith. Time magazine “environmental hero” Michael Shellenberger says he was once a firm believer in wind and solar, but the Californian experience changed his mind.

    Shellenberger now advocates nuclear energy as a cheaper, more reliable alternative, observing, “It turns out that scientists have studied the health and safety of different energy sources since the 1960s. Every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journal Lancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity.”

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/07/its-past-time-to-flip-the-bird-at-wind-turbines/

  • spangled drongo says:

    90 leading Italian scientists have just signed a petition to end the fake climate alarmism promoted by the UN.

    It says:

    “The anthropic origin of global warming is an unproven hypothesis, deduced only from some climate models”

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/04/90-leading-italian-scientists-sign-petition-co2-impact-on-climate-unjustifiably-exaggerated-catastrophic-predictions-not-realistic/

  • Neville says:

    I’ll just transfer my last comment from the EV post.

    Perhaps Germans are starting to grow a set of nuts and taking a stand against the fra-dulent wind energy disaster? Like our Brown donkey the German public don’t like the slaughter of bats and birds, by greedy elites.
    Also the subsidies are dropping and people don’t want these vile looking things anywhere near them , especially when it means the destruction of animal habitat and ruination of their countryside. Big surprise NOT.
    So it looks like future EVs will have to be recharged by fossil fuels? We can only hope that Germans really do want a sustainable environment in the future and will stand up to the Green carpetbaggers and fra-dsters.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/collapse-of-wind-power-threatens-germanys-green-energy-transition/

  • Stu says:

    It is noted that practically every piece of “evidence” SD and company quote is from one or other of the noted dirty fuel oriented denialist sites such as GWPF, Whatsup, Jonova, which regurgitate nonsense from wherever they can find it. If science involves having an open mind all these sites exhibit total tunnel vision with one narrow focus of promoting the status quo of current carbon based power production.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Desperate blither from evidence-free alarmists who can only shoot messengers.

      And can never debate the message.

      It doesn’t get more pathetic than that.

    • Boambee John says:

      ” If science involves having an open mind …”

      This from a completely closed mind, which dismisses all different opinion as being from “one or other of the noted dirty fuel oriented denialist sites”. Stu cannot concieve that he and his alarmist sites might be anything other than 100% correct. Not much scientific curiosity there!

    • Mike Burston says:

      Thanks Neville, I’ll keep that one handy

    • Chris Warren says:

      This is a fools errand. Of course previous years were warmer because we are now entering an over due glacial period based on Milankovitch cycles.

      By definition – in this period – early years must have been warmer. It cooled into an initial ice age in 17th and 18th centuries and would have continued but for anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

      As Ruddiman (2014:6) notes: industrial-era warming has rapidly driven global temperature to a level that is poised to escape the top of its natural range over the last several hundred thousand years.

      So pointing to past natural warmth is a pointless exercise by our rather dense, dim witted, denialists.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “… a level that is poised to escape the top of its natural range over the last several hundred thousand years.”

        And our factual presence well within that natural range doesn’t stop our blith from quoting a dumb prediction from models [that are 95% wrong and getting wronger by the day] to make his “point”.

        Oh, dear!

        Try the real world, blith.

        In the meantime it is not hard to see the true “pointless exercise by our rather dense, dim witted, denialists.”

  • Stu says:

    Ah, Notrickszone, an example I left off the list. Proves the point really.

    • spangled drongo says:

      And how about those 90 leading scientists, stu?

      You’ll just have to reload.

      How’s the ammunition?

      But please tell us all what point shooting the rational sceptics proves?

      Other than you are getting stu-pider, more desperate and more devoid of science with age, that is.

  • Neville says:

    Dr Benny Peiser presents all the data on the EU mess. Wind energy is proving to be a complete waste of time and money, yet these stupid fools think they should continue down their mad path.
    While China, India and non OECD countries have complete freedom to emit more co2 emissions until 2030 and after that date there is no compulsion for them to cease further emissions. They must be laughing all the way to their banks.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2019/07/Washington2019-Peiser.pdf

  • spangled drongo says:

    And you forgot about those 31,000 other scientists that signed this petition:

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    Man, ya gonna need some bullets to get rid of that anti-climate-consensus!

    And you wonder why you blitherers lost the recent election?

    If you wish to sheet your “science” home to consensus numbers [which don’t mean a thing] you’re beaten before you start.

  • Stu says:

    Like I said, you keep quoting from non reputable sources rather than science sources. Call it ad hom if you like, but the fact is Peiser and GWPF is not a good source to quote. “ Benny Peiser is a sports anthropologist/historian, and past Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University. Peiser describes himself as a “historian and anthropologist with particular research interest in neo-catastrophism and its implications for human and societal evolution.”. He now works for GWPF, another example of their lack of credibility in the area of climate science. GWPF is one of those misnamed (deliberatly) organisations like the former Australian Vaccination Network which was forced to change its misleading name because it did not reflect the true Anti purpose of the operators.

    And you trot out the hoary tale of the 31,000. Are you serious?

    Consider this also:

    “Cognitive dissonance causes people to accept flimsy evidence while disregarding a mountain of high-quality documentation. Understanding this is actually one of the keys to science literacy.” By @wildweatherdan at #AGUblogs #climate

    Perhaps that is what afflicts a few people here.

    For your education I recommend the free online self paced course coming up in September hosted by Michael Mann a world leader in climate research.

    buff.ly/32LdWnj

    • spangled drongo says:

      “And you trot out the hoary tale of the 31,000. Are you serious?”

      Perfectly serious.

      Are you seriously denying they signed that petition?

      When you deny and ignore the fact that 31,000 scientists signed a petition that says:

      “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

      You are plainly denying that knowledgeable people are aware of the scam of climate crisis.

      But what’s new, stu?

      Ignorance is bliss, hey?

      And your “mountain of high-quality documentation” simply doesn’t exist because it is all based on evidence-free computer modelling.

      If you really have a “mountain” why is it you can’t provide one skerrick?

      • Stu says:

        I don’t deny that 31000 signed that “letter”. I do deny that many are qualified to support such a letter.

        There are many places where you can find knock offs for your silly “petition”. I will just pick one which is widely regarded as reputable to minimise your whinging. Snopes says “What’s True
        A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the concept of anthropogenic global warming.
        What’s False
        The petition was created by individuals and groups with political motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any science to sign.”

        And they could have added that there is no check on who signed and what their qualifications are. It is a hoax.

        I can give you plenty more if you really want or you can check for yourself.

        And please get with the reality. The evidence is not based on models. The evidence is all the physical research happening all over the world and being written up in learned journals. The models are an adjunct which serve to predict where we are headed. They also look back in time as a proof of their veracity as predictive tools. In short they have been tested with past data to prove they provide reasonable predictions of the outcome and they have been proven robust. Are they perfect? No. But they are being continually refined and getting even better. Just one element, the ever multiplying power of super computers has had a big impact on this area of research. The granularity and inclusion if variables is getting more and more amazing.

        Back into your vacuum. Ignore the reality. BTW have you looked at the latest ice data from the Arctic?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          When the models look forward in time, some 97% of them predict higher temperatures than are later recorded.

          They need to be adjusted (refined?) to “forecast” reasonably in retrospect.

          Forecasting is easy if you can do it about the past!

        • spangled drongo says:

          If you checked it properly you would know that 31,072 American scientists, all with college degrees in science including 9021 with PhDs in various scientific fields signed that petition. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine carried out the service with the president, Arthur Robinson in charge.

          Freeman Dyson signed it. Richard Lindzen signed it. Frederick Seitz, the first president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed it.

          You have no proof whatsoever to support your claims that it was a hoax.

          ” The evidence is not based on models. The evidence is all the physical research happening all over the world and being written up in learned journals.”

          Please supply any quantifiable, measureable, evidence that is not model-based.

          You can’t!

          And to have the hubris to claim that because they model the past they can do the future is the biggest joke I have ever heard WRT cli-sci.

          It’s easy to adjust them to fit the past but to then assume you have it right for the future is hubris beyond bounds.

          But you are right. That is exactly what these “scientists” have done and their projections suffer accordingly.

          But just as you can’t supply any empirical evidence to support you climate claims, you also can’t name a single thing that is happening weather-and-climate-wise today with CO2 levels at 410 ppm that has not happened for the last 80 centuries with CO2 levels at less than 300 ppm.

          Except that the earth is greener.

          So stop blithering and smell the roses.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann.

      And you talk about “Cognitive dissonance causes people to accept flimsy evidence while disregarding a mountain of high-quality documentation.” ROFLMAO.

      If Mann had any scientific integrity he would never have used “Mike’s Nature (that is one of the journals that you and Chris regard with childlike enthusiasm) trick” to conceal that his temperature proxy did not match recorded data when continued up to the current time. A real scientist would have looked again at the reliabiluty of the proxy. Mike just deleted the recent proxy data and patched on the measured data.

      And if Nature deserved its reoutation, its peer reviewers would have picked the dishonest trick up.

      But you stick with your “reputable” journals. Keep the faith!

    • Mike Burston says:

      Learning from Michael Mann would be suitable for those wishing to go into the business of fabricating hockey sticks. Here’s an alternative clear thinking test, free of arcane “research”. It’s totally free and highly recommended
      https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

      • Chris Warren says:

        It is free of any research.

        A denialist trick based on conflating anthropogenic warming with natural warming by playing games with different timescales.

        Denialist Theory 101.

  • Stu says:

    Sorry, there is no help for you guys, dupes of the fossil funded front groups and classic sufferers of cognitive dissonance. What is not clear is what is it in your background, upbringing, education, employment, socio-economic position that makes you so susceptible to the often not so subtle misinformation flowing from the carbon fuel boys and their various front groups. Something has made you classic reactionaries. Of course there are some classic relationships that explain it. The obvious one is age, put simply the bigger the age the more resistant to change. Another is political persuasion. This one comes into play directly and also indirectly via susceptibility to subtle messaging. An example of the latter is the frequent reference (dubious) to amazing global conspiracies behind the warnings of climate change, which are very really right wing. This one has reared its head in these pages. Another is the reasonable tendency to accept the urging of ones favourite party to back them and their policies or face disaster. This of course requires denial of the background forces behind the party such as major donors buying policy favours. I am sure Don would have strong views on this (given his background) possibly in denial of mine, which of course is fine.

    So, I wonder what is behind your positions. I don’t expect you to tell me, it may reveal too much. But I continue to wonder.

    For me, what is my interest and motivation? I believe science has been one of the most important forces in our society. I accept that there is sufficient evidence and support by mainstream science for the theory and prognosis of AGW. Twisting Don’s original post what would it take for me to join the denialists? The answer is really serious scientific evidence to the contrary and I see none. Non science based lobby outfits (jonova, whatsup, no tricks, IPA, Heartland etc etc) do not cut it. They cut and paste usually dodgy “science papers” into interesting but not convincing articles. As an example go back to the Peiser story. Lots of fancy graphs, some with source quoted, and look at the words. The interpretation and conclusions drawn are not convincing. So the links are often vague and hard to check. Solid original research based papers that have a position against AGW are very hard to find. I will give you guys one thing, it is much easier to accept the science than to be potentially a social pariah on the other side. You do work hard at it , but not very convincingly. Sorry.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “what would it take for me to join the denialists? The answer is really serious scientific evidence to the contrary and I see none.”

      Poor ol’ stu is blind awa stu-pid.

      When you can’t see there is no sea level rise and you can’t point to anything that is happening today that hasn’t happened for the last 8-10,000 years climate wise, it is you who is the Great Denialist.

      That fact is “really serious scientific evidence to the contrary”.

      Right there in front of you! But you just can’t see it. Or just flat out deny it.

      And yet you have the hubris to claim there is no evidence to show that all is well and nothing different is happening with the climate when all your predicted catastrophes just aren’t happening?

      You are the SUPER Denialist.

      Too silly to realise how well off you are.

      It’s true what they say about some people desperate to predict doom.

      But I’d hate to hear your screams if you really had a problem.

      You don’t know you’re alive.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Stick to climate science, you are better at that than pop psychology.

      And you have not got a clue about climate science!

      • Boambee John says:

        Why are alarmists so keen on disaster porn? They get of on the prospect of worldwide societal collapse, while pushing for policies tgat increase tge chances of such a collapse. Is it that tgey fantasise about becoming the saviiur if the collapsed society?

  • Stu says:

    Ah yes, but I am in very good company whereas you are part of a rapidly diminishing minority. I even read today that the Heartland Institute climate conference was a flop and they are positioning away from climate denial and just being outright carbon fuel proponents. My position is far safer than yours. Do you play outside this narrow communication space? If so, with what rate of acceptance?

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Ah yes, but I am in very good company whereas you are part of a rapidly diminishing minority.”

      More denial by the losers, hey stu?

      We just had an election.

      Where were you?

      • Stu says:

        We are not talking politics or elections, there was much more going on there than climate. Look at Warringah as an example. Your cognitive dissonance is showing again.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Stu

      Yes the denialists have been reduced to a rump and to a laughing stock.

      Not one of their arguments has survived.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu and the BIC here think Zali Steggall’s win in Warringah is proof of national support for their ACO2GW religion.

    How amusing is that?

    Inner city, virtue signalling elites describing their fickle habits.

    But for denialism to work, I suppose this 10% rump has to continually dance with delusion.

    Until the real world hits the likes of Bob Brown, that is.

    • Stu says:

      “Stu and the BIC here think Zali Steggall’s win in Warringah is proof of national support for their ACO2GW religion”

      No we do not. I cited that situation as the proof point that you were wrong to assert that the climate change issue was a loser at the election. Not only do you suffer cognitive dissonance you have a basic cognition problem and you seem to jump to conclusions without taking in the written word.

      Meantime here is a really good video worth watching. The most impressive thing about it is that it was published in 1984, well before the early primitive climate models developed their current sophistication. Consider also that it shows the origin of the huge number of lines of research to fill in the gaps that has occurred since. That is how science has reached a point of consensus of evidence such that there is no question that the earth is warming due to CO2 and not natural variability.

      https://youtu.be/v5cCmPZmHPM

      Watch it (all) if you dare have your negative views challenged.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Sorry stu, I tried to oblige but there is a limit to how many endless, evidence-free, climate doomster predictions a rational person can cop.

        I realise you doomsters would have been tickled pink if the world had descended into another ice age at the end of the LIA and most of the population had perished but Nat Var just happened to take over and spoil your plans. What rotten luck!

        But If you have any new points to make from that tome of wisdom please go right ahead.

        However I did notice you had nothing in the way of any evidence to put forward so I suspect it is just more of your favourite blither.

        Oh, dear! How sad!

        But you must admit, stu, that you never cease to deny that the reason you lost the election is purely and simply that Australians have had it with your doom religion and want to get on with their lives.

        If you bleating, VS elites had shut up you might have won.

  • Neville says:

    Earlier this year the CEI and National Review received support from 24 of the larger US media groups and others in their fight against Michael Mann and in turn his fight with Mark Steyn.

    Here are the court documents and a list of 24 media groups and companies that have joined the fight for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Note their letter to the court.

    If the Mann clown + supporters (?) ( perhaps one, see Steyn link ) were to win this fight the media may as well pack up their bags and surrender any proper scrutiny of anyone or any group forever.

    https://www.steynonline.com/documents/9192.pdf

    And here is Mark Steyn’s comments.

    https://www.steynonline.com/9196/a-cockwomble-reaches-for-hockey-stick

  • Neville says:

    Mark Steyn’s “A Disgrace to the Profession” was a best seller on Amazon a few years ago. His criticism of the Mann donkey was joined by a large number of the world’s top scientists who were appalled at the nonsensical so called hockey stick study.
    Steyn’s genius was that he let the scientist apply their criticism of this fool in their own way and in their own words. But don’t forget this is the clown who is the so called scientist that the clueless US Dems use on a regular basis to try and confuse the public and the media.
    Here are the hundreds of comments on Steyn’s book and fully 78% of reviewers gave the book 5 stars.

    https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B013TZFRGE/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_lft?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=positive&pageNumber=1

  • Chris Warren says:

    Why didn’t Neville have the honesty to let people know that Michael Mann was victorious, and Yankee denialists have been put back in their box?

    https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/17/michael-mann-wins-a-round-in-court-other-challenges-pending/

    Why do denialists think that free speech includes lies, slander, defamation, fake imputations and fabricated accusations??? It is because they have no science.

    This is why they are now a global laughing stock.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Get back to us when the war is over, blith

      Not just the odd battle.

      But that link of yours worships a graph that shows less than 1c of warming since the Maunder minimum.

      Do you have any idea what that is telling you about your enuresis?

      And then of course your wailing complaint: “Why do denialists think that free speech includes lies, slander, defamation, fake imputations and fabricated accusations??? It is because they have no science.”

      Is simply because you have no evidence.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Poor, silly, confused blith doesn’t get that the fish kills in the Murray Darling are mainly due to mismanagement by the interfering elites.

      And can you believe him quoting our ABC on a problem that is less of a problem than the solution to that problem.

      You never were one for living in the real world, blith, so please spare us the advice from another such expert.

    • Stu says:

      Yes, the usual selective quoting one has come to expect from the denial camp.
      The researcher partially quoted in the article went on to say:

      “While it was a relief to see that this year and this month, in this particular part of the Arctic, the sea ice was fine, I am also keenly aware that, taken as a whole, the June sea ice extent in the Arctic was the second lowest in the satellite record, with polar bears in the Chukchi, Beaufort, and Barents seas (the latter of which includes the area around Franz Josef Land) experiencing particularly bad ice years. As I stood at the bow, looking out over the spectacular and ever-changing icy landscape that surrounded us on all sides, it again occurred to me how important the state of this remote area is to everyone—polar bears and humans included. Traveling to the North Pole was a beautiful experience, but also one that left me with a reinforced sense of urgency and commitment to do all that I can to ensure that our common future includes a healthy Arctic ecosystem.”

      Meantime can you check for me whether the polar bear expert Susan Crockford, the author, has yet visited the Arctic to actually study polar bears? There is doubt.

      Also the ice thickness graphs do not seem to accord with the description of the sea ice and location is vague.

      And SD I am not in the least surprised you lack the fortitude to watch that 35 year old doco because it might challenge your beliefs. Are you awarebthat back then even the oil companies were on board with AGW. But then they realised there is all this oil and gas under the Arctic ocean which will be much easier to explore and develop if there is no ice. You could say QED.

      • spangled drongo says: