Why do scientists disagree about climate change?

By November 4, 2020Climate Change, Politics

I promised a further essay on climate change, and this is it. It focuses on disagreement, the disagreement between scientists on various aspects of the issue. There is a belief, shared by climate activists, that all serious scientists are of one mind: that climate change is real, serious and potentially catastrophic unless we abandon the use of fossil fuels. If that were true, then the game would be over. There would be global agreement by governments, global action to phase out fossil fuels, and we would get used to much higher prices for electricity. What we would do for industries like smelting, for air travel and for back-up for hospitals and other critical users of electricity I don’t know. There is a large too-hard basket in all of this. Perhaps those questions would be put off until 2050, the new ‘time by which’ great decisions must be made.

In fact, it’s not like that at all. The notion that 97 per cent of scientists agree about CAGW is and always has been rubbish, and I’ve written about it trenchantly before. I came across a useful discussion paper in the NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) series a while ago, and feel it is time to summarise it for readers here. Let’s start with this statement:

the claim of “scientific consensus” on the causes and consequences of climate change is without merit. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on any of the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate. On the contrary, there is extensive evidence of scientific disagreement about many of the most important issues that must be resolved before the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming can be validated.

At this point some readers will say, ‘Ah that’s the Heartland Institute, funded by coal interests. Why read anything more?’ This is one of the real handicaps in anything to do with a highly contentious issue: the critic shoots the messenger, and does not engage with the message. I try hard not to do this, and in any case much of the document was written by the late Bob Carter, who was a friend from the early 1980s to his death nearly five years ago, a man who knew what he talked about and wrote well into the bargain. In a way, this essay is a kind of tribute to Bob Carter. And the Heartland Institute is not funded from corporate money of any kind. They say so, and I believe them. Those who disagree should provide the contrary evidence.

Why do scientists disagree? My summary goes like this.

First, climate science is a huge field. All those who work in it write from a particular perspective, based on their own disciplinary backgrounds. There is, then, no well-rounded, authoritative climate scientist. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines.Practitioners will disagree on a given issue because they rely on their own disciplines and are sceptical of the worth and contribution of others.

Second, There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate…The articles and surveys most commonly cited as showing support for a “scientific consensus” in favor of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis are without exception methodologically flawed and often deliberately misleading.

Third, The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions… In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favour.

Fourth, IPCC and virtually all the governments of the world depend on global climate models (GCMs) to forecast the effects of human-related greenhouse gas emissions on the climate…  GCMs systematically over-estimate the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide (CO2), many known forcings and feedbacks are poorly modelled, and modelers exclude forcings and feedbacks that run counter to their mission to find a human influence on climate.

Fifth, Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. The late twentieth century warm peak was of no greater magnitude than previous peaks caused entirely by natural forcings and feedbacks.

Sixth, Melting of Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps is not occurring at “unnatural” rates and does not constitute evidence of a human impact on the climate. No convincing relationship has been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in extreme weather events.

Seventh, Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice, policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest… Individual nations should take charge of setting their own climate policies based upon the hazards that apply to their particular geography, geology, weather, and culture.

There is a lot more in this paper, and others might have picked on other aspects. But these will do for me. Each of them is supported carefully with references. I agree with nearly all of what I have set out above. The point is that no one is arguing across the table. Take Arctic freezing/melting. While that is a matter where we need to look at the data we have precious little that is of much consequence. Much attention is paid by the warmists to the satellite period (1979 to the present), whereas the sceptics point to a hard-to-deny warm period in the 1920s based on reports from governments and newspapers, not on satellite data — how could there be any from that time? We have little data that are comparable, let alone global, for more than fifty years relating to temperature or precipitation. What do the data tell us? I shrug my shoulders. The last fifty years? What about the last five hundred? The last ten thousand?

So much of the warmist argument depends on models, and GCMs have not been shown to be accurate. Since forecasts began to be made thirty or so years ago, it is not hard to track the forecast against what actually happened. The NIPCC objections to the use of models seems to me to be sound, and they have led to many attempts by warmists to show that if you look hard enough, the forecasts have been accurate. I shake my head. I don’t think so. Again, that is one of those things where a serious debate, using the arguments and data from both sides, is essential. It hasn’t happened.

As I argued in my last essay, it hasn’t happened because the warmists have won the political argument. They have convinced governments and the media that they’re right. That began to happen a long time ago, and we are trapped in the outcome. In areas such as energy we are doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. True, governments are talking about what has to be done by 2050, not by 2020, and what will happen by 2050 will be determined much more by energy prices and blackouts than by plans set out now.

But how I wish for a leader prepared to say that we need a fresh look at some of these issues. The NIPCC papers — there are a number of them, all worth your attention — suggest the basis for a serious discussion. And my thanks to and admiration for the late Emeritus Professor Bob Carter, who directed me to the IPCC third assessment report as the first thing to read if I were to come to terms with the issue of climate change. That was nearly twenty years ago.










Join the discussion 239 Comments

  • Mike Dinn says:

    My problems start with how to define the temperature of the planet. I can’t see any credible or meaningful way to do this. Certainly not in terms of degrees, let alone tenths of degrees.
    But if a definition could be agreed, how can actual, meaningful measurements be made, and melded in some sensible manner? How could you even measure the temperature of Canberra? Using the max or min or simple (meaningless) average? Ground level or some other height? Over grass, concrete? Near buildings?
    So for me, any other assertions re global warming are meaningless, especially when extrapolation for 80 years or more are made

    • spangled drongo says:

      Very true, Mike.

      However there are some great measurements that are telling us that nothing is happening, such as Mean Sea Levels for the Pacific Ocean which are today over 6 inches LOWER that their first recorded level taken over a century ago:


      Yet this very definite and applicable evidence is conveniently ignored by so-called climate scientists.

    • Boambee John says:


      The concept of a “global climate” is an artificial construct upon which the whole edifice of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change has been built. A more likely reality is that there are innumerable regional climates, however, building a computer model to simulate them would be so openly ludicrous that even the climate “scientists” might balk at it.

      What is needed are regional solutions to regional problems, not the farce of a team of “experts” controlling “global” solutions by dialling down CO2 levels in a few selected regions.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Don, the ‘we’re all gonna die’ syndrome appears to be ineradicable, and essential to the proper functioning of society. What will we do without our Eurydice?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Thanks Don, for your concise summary.

    Yes, it is all political but today the social justice warriors seem to have so much control of the minds of the young that the future looks frightening.

    Back in the days of our youth, “the times they were a changing” then, too but up and coming youth had to make their point along with everyone else and the media was pretty balanced in its outlook.

    Today, the media is owned by the descendants of people who made their money on the free market and left it to their luxury-embalmed, guilt-ridden children who nowadays heavily finance the SJW philosophy.

    Not to mention govt media which is also very heavily SJW biased.

    They all lie like pigs-in-mud when it comes to fake climate stories:



    This all adds to and reinforces the scientific fakery at the bakery!

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the most accurate way to test their so called climate crisis, using real data from the real world.
    Earth day scientists in 1970 told us that the world was on the path to famine and crisis and this would be both poor countries and eventually wealthy countries would also succumb by 2000.
    But today 4.1 bn MORE people are alive and are more prosperous and live longer and overall standard of living is much higher in every way.
    And today Africa has increased their population by 977 million people since 1970 and they have higher living standards and much higher life expectancy of 64 compared to 47 just 50 years ago.
    Of course China has broken all the historic rules by becoming a world superpower in the last 40 years and obviously individuals enjoy a much higher standard of living and life expectancy of 76 etc.
    The extremists couldn’t have been more wrong in their forecasts and we can definitely state today ( using REAL WORLD DATA/ EVIDENCE) that there is ZERO sign of a climate crisis, except from their silly fantasies that seem to emerge from their feverish imaginations.

  • Stu says:

    “ And the Heartland Institute is not funded from corporate money of any kind. They say so, and I believe them. Those who disagree should provide the contrary evidence.”

    You could start with this site. https://climateinvestigations.org/who-is-paying-for-heartland-institute-climate-denial-palooza

    “Heartland Institute and friends are heavy recipients of Koch foundation funding and Donors Trust ‘dark money’ funding, but an important new donor has emerged in the past decade…

    In recent months, the Mercers have been revealed as among the biggest backers of Trump’s campaign and machine. Rebekah Mercer is now a Trump Whitehouse advisor according to news accounts.

    The NewYorker’s Jane Mayer published a new piece last week, The Reclusive Hedge Fund Tycoon Behind the Trump Presidency, on the Mercers and their influence over the current state of affairs

    And the Washington Post’s Matea Gold threw down a big piece on the Mercers and Steve Bannon in last Sunday’s paper.

    Over the past decade the Mercer Family Foundation has funded Heartland Institute and have become one of their biggest donors (e.g. Heartland 2014 total revenue = $6.9M Mercer foundation donation $885,000). The Mercers made their money from hedge fund investing and initially supported Koch Foundation (coal money) before becoming dissatisfied and creating their own dark money outfit. And they are only one source”

    It is a feature of practically all climate denial groups to be supported by a dark money web.


    “ In June, 2017, The Heartland Institute announced Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp would be replacing Joe Bast as president, to begin working starting July, 2017. Bast said he would remain with Heartland as CEO until some time in 2018. Less than two years after starting the role, Huelskamp reportedly resigned from his position in June 2019 with Jim Lakely filing in as interim president. Heartland did not comment on why Huelskamp left the position. [182], [246]

    Huelskamp is former chairman of the Tea Party Caucus and a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus. Huelskamp maintains a lifetime score of 5% with the League of Conservation Voters, with a score of 0% in 2016. A full list of legislation sponsored or cosponsored by Huelskamp is available at Congress.gov. According to his voting record tracked at OnTheIssues, Huelskamp has consistently voted against any legislation that would combat fossil fuel emissions or climate change. [183], [184], [185], [186]

    According to data from OpenSecrets, Huelskamp’s top donor is Koch Industries and he has received the highest lifetime campaign contributions from the Oil and Gas industry, totally over one-quarter of a million dollars.

    Tim Huelskamp also a signatory to Americans for Prosperity’s “No Climate Tax” pledge. The pledge reads as follows:[189]

    “I, ________________, pledge to the American people that I will oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue”

    He also told HuffPost that he didn’t believe that climate change was “settled “science.” [190]

    “I don’t think there’s a scientific consensus on that,” Huelskamp said. “If you want to print that life begins at conception, that’s settled science.”

    The source for that is here https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

    In summary they can claim no corporate money because they hide the actual sources through front groups, but it is still corporate and representing fossil fuel industry positions.

    Of Bob Carter it has been written:
    “ In response to claims made by Bob Carter that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had not uncovered evidence that global warming was caused by human activity, a former CSIRO climate scientist stated that Bob Carter was not a credible source on climate change and that “if he [Carter] has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process.” (He never did)

    Carter wrote numerous newspaper articles primarily for UK and Australian newspapers that attempt to disprove global warming. He also wrote two books.

    In reference to his involvement with the Institute for Public Affairs (IPA), Carter stated in a March 15, 2007 Sydney Morning Herald article: “I don’t think it is the point whether you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry.”

    According to leaked documents Carter received $1,667 a month from the Heartland Institute, an organization with an intense focus on climate change skepticism. Carter was to be paid for his work as a co-author and editor on Heartland’s Non Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) reports. “

    • spangled drongo says:

      Poor silly stu believes that ANY funding claimed to be paid to sceptics is evil.

      But the factual trillions that are actually going to alarmists from taxpayers who reject the fake science because it is based on absolutely NO EVIDENCE, is essential.

      And that is apart from:

      “Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.)”

      When are you going to wake up, stu?

      • Stu says:

        “ stu believes that ANY funding claimed to be paid to sceptics is evil.”

        No, but as the saying goes, follow the money.

        “ Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite”. Are you really sure about that. Most of the research money is simply studying one or more of the many indicators of health of the environment. Not that many are actually researching the carbon link, but simply add weight to the effects of that link.

        Have you forgotten, science is science. They are open to changing the hypothesis if it is proved wrong. It is not simply a tilted field as you suggest. Real scientists are better than that.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “No, but as the saying goes, follow the money.”

          You mean you don’t know which side all the money is going to?

          Who’s getting rich on the fakery?


          “Have you forgotten, science is science. They are open to changing the hypothesis if it is proved wrong.”

          When they haven’t come up with anything better than GIGO climate models in 40 years why do you think they refuse to change the hypothesis?

          According to the principles of science they should have changed it when they couldn’t find evidence.

          Instead of manufacturing evidence by assumption. And adjustment. And homogenisation.

          • Stu says:

            “ Who’s getting rich on the fakery?”

            Simple, every day of delay in winding down use of carbon based fuels is billions of dollars of profit for said companies. QED. How come you don’t see that? The mighty dollar rules. As they say “follow the money”.

          • spangled drongo says:

            How come you can’t see that fossil fuels are not fakery?

            Even though you can never find any evidence to support your religious belief?

            Is that the definition of a recently-well-washed brain or what?

            Fossil fuels are what mankind has used for ever.

        • Boambee John says:


          “Have you forgotten, science is science. They are open to changing the hypothesis if it is proved wrong. It is not simply a tilted field as you suggest. Real scientists are better than that.”

          I have a bridge to sell you.

    • Aynsley Kellow says:

      You do not establish your claim and, as is usual with warmists, you just ignore the fact that the big money is on the opposite side of the issue. Have a look at the activity of people like Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg – or Chesapeake Energy, which gave $25m to the Sierra Club’s ‘Beyond Coal’ campaign. Bloomberg is heavily invested in gas also and has donated to Sierra. Steyer and Bloomberg were also responsible for the corruption that led to the scandal of RCP8.5 being adopted by the IPCC as ‘business as usual’.

      Steyer, who made his money in coal, personally committed $100m for the 2014 mid-term US elections to fund candidates committed to climate change action and met with Obama’s Counsellor John Podesta in February 2014, together with hedge fund operator George Soros. Steyer spent slightly less than $100m. Having established NextGen Climate in 2013, he sought to defeat candidates that did not agree with his views on climate change, with $74m mostly channelled through the super Political Action Committee, the NextGen Climate Action Committee. He also personally donated $7m to the Democratic Party, the largest individual donation to either party in the 2014 election. Most resources went to attack Republican candidates who did not support Steyer’s climate change agenda. For the 2016 elections, he planned to spend $50m, with a $25m contribution to the Democrats making him (again) the largest political donor in the US, he now funded those who met his criteria for supporting ‘non-carbon’ electricity.

    • John Stankevicius says:

      Stu, you have lost the argument trying to belt the opposition player from behind while he is going for the ball.
      You attack people who have a different view from you – by calling them Nazi – immature at best , idiotic really.
      The backers of the international labour paojrties are worsen- the idiot hollywood film industry, the sex obsessed programmers in San Fran M( this is a surprise as the programmers I know have their feet firmly on the ground).
      And what of the backers of man made climate Change – are they not sick looney lefties.
      Are they not the same that flock to the sugar movie and attack every major indusTry, in Oz the banks, miners and now. Retailers. Smelters next and manufacturers already gone.
      I can go on but I will leave it there – by the way male mental health is a load of shite.

  • spangled drongo says:

    More evidence here of how alarmists are loose with the truth, awa evidence-free, when it comes to climate facts:


  • Peter E says:

    Thanks. A very useful summary.

  • Geoff says:

    Thanks for this outline of issues. As one who knows little more than the outlines of the substantive climate/policy debate, I’m struck by the line “no-one is arguing across the table”.

    In my own recent work on debate quality, I’ve mapped a list of argument tactics that fall short of substantive counter-argument and refutation. On this and other contentious topics, it’s hard to “disagree well”.


    In forums such as The Conversation, I note that many exchanges on climate amount to little more than a duel of misreadings of the other’s apparent position.

  • spangled drongo says:

    How the world has changed:

    “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes, the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”


  • Ben says:

    For me, it comes down to a couple of things…

    Temperature – Mike is correct that the concept of an ‘average global temperature’ is fundamentally flawed. Oceans, ice caps, deserts, rainforests, cities… mental. Even worse when you investigate how the global temp is assembled – (max + min)/2, plus homogenisation where outlier temps are adjusted. So the min can affect the temp as much or more than the max. However I do accept that a warming trend could be possible since it would be weirder for temperatures to always be the same.

    Greenhouse effect – I accept some greenhouse effect is real, but I am skeptical of its impact on temperatures. Saturation, spectrum etc – and the historical fact that temperature and CO2 have changed independently in the past.
    I’m skeptical that humans are responsible for all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere – NASA’s OCO satellite recorded three rainforests emitting an EXTRA 5x Australia’s total annual emissions in one year. Also the 20yr warming hiatus and the 1970s cooling.

    Catastrophe – it’s just not that bad. A bit of beneficial warming is far better than cooling. The alarmism and anti-social ranting of alarmists also doesn’t gel. It’s way off kilter. The climate-gate emails and the peer review failure (as described by the editor of Lancet and our own Chief Scientist) are proof that skepticism should be employed. That the RE lobby is all aboard with climate alarmism but decries nuclear power is telling, as is the socialist dictates of the UN.

    What I see is a hierarchy of controlling interests driving the climate change alarmist engine, followed by tiers of vested interests and useful idiots, including media, academia, politicians, bureaucracy.

    The public will slowly wake up.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    The public has already woken up. Unfortunately, the media has not.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a reasonably up to date article with graphs from Lomborg and AGAIN proves that S&W are a DILUTE, unreliable, super expensive disaster. Plus the clean up of this toxic mess every 20 years, means that this is the dirtiest energy and totally destroys the environment + exploited sites.
    Today S&W supply less than 1% of TOTAL energy and if all countries live up to the Paris agreement that will still be less than 4% of TOTAL energy by 2040.
    The chances of countries fulfilling that is ridiculous, because the cost is horrendous and the return on the investment is ZIP.
    He uses the EU’s IEA data and the cost to achieve even 4% would be in trillions of $ as shown by the NZ govt calculations I’ve linked to before.
    And of course no measurable change for the climate or temp or co2 levels by 2100 and beyond. IOW this is a total fraud and con trick.


  • Neville says:

    Here AGAIN is Dr John Christy’s talk at the GWPF in London last year. He covers so much of the science in regard to climate and the list is comprehensive. This is how he finishes his talk.


    “I have three conclusions for my talk”:

    “Theoretical climate modelling is deficient for describing past variations. Climate models fail for past variations, where we already know the answer. They’ve failed hypothesis tests and that means they’re highly questionable for giving us accurate information about how the relatively tiny forcing, and that’s that little guy right there, will affect the climate of the future.

    The weather we really care about isn’t changing, and Mother Nature has many ways on her own to cause her climate to experience considerable variations in cycles. If you think about how many degrees of freedom are in the climate system, what a chaotic nonlinear, dynamical system can do with all those degrees of freedom, you will always have record highs, record lows, tremendous storms and so on. That’s the way that system is.

    And lastly, carbon is the world’s dominant source of energy today, because it is affordable and directly leads to poverty eradication as well as the lengthening and quality enhancement of human life. Because of these massive benefits, usage is rising around the world, despite calls for its limitation”.

    “And with that I thank you very much for having me”.

  • spangled drongo says:

    When this is the best “solution” to a non-problem it is good to see people like Don trying to bring our stupidity to the attention of a deluded world.

    Here is another huge “renewable” installation that is probably near 200% inefficient.

    Not to mention the environmental destruction it causes.

    IT’S billed as one of Australia’s biggest renewable projects, but the South Burnett Times can reveal just six months since the installation of the final turbine, operators are already working to replace critical components in nearly half of the major windfarm’s generators:


  • Neville says:

    How can this Bandt idiot remain in our parliament when he urges other countries to ban imports of our Aussie coal? If this isn’t treason or treachery then what is it? I think this treasonous scumbag should be thrown out on his ear, ASAP. Here’s a part of deputy PM McCormack’s speech in parliament.


    “The Nationals have called on Greens Leader Adam Bandt to retract his comments urging South Korea to stop buying Australian coal, or resign.

    During an address to South Korean MPs on Tuesday, Mr Bandt encouraged them to stop buying Australian coal and renegotiate trade agreements to include carbon tariffs.

    Nationals Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack said reports that Mr Bandt was urging a foreign government to act to the detriment of Australia’s national interest were “deeply concerning.

    “By urging a foreign government to agitate for a change to Australia’s domestic policies through a free-trade agreement, the Greens have attempted to undermine our democracy,” Mr McCormack said on Wednesday.

    “In telling a foreign government to stop buying Australian coal, Adam Bandt is telling tens of thousands of workers in our resources industry that their jobs don’t matter.

    “He is telling tens of thousands of families that they shouldn’t be able to put food on the table. He is telling small and medium-sized businesses that they should just shut up shop.

    Mr McCormack said the comments were an attack on Australian jobs and the national interest.

    “Adam Bandt is Australia’s modern-day Benedict Arnold. This is treacherous behaviour,” he said.

    “The Nationals urge Mr Bandt to immediately withdraw his comments and apologise to the thousands of workers who rely on Australia’s resource industry for their livelihood. If Mr Bandt does not withdraw these comments, he should resign from parliament today.”

  • Boambee John says:

    As a general comment on the title of this article, if the scientific method is to have value, there should, indeed must, be disagreement.

    But why do climate “scientists” reject open debate, abd the scientific method?

    • Neville says:

      Yes BJ and of course there is no climate crisis. Just look at……
      The world is greening.

      The 7.8 bn people today are wealthier and healthier than at any time in history, with a life exp of 73. Even our poorest continent (Africa or 53 countries) have a much higher population and increasing life exp of 64 and higher standard of living, than 30 years ago or 50 years ago.
      China has become a super power in under 40 years and their life exp is now 76 + much wealthier etc.

      Deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by 90+% since 1920 when world pop was just 1.8 bn and today 7.8 bn.

      Antarctic peninsula has been cooling since 1998, see Turner BAS study . And no warming in Antarctica since 1978 according to the SAT UAH V 6 study.
      Also lowest temp ever recorded in Antarctica just 3 years ago.
      The Arctic could become cooler soon when the warm phase of the AMO changes to cool.

      But Dr Christy’s talk at the GWPF covers much more to support my claims above.

      But the clincher is that we can’t change temp or climate or co2 levels for thousands of years.
      See Zickfeld + RS &NAS + The Conversation article. I’ve linked to all these and the first two many times.
      Therefore their so called mitigation is just the greatest fraud and con trick in history.
      We should cancel the unreliable, dirty S&W idiocy and build only reliable base-load power stns for our future needs.

      • Stu says:

        Neville, there is no need to pick off all your points, to just nullify one sets the example for the rest of the, trying to be kind, exaggerations.
        You wrote “ we can’t change temp or climate or co2 levels for thousands of years.”. Even the worst of your denialist friends accept that the uptick in atmospheric CO2 can be traced to the advent of mass burning of fossil fuels. The latter are basically long stored solar energy, accumulated over hundreds of millenia, burned in a short time. As you like to say QED. But I am confident you will find some simplistic, even juvenile, objection to the argument. Remember in formulating your response that humans have put back into the air in 100 years what it took the earth 100 million years to sequester, or do you have some smart aleck denial of that fact.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu sez; ” Even the worst of your denialist friends accept that the uptick in atmospheric CO2 can be traced to the advent of mass burning of fossil fuels.”

    More assumption from the ever-evidence-free assumption specialist.

    Try dealing with known scientific facts and give the assumptions a rest.

    In the meantime read this and calm down:


  • Neville says:

    Stu I can’t dumb it down any further for you. I’ve linked to the NOAA co2 data trends since 1960 and the Wiki per country trends to prove my point.
    I’ve linked to RS and NAS + Zickfeld study and I can link to Petit study for Vostok site that shows temp moving down for 6,000 to 8,000 years before co2 started to follow at the end of the previous Eemian interglacial.
    These very long lag times for co2 in those ice-core studies is your big problem and even the left wing Conversation article agreed with the above science.
    But then we have Shellenberger and Lomborg agreeing that there is “Apocalypse Never” and a “False Alarm” to their silly nonsense. And Shellenberger even apologised for his previous misrepresentation of the science.
    Shellenberger is at present an IPCC reviewer and Lomborg leads a team of about 24 scientists and economists and at least 3 are Nobel Laureates.
    And your choice of dirty S&W can’t make a difference for thousands of years and will definitely destroy the environment forever and this toxic mess has to be bulldozed and dumped and then replaced AGAIN every 20 years.
    But toxic S&W are unreliable and will lead to blackouts during unfavourable weather events and the poor and elderly will suffer if these toxic expensive disasters are not stopped ASAP.
    We need reliable, safe base-load power to run a modern country , not toxic,unreliable and dirty S&W.

  • Boambee John says:


    You never responded to my comment on the other climate thread about Elon Musk.

    What say you?

  • Stu says:

    Classic case of missing the point. Nev etc immediately drop into the CO2/temperature link, whereas I was responding to the claim that humans have no effect on CO2 levels. Go back and check. Remember “…we can’t change temp or climate or co2 levels for thousands of years.” In fact Nev your “ I’ve linked to the NOAA co2 data trends since 1960 and the Wiki per country trends to prove my point.” proves my point and destroys yours. Try again and stick to the subject.

    • Neville says:

      Geeezzzz stu I’ve never said that humans have had no impact on co2 emissions or levels.
      In fact I’ve repeatedly referenced China, India and developing countries emissions over and over.
      And I know that co2 levels have increased since the start of the Ind Rev and I’ve shown that on so many occasions.
      But I don’t accept that we can fix or mitigate their so called climate crisis BS and only a fool would think so.
      Please wake up.

      • Stu says:

        Geeezzzz Nev, so now you are in denial of your own post. Here it is again “ But the clincher is that we can’t change temp or climate or co2 levels for thousands of years.” Not having a cognitive short term memory problem are you? Stick with your knitting.

        • Boambee John says:


          “can’t change temp or climate or co2 levels for thousands of years.”

          I recall a report, perhaps by the Chief Scientist, claiming that even if all emissions ceased today, current atmospheric levels will not reduce for a very long time.

          He might have qualified it by adding a link to temperature, which could change the quantity absorbed by the oceans. If he didn’t, he should have, but who am I to challenge the Chief Scientist?

        • Neville says:

          Gosh stu you really are stu-pid or are you just trying to be funny?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Those human CO2 levels are almost certainly a bonus, stu. If you observed what is happening as a result of it you could not help but be impressed. However the lack of compatibility between year-to-year human emissions rate changes and year-to-year atmospheric CO2 ppm changes has existed for quite some time so just where it really comes from is uncertain.

      The only thing science is sure of WRT warming and CO2 is that warming produces more CO2.

      It is not known if more CO2 produces more warming. If it did to any extent we would have a runaway effect which we certainly have not got and which has never occurred in the history of the earth.

      So it obviously does not happen except to possibly a very small degree.

      As in indistinguishable from natural climate variability as we are getting currently.

      But one thing CO2 seems to produce in certain people is chilling which produces extreme enuresis.

      • Stu says:

        “ However the lack of compatibility between year-to-year human emissions rate changes and year-to-year atmospheric CO2 ppm changes has existed for quite some time so just where it really comes from is uncertain.”

        Oh come on now, even most of the shady sources you use concede there is a strong link. And of course the science covers it too.

        “To identify the cause of global warming, scientists study the carbon in our atmosphere.

        Powell: “Carbon has three varieties: three different isotopes, all with the same number of protons, but three different numbers of neutrons.”

        James Powell of the National Physical Sciences Consortium says these isotopes are found in different proportions in different substances. For example, the carbon found in plants has a distinct ratio of the isotopes carbon-12 and carbon-13.

        There’s also a difference between the carbon isotopes in living plants and those in fossil fuels, which are made from plants that died millions of years ago.

        That’s because plants contain the radioactive isotope carbon-14, which decays over time.

        Powell: “Geological materials like coal, oil, and natural gas are so old that they no longer have any carbon-14.”

        Scientists can measure exactly how much of the carbon in the atmosphere today came from fossil fuels. CLICK TO TWEET
        So by studying isotopes, scientists can measure exactly how much of the carbon in the atmosphere today came from fossil fuels.

        Powell: “We can’t get away with saying that humans are not responsible for the carbon that’s been added to the atmosphere. The isotopes don’t lie and they show it.”

        Reporting credit: Sarah Kennedy/ChavoBart Digital Media.

        • Boambee John says:


          “To identify the cause of global warming, scientists study the carbon in our atmosphere.”

          This looks like a classic case of assuming the answer before studying the problem. Is this the key assumption behind the models?

          • spangled drongo says:

            The fact that humans only emit ~ half of the CO2 that appears in the atmosphere is a side issue.

            But be thankful that it is happening and solving future problems for us.

            The main problem with you and all the other bed-wetters is your stu-pid endeavours to destroy our good fortune.

            If you had the brains and the honesty to acknowledge our historical [and future] glacial problems instead of trying to make political mileage out of something you are ignorant about, you might just realise which side your bread is buttered on.

            But I suppose if your motive for all this is the reduction and destruction of humankind you may not be quite as obtuse and dishonest as you currently appear to be.

            Why don’t you come clean, stueyluv?

          • spangled drongo says:


            Sorry, that was in reply to stu.

          • Boambee John says:


            No problems, easy to work out!

  • spangled drongo says:

    Green “Climate” Finance is now upon us.

    For insight into the lunacy of green finance take a look at Elon Musk’s electric-car venture, Tesla. In just the first nine months of 2020, it received a whopping $1.2 billion in regulatory credits – from California and other states in America, from the US federal government and even from the European Union.

    That’s $1.2 billion without making a single extra car – just for making cars that aren’t based on fossil fuels. Mr Musk sells his credits to Honda, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler (FCA) – car giants that haven’t got out of gasoline and into electric fast enough, as far as the US authorities are concerned.

    No wonder he is doing OK.

    But at everyone else’s expense.


    • Boambee John says:


      I suspect that a fair bit of SpaceX, particularly the early development was financed by these subsidies. At least he did something productive with them.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Sorry, Google and World Bank, but Middle Eastern Crops Keep Thriving:

    “Google News today is promoting articles (see the Google-promoted PhysOrg article here, for example) about a speculative World Bank “study” claiming climate change is threatening crop production in the Middle East. The World Bank study is full of speculation but short on facts. Real-world data show crop yields per acre and total crop production are consistently and dramatically rising in each of the Middle East countries examined by the World Bank study.”

    Cereal crop production in Iraq increased 91 percent, even as the acreage being harvested fell 5 percent.
    Cereal crop production in Iran increased 187 percent, while the acreage harvested increased by just 2.6 percent.
    Cereal Crop production in Jordan increased 15 percent, even as the acreage harvested declined 30 percent.
    Cereal Crop production in Lebanon increased 115 percent, while acreage harvested increased 30 percent.
    Cereal Crop production in Syria increased 22 percent, even as acreage harvested declined 66 percent.
    Cereal Crop production in Turkey increased 46 percent, even though acreage harvested declined 19 percent.


    • Neville says:

      Yes SD and that’s why I keep harping on about the REAL world and not our stu-pid Donkey’s fantasy world.
      Since 1970 our poorest continent has somehow found the means to feed,clothe, house, educate etc an incredible 977 million more people. OH and the 1340 ( total today in Africa) million people are now much better off than they were in 1970.
      But our ignorant donkeys yap on about their so called climate crisis with hands over their ears and eyes shut tight.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Absolutely, Neville.

        But in spite of the real world giving us the facts and no empirical evidence to the contrary, the stu-pids are in the ascendant and they have the establishment running scared:

        “Australian superannuation fund commits to net-zero emission investments after Brisbane man sues

        “A 25-year-old man from Brisbane has successfully sued one of Australia’s biggest super funds over its handling of climate change, forcing it to commit to net-zero emissions for its investments by 2050.

        “It’s the first time a superannuation fund has been sued for failing to consider climate change”:


    • Stu says:

      Bloody amazing figures. Such increases in productivity just through more carbon in the air I hear you say. Get real. Go and research the change in crop yields everywhere through improved varieties and GM and of course massive change in technology, particularly in the middle east, mechanisation over that 30 year period. Once again you confuse correlation with causation. But that is ok, we are used to it. Agribusiness is the key, both here and there with individual farm acreage increasing markedly, matched with ever bigger equipment. And that may continue, but climate effects are another factor altogether.

      Slightly shifting topic, you complain climate scientists are chasing the dollar and are biased. Once again science is science. But on your side you quote flaky reports from organisations like Heartland, which actually show a 100% commitment to the line they push. You never see a contradictory piece or even vague question from any of those outfits. Like you they are totally committed to their cause and blinkered to any alternative view. Which is why they are largely ignored and reputable scientists don’t even comment on their crap, unless they (very rarely) dare to publish peer reviewed papers.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Go and research the change in crop yields everywhere through improved varieties and GM and of course massive change in technology,”

        You’re in absolute ignorant denial, as usual, stueyluv.

        If you chose to put your head outside and checked your own backyard you would see that scrub, undergrowth, grasslands, woody weeds and all things wilderness that don’t get any tech assistance are growing twice as fast and twice as high in less time.

        Even in drought.

        That aerial fertiliser is amazing stuff.

        But do you ever go outside and look?

        And you then have the hide to compare a sceptical scientific group [unfavourably, surprise?] with your consensual climate catastrophists.

        And claim they have a “100% commitment to the line they push”

        What a breathtaking hypocrite you are, stu.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu sez; “Once again you confuse correlation with causation. But that is ok, we are used to it.”

        You are used to it all right!

        You consensuals never stop claiming it!

      • Boambee John says:

        “You never see a contradictory piece or even vague question from any of those outfits”

        But enough about the alarmists.

        • Stu says:

          SD says “ If you chose to put your head outside and checked your own backyard you would see that scrub, undergrowth, grasslands, woody weeds and all things wilderness that don’t get any tech assistance are growing twice as fast and twice as high in less time.
          Even in drought.
          That aerial fertiliser is amazing stuff.”

          Twice as fast, twice as high, pull the other one, his old memory is playing tricks on him.

          Think about it, if all the scrub, undergrowth, woody weeds etc grow so well, “even in drought”, how come the graziers and grain growers did it so tough during the drought.

          Next he will be telling us to watch out for the Triffids or doing a back flip to claim he was being sarcastic. Tactical withdrawal or something.

          • spangled drongo says:

            The things you don’t know or observe would fill an encyclopaedia, stueyluv.

            Graziers and grain-growers, btw, don’t allow scrub, undergrowth, woody weeds etc but they are still doing OK in spite of the drought.

            Mostly due to that aerial fertiliser.

            But my fruit orchard, which I abandoned to the scrub when I retired, not only is overwhelmed by scrub but the fruit trees still produce great crops, while never being irrigated anymore, but they are way too high for the most extended picking poles to reach.

            And all the local national parks and wild bushlands are an impenetrable entanglement in recent years when traditionally in my daily wildlife data logging [which I still do] I could pretty-much wander where I pleased. The undergrowth and woody weeds have gone from knee high to more than head high.

            You are welcome to come and see for yourself.

            Even a non-observer like you couldn’t miss it.

            Now, do you have any evidence to support your argument that no extra growth is occurring?

          • Boambee John says:


            Your usual babble about “historically rapid change in climate”, but no actual data. How about you exhume the good old hockey stick.

            Or perhaps you could try some original thought?

        • Stu says:

          Is that the best you do BJ? You are slipping.

          • Boambee John says:


            It is the best I could bother doing with you, there is no point in wasting time on a closed mind.

          • Stu says:

            Charming, I am sure. But you have it wrong. It is denialists with the closed minds. Think about sticking with the status quo which basically sums up the denialist position, ie same old, same old, demonstrates a lack of ability to see alternative positions. Contrast that with the scientific position of looking at ongoing changes in earth systems and considering causes and effects with an open mind. So far the mountain of evidence weighs heavily on the side of historically rapid change in climate being linked to results of human industrial activity. Many fields of study are ongoing, most being very narrow and hardly claiming a “total” position on the question of human caused climate change. But the totality of all those lines of study points in one direction. On the other side (your side) a smaller (much) set of studies postulates a different cause/effect scenario, followed by broad conclusions about the global significance of such narrow evidence. This position garners a great deal less support in scientific fora. And this denialist side of the fence usually demonstrates a rigid adherence to that narrowly held view in the face of (denial of) all the alternative evidence.

            But there you go. I don’t expect you to reply seeing as you think “ It is the best I could bother doing with you, there is no point in wasting time ”. So therefore you stick with your view and we can chat again in five to ten years. Bye now.

          • spangled drongo says:

            In other words what you are saying, stueyluv, is that alarmist cli-sci promoters and green socialists can endlessly explore climate boundaries and come up with all sorts of catastrophic reasons to rob us blind and expand their influence, whereas rational sceptics admit that when our climate is well within those same bounds of natural variability, it is wise to remain sceptical.

            Yes, I fully agree. It’s just a shame that you are so influenced by the former and are never going to wake up until it is too late.

            As you disappear into the distance, vigorously handwaving in your recognisably evidence-free manner, we can only advise that you open your mind somewhat and pay more attention to the obvious.

            You will find that it is really a much broader philosophy than your tunnel vision is currently aware of.

          • Boambee John says:


            Perhaps you could give us some specific examples of “historically rapid change in climate”?

            Don’t forget that reliable records go back only a short time in geological terms. The rest is proxy reconstructions, which might “hide the decline” using deceptive splicing.

          • Boambee John says:


            No specific examples yet? Surely all the material collected by the IPCC, the world’s scientific societies, the CSIRO, the BoM must include some juicy morsels?

  • Neville says:

    Boris Johnson is a complete fool when he yaps about his so called climate crisis and he doesn’t even bother to understand the latest data and evidence.
    And the idea that Biden would also understand is really stretching our imagination. This is like the blind leading the blind and trillions more $ to be wasted on dirty, unreliable S&W disasters.
    Plus a complete bulldozing of their toxic mess every 20 years and starting all over again. And ZERO change to climate, co2 levels, temp etc by 2100 and for thousands of years. Look up the data Boris.
    And the CSIRO tells us that the entire SH is a NET ZERO sink anyway, so Morrison should tell Boris and Joe to go jump when they demand the we stuff up our economy and environment just to satisfy their ignorant POV.


  • Neville says:

    Just for our delusional donkeys AGAIN who persist in ignoring the data/evidence. Here’s the CSIRO quote and link telling us that the SH is the NET SINK and the NH is the NET SOURCE for co2.

    Note also that in this time of lock-down the SEPT 2020 co2 level is 2.5 ppm HIGHER than SEPT 2019. And the Mauna Loa difference for the same period is about 2.75 ppm.

    BTW the average yearly increase in co2 levels since 1988 ( then 350ppm) is about 2 ppm and for last year is about 2.6 ppm from combined average ( SH + NH) so far from above. This could change slightly by end of DEC 2020. Here’s the CSIRO quote AGAIN……

    “Seasonal variation”

    “Carbon dioxide concentrations show seasonal variations (annual cycles) that vary according to global location and altitude. Several processes contribute to carbon dioxide annual cycles: for example, uptake and release of carbon dioxide by terrestrial plants and the oceans, and the transport of carbon dioxide around the globe from source regions (the Northern Hemisphere is a net source of carbon dioxide, the Southern Hemisphere a net sink)”.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Our resident alarmists would be relieved to learn that a new study discredits human attribution in global warming:

    • 93% of the changes to the Earth’s energy budget, manifested as warming of the Earth system, are expressed in the global ocean. Just 1% of global warming is atmospheric.

    • Even with the advent of “quasi-global” temperature sampling of the ocean since 2005 (ARGO), these floats (pictured) “do not measure below 2,000-m depth.” This means that temperature changes in “approximately half the ocean’s volume” are still not being measured today.

    • To detect the effects of anthropogenic forcing, it would require energy budget imbalance measurement precision of 0.1 W/m² at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). Uncertainty in the forcing changes affecting climate is ±4 W/m², meaning that uncertainty is about 80 times greater than an anthropogenic signal detection.

    • Past changes in global ocean heat content, such as the last deglaciation, have been 20 times larger than modern changes.

    • Ocean heat storage during the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Anomaly, or MCA) was much greater than modern. Modern global ocean heat uptake is “just one-third” of what is required to reach the levels attained during Medieval times.


    • Neville says:

      Good find SD and the earlier Holocene optimum warming was much warmer than our present era and SLs were much higher as well. In fact at least 1.5 metres higher about 4,000 years ago on our east coast after the end of the Hol optimum. See ABC Catalyst.
      BTW Willis Eschenbach has an interesting post about el nino, la nina as a giant heat pump that is able to move heat to the poles and from there to space. Who knows?


      • spangled drongo says:

        Yes Neville, good post as usual from Willis. I did like the last comment:

        Michael Hammer November 8, 2020 at 9:26 pm

        Complexity often depends on how one chooses to view a problem. In the case of CAGW the theory explicitly states rising CO2 warms the planet by reducing Earth’s energy loss to space. NASA has measured Earth’s energy loss to space since 1985 (outgoing longwave radiation or OLR for short) and it has been steadily rising not falling. If the predictions of a theory conflict with measured reality the theory is wrong. To me, it really is that simple!

  • Boambee John says:


    I see that the mad Cannon-Brookes plan to lay an undersea power cable thousands of kilometres to Singapore across a tectonically active seabed, for electricity export, l has been abandoned.

    Now the intermittent output of his solar farm is to be sent to Darwin to produce ammonia for export, purportedly to be used to generate hydrogen for fuel. I wonder what subsidies he will seek to make this attempt at perpetual motion profitable.

    He might do better using it to produce ammonium nitrate for domestic use, but would miss out on the opportunity to send a “clean power” virtue signal.

    Weren’t you loudly proclaiming his genius a few threads back? Exporting clean energy, saving Gaia? Any re-think in prospect?

    • Neville says:

      BJ here’s a supposedly radical question for Singapore to consider.
      Why not just build the latest GEN 4 Nuclear plant and have ZERO emissions, always reliable and will last until 2070 at least and then will require minor checks and updates until 2100?
      This underwater delivery just blows out the dilute nature of this solar idiocy to many more thousands of sq klms and the cleanup of this dirty, unreliable mess would cost 100s millions of $ every 20 years until 2100.
      Don’t forget this is 4 times that this would have to replaced by 2100. So who would pay for this clean up and replacement over the next 80 years?
      And of course no change to temp or climate or co2 levels for thousands of years. See the Conversation, RS & NAS + Zickfeld study etc.

  • Boambee John says:

    A few reasons to question climate scientists.

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“
    Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation.

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

    “Yeah, complete revolution was on the table for this country and I think this green revolution has to pursue those same steps in stages.
    Van Jones

    “”To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
    Dr. Stephen Schneider, Greenhouse Superstar / Leading greenhouse advocate, in an interview for “Discover” magazine, Oct 1989

  • Boambee John says:

    And some more

    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.”
    Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

    “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
    Al Gore, “Climate Change” hysteric and multi-millionaire

  • Boambee John says:

    And the most important. Imagine being governed by the self selected “experts” of climate science!

    Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.

    David Shearman & Joseph Wayne Smith, The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, p134, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut, USA, 2007. David Shearman was an IPCC Assessor for the third and fourth climate change reports.

  • Neville says:

    BJ thanks for those quotes from the liars and extremists over the last few decades.
    I can recall most of them but some are new to me and of course are just more delusional nonsense.
    I see their ABC are madly promoting the latest climate report from CSIRO and BOM and once again we’re rushing headlong into the apocalypse according to these con merchants.
    Dr Finkel has stepped down and a new woman has taken over as our chief Scientist and I hope a senator soon asks her the same question that was asked of Dr Finkel UNDER OATH.
    BTW here’s another interesting stat comparing our poorest continent ( Africa, about 53 countries) and the SH.
    Since humans have become fully evolved over the last 200,000 years the population of the SH ( now 0.8 bn) hasn’t topped one billion people, but Africa’s population has increased by 0.977 bn in the last 50 years.
    While I’m not promoting this as a good thing it still proves conclusively that we’re NOT facing a climate crisis. In fact the reverse is true and the data and evidence proves the case.
    Of course with better education, plus better health care etc this rate of increase will drop as Dr Rosling , the UN etc forecast recently. Africa also has a very young population, so this future reduction in birth rate will take some time.

    Here’s an interesting exchange about evidence between Sen Malcolm Roberts and Dr Finkel in 2016. In the end Dr Finkel agrees it is modeling not empirical evidence that convinces him of their so called CAGW.

    • Boambee John says:


      I suppose that Stu is too busy watching the US election to defend the alarmists or respond to the Cannon-Brookes backdown, but I am a bit surprised not to have him regurgitating the usual talking points.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the evidence from Dr Finkel that Australia’s total reduction of co2 emissions would have no impact on global temps.
    And the CSIRO also tells us that the entire SH is a NET ZERO co2 sink and the NH is the NET co2 source.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the latest delusional nonsense from the Guardian about what they claim to be a “climate crisis”.
    “As the climate crisis escalates “…

    ” the Guardian will not stay quiet. Millions are flocking to the Guardian every day, and thousands read our environmental reporting every week. Readers in 180 countries now support us financially.

    Amid the various crises of 2020, we continue to recognise the climate emergency as the defining issue of our lifetimes. We’re determined to uphold our reputation for producing powerful, high-impact environmental journalism that reflects the urgency of the situation and is always grounded in science and truth.

    Last year we published a climate pledge, outlining the steps we promised to take in service of the planet. And we’ve made good institutional progress since: we no longer accept advertising from fossil fuel companies and we’re on course to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.

    We believe everyone deserves access to quality, trustworthy news and analysis, so we choose to keep our journalism open for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.

    When it’s never been more pertinent, the Guardian’s independence means we can scrutinise, challenge and expose those in power on their climate policies and decisions. We have no shareholders or billionaire owner, meaning all of our journalism is free from commercial and political influence – this makes us different. We can investigate and report without fear or favour.

    If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. You have the power to support us through these volatile economic times and enable our journalism to reach more people, in all countries.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Thanks BJ and Neville for exposing this thriving fakery.

    Don appropriately asks; Why do scientists disagree about CC?

    It doesn’t seem to have much to do with science.

    Here’s even more of the daily “fake climate change”. They are trying to brainwash the world.

    What religion would you call it:


  • Neville says:

    SD I think I would call it the religion for idiots. BTW I think your QLD senator Malcolm Roberts did a good job in the 2016 Senate questioning of Dr Finkel and I must check to see whether he received the written answer promised by Dr Finkel.

  • Stu says:

    I see nothing much has changed here, certainly nothing worthy of commenting on. And it is interesting to note that no one has commented on the latest “state of the climate” report by BoM and CSIRO. But I am confident all the usual players here will claim to be far more knowledgable than the multiple authors of the report and the research and observations on which it is based. Go to it chaps. And while you are at it throw in a response to the pending shift in attitude to the climate question flowing from the change in administration in the US. Where does it leave your foundering cause?

    • spangled drongo says:

      When this is the best that your top grade cli-sci can offer these days, stueyluv, I can understand your frustration with your new religion:


      • Stu says:

        Still ducking the question, “where to now?”, as your ranks become even thinner. Even the US Federal Reserve, a not insignificant body in world finance, is now onboard with working to fix the problem. Read this and take your head out of the sand. Even our PM is starting to reposition, slightly.

        “ Fed Chair Jerome Powell on Thursday said the U.S. central bank had been working with the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), and had been attending meetings. “I think we are in the process of applying for membership there now,” he said.

        Fed Governor Randal Quarles told lawmakers in testimony on Tuesday, “We have requested membership,” adding, “I expect that it will be granted.”

        The NGFS has not yet received an official letter of application laying out the Fed’s motivation for joining and its areas of interest, as required by the organization’s charter, NGFS Secretariat head Morgan Despres told Reuters on Friday. But the U.S. central bank has been in talks for months with the group about what it needs to do to join and the workload being a member would entail, he said.

        Fed staff have also been invited to take part in a couple of workstreams, including one on sizing up the impact of climate change on the economy and financial stability, and another on bridging data gaps, Despres said.”. – Reuters.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Still ducking the question, “where to now?”’

          You should be asking Dr Finkel that one, stu.

          His lack of evidence [other than GIGO GCMs] is just so indicative of all you alarmists.

          Thinking we should commit hundreds of trillions and send the west into poverty without making a scrap of difference to global temperatures would have to be the best recipe for disaster the Green Marxists could ever dream up.

          Those videos of Neville’s, above, prove in no uncertain manner just how weak the science for CAGW really is.

      • Neville says:

        Thanks for that link SD, all good accurate data from Dr Pielke and Dr Maue as we’ve come to expect from them.
        BTW in comments at that link there are claims that the Biden loony has appointed McIntyre’s “upside down Mann” as his Scientific advisor.
        Fair dinkum these left wing donkeys will be working overtime to wreck the US economy ASAP and wasting trillions of $ until they accomplish their rotten agenda.
        Meanwhile the Chinese CP must be pinching themselves, unable to believe their luck. And with their superior coal powered economy they’ll pull ahead of the clueless western countries and further their ongoing adventures in the China sea, Taiwan, Japan etc.

    • Boambee John says:

      Looks as if Stu has exhausted whatever little of substance he had to contribute to the discussion!

      • spangled drongo says:

        Yes BJ, when all the alarmists are flocking to the warm areas and the richest of them are buying sea frontages, you would think even someone lacking in imagination like our stu would wake up to the fact that this ponzi scheme has nothing to do with CAGW and/or the “science” thereof.

  • Neville says:

    SD and BJ I’m convinced our left wing donkeys are in love with both the LW politics and their delusional fantasies about their unreliables etc.
    We’ve provided conclusive proof that there’s no climate crisis, but evidently they can’t add up simple sums or simple data that anyone should be able to understand, and they retreat forever to their fantasy planet. Here’s Matt Ridley’s talk to the GWPF where he covers the science/ data and draws the very obvious conclusions.

    This is the best video to understand the science/data and takes about 40 mins. I would loved to have seen the Q&A afterwards and I’m sure a number of RS members were present, to try and test Matt on any disagreements.

  • Stu says:

    As I said you continue to write off the pronouncements of respected peak bodies, in this case BoM and CSIRO, who align with global science. You are as pitiful as the anti-vaxxers, maybe even as evil. By the way BJ and company, are you anti-vaxxers? I would not be surprised as it requires a similar approach to respected science.

    It is noted that you never respond to any point, only deflect, which is standard denialist practise. Copy cats!

    • Boambee John says:


      Pronouncements need empirical evidence for support, not just GIGO models.

      See one of the quotes I posted above, on this very subject.

      PS, you still have not responded to my request above that you post examples of “historically rapid change in climate”.

      PPS, nothing either on the somewhat drastic changes in Cannon-Brookes’ grand scheme?

      Sad, low energy (or perhaps lack of knowledge).

    • Boambee John says:

      PPPS Stu

      “By the way BJ and company, are you anti-vaxxers?”

      I suppose beingvaccused if being an anti-vaxxer is better than your usual evidence free slanders about not caring for my grandchildren, or the even sleazier “racist”, which you also use, again with no evidence.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Pay attention stu, and watch those videos. They supply very rational answers to your claims of “pronouncements of respected peak bodies”.

      And calling sceptics “anti-vaxxers” is so typical of your evidence-free claim of CAGW.

      You alarmists are the super deniers of reality.

      And if you are so convinced about the integrity of the BoM, did you ever think to ask them why, as even their own site is showing sea levels over the biggest piece of ocean in the world to be going nowhere for the total duration of their record, their claims of unprecedented AGW can be believed?


      Science is all about rational scepticism, stueyluv, not evidence-free belief.

      So when you can never supply that evidence it’s time for you to come out of your kiddy-class fixation.

      • Boambee John says:


        “And calling sceptics “anti-vaxxers” is so typical of your evidence-free claim of CAGW.”

        Stu earlier referred to deflection as a “denialist ” (sic) tactic, while he indulged in a bit of deflection himself. If you want to know what alarmists are up to, look at what they accuse you of doing.

  • Alessandro says:

    In 1841 Charles Mackay wrote the book Extraordinary Popular Delusions, the Madness of Crowds which provides copious amounts of evidence of how man (sorry ladies) goes mad in crowds and slowly recover their senses one by one. In my view both CV19 and AGW fall within popular delusions however much of the argument herein is on the alleged science and not on the politics which is in essence the problem area. I have physically lived in Canberra, Sydney and now Northern Queensland. I have moved from being politically left (Canberra), to centrist then to the right (Sydney) and back to centrist (NQ). People in my coal mining electorate ran NIMBY Bob Brown out of here when he visited during the last federal election. Life is funnier than fiction. The locals often ask really basic yet profound questions that should be asked by my previous latte sipping Inner West Sydney neighbours.

    One such example is why do our governments both state and federal support the reduction of coal usage here but accept the economic benefit of exporting coal to China, India and other developing nations and don’t give me the BS about China has promised to reduce the use of coal after 2030? If you believe that then I have a bridge ……….

    One could say that eradication of coal use is a racist policy because it will disadvantage poorer nations in Asia and Africa. Why should they not have the benefit of cheap, reliable and sustainable energy as have our nations since the industrial revolution? And please don’t give me the argument that RE is cheaper than coal. If it was then why are our prices now so high and why do RE purveyors need such excessive subsidisation?

    Hopefully by 2041, someone will update Mackay’s book and include the great delusions of the 20th and 21st centuries, namely AGW and CV19, reflecting how mankind eventually recovered their senses one by one and got back to living life with the benefits of HELE coal generation. I won’t be around but maybe someone could let me know via an appropriate seance held in here in NQ while the rest of the planet is undergoing the global cooling as predicted by the so called climate scientists in the 1970’s. Another popular delusion.

    Politics 101: Talk with your children and teach them critical thinking. If you don’t know how then learn, then teach. Teach them to keep asking WHY for even the most basic of subjects/issues/policies/etc, as often it is the most basic of questions that reveal the truth.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu’s “respected peak bodies, in this case BoM and CSIRO, who align with global science”, all conveniently use assumption-based GCMs to do their aligning:

    “Our science clearly shows that, due to increasing greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, Australia’s climate is continuing to warm,” said Jaci Brown, the CSIRO’s director of climate science. “The frequency of extreme events, such as bushfires, droughts and marine heatwaves is growing.”

    But to help their fakery along they decided to delete all measured data before 1910.

    They didn’t want any of those old, inconvenient facts getting in the way of the new religion.

    Good thing that Mean Sea Level measurement didn’t start till 1914.

    Inconvenient. But good.

    • Boambee John says:


      “But to help their fakery along they decided to delete all measured data before 1910.”

      Can’t have reality impacting on the proxy “reconstructions”, can we? But some modern (adjusted and homogenised) data are need to “hide the decline”.

      I wonder if Stu can ever come up with an example of “historically rapid change in climate” without resorting to proxies or models?

  • Neville says:

    The increasing rapid urbanisation of the world is another one of my arguments why we can claim using actual data/evidence that there is definitely no climate crisis.
    And of course the more urbanised a country is the wealthier and healthier are the citizens.
    In the early 2000s the entire world passed 50% urbanized living and most wealthy OECD countries have urban populations over 80%.
    NZ, Australia, USA, Canada, UK, Japan, Germany, France etc are highly urbanised today and only a small percentage of the remainder are required to grow food and fibre etc for the majority and they sell to export markets as well.
    And Worldometers data tells us that by 2050 this level will be much higher than today and even the poorest countries will be moving higher up the wealth and health ladder as their standard of living improves.
    On the world map at the link you can move the mouse over a country to see the % of Urban living. Aussies about 84% and NZ 86% and USA about 82%.


    • Boambee John says:


      “And of course the more urbanised a country is the wealthier and healthier are the citizens.”

      And a more urbanised country uses energy in more concentrated areas, thus has more sources of the Urban Heat Island effect. Guess where many weather stations are? At airports (themselves sources of heat via large areas of pavement and passing blasts of hot exhaust), adjacent to urban areas, exacerbating the UHI effect.

  • Neville says:

    Sorry here is the link for urban living, see countries map down page.


  • Neville says:

    Here’s another reason I know there’s no climate crisis. Read it and THINK ABOUT IT.

    “In 1900, just under 40 percent of the total US population lived on farms, and 60 percent lived in rural areas. Today, the respective figures are only about 1 percent and 20 percent.

    “The United States had between six and seven million farms from 1910 to 1940 (figure 1). A sharp decline in the number of farms occurred from the 1940s to the 1980s. At the same time, the average farm size more than doubled, from about 150 acres to around 450 acres”.


    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, it certainly bears thinking about, Neville.

      Being a farm worker since 1946 I know where this is coming from.

      And you have to laugh at Labor with their similar ignorance as they continue to shoot themselves in the foot:


      • Neville says:

        SD thanks for that SMH article link and part of what they write is debatable, but then again so much is total nonsense.
        But in reference to my link to part of the US shift from farms to city jobs since 1900. In 1900 a huge workforce was employed on the land and it has been falling ever since.
        A tiny number of farmers now grow much more than earlier times because they use modern machinery, better inputs, more and efficient irrigation systems, better varieties etc.
        This would’ve been impossible even 30 years ago and ditto today IF THE CLIMATE WAS IN CRISIS. Just more proof that there so called CAGW is garbage and anyone who really believes this nonsense should wake up to themselves and stop pretending.
        And those US numbers above would be the same in all wealthy OECD countries and yet the shift to urban living has now started in Africa as well. Pop today of 1340 mil.
        And again this wouldn’t be possible if the climate was deteriorating in Africa and of course they now have to feed another 977 mil more people in just the last 50 years.

  • Neville says:

    Even the French govt are starting to wake up to these solar pigs and parasites and now plan to cut back on these so called energy investments. Good for them and let’s hope it hurts them , because they’ve been in the taxpayer trough long enough. See link below.
    “Green lobby up in arms as France plans to tear up solar subsidy contracts”

    Date: 13/11/20

    “As the perverse opulence of multi-billion renewable energy subsidies become ever more costly, the French government has decided to stop the rot.

    “The French government plans retroactive cuts to generous solar subsidies it granted between 2006 and 2010. The green energy industry should expect more retroactive subsidy cuts in coming years. This is the price the green lobby is paying for claiming that renewable energy is now dirt cheap”.


  • Neville says:

    Here’s some more accurate data from Lomborg to counter the con merchants from the MSM, Labor and the Greens etc. Please understand their fra-dulent con tricks before we waste more trillions $ on these dirty energy sources.


    Bjørn Lomborg writes on his Facebook page:

    “We’re constantly being told how renewables are close to taking over the world.

    We’re told they are so cheap they’ll undercut fossil fuels and reign supreme pretty soon.

    That would be nice. If they were cheaper, they could cut our soaring electricity bills. With cheap and abundant power, they would push development for the world’s poorest. And it would, of course, fix climate change.

    Unfortunately, it is also mostly an illusion. This short video shows you why renewables are not likely to take over the world anytime soon.

    It is also crucial for us to know. The misapprehension that renewables are just about to take over makes many believe that we have all the technologies needed to go to zero CO?. That we just need more political will. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.

    Jim Hansen, Al Gore’s climate advisor and the scientist who literally started the global warming worry in 1988 puts it clearly: “Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

    To fix climate change, we need to stop believing in the Easter Bunny and start realizing that without much better, cheaper, green technology, we won’t transition away from fossil fuels. That’s why we need to invest a lot more into green energy R&D. If we can help innovate green energy to become cheaper and better than fossil fuels, *everyone* will switch. Not just rich, well-meaning first-worlders, but also China, India and Africa.

    The video shows how we’ve spent the last two centuries getting *off* renewable energy. In 1800, most energy came from our own back-breaking work, along with wood (for fire) and draught animals. Wind and water contributed in most places a tiny fraction. The 6% fossil fuel was almost entirely England starting up the industrial revolution with coal.

    What made us rich over the next two centuries, was cheap and plentiful energy, almost exclusively from fossil fuels. It made it possible for us to have machines do much more of the hard work. By the end of the nineteenth century human labor made up 94 percent of all industrial work in the US. Today, it constitutes just 8 percent.

    For the past half century, renewable energy has hovered around 13-14%, most of it wood burning in the world’s poorest regions (leading to the world’s leading environmental killer, indoor air pollution)”.

  • Neville says:

    Here Lomborg looks at the Biden plan to mitigate their so called climate crisis. Here’s the most important quote from his article in the NZ Herald and that first paragraph should give every thinking adult a wake up call.

    So why would any thinking adult be concerned about a 0.2 to 2% reduction in incomes by 2070 when the average person then will be 3.6 times richer than we are today? And this forecast is from the UN data.

    “Biden, like many politicians across the rich world, frequently claims that climate change is an “existential threat” to human existence. However, this is contrary to the central findings of the UN Climate Panel. It estimates that by the 2070s, global warming will overall have a negative impact equivalent to a reduction in incomes of between 0.2 and 2 per cent. By then, the UN expects the average person will be 363 per cent as rich as today. The negative impact from climate change means we will instead be 356 per cent as rich as today. That is a problem, but not the end of the world.

    While well-intentioned, Biden’s sprawling plan has few concrete cost points and contains many ideas of varying quality. He proposes to retrofit millions of homes for hundreds of billions of dollars, although the largest US study of 40,000 retrofitted homes shows that costs are twice as high as benefits.

    Biden also wants to restore the full electric vehicle tax credit, although spending US$7500 for each electric car is one of the costliest ways to cut emissions. The International Energy Agency finds an electric car over its lifetime only emits about 10 tons less CO2 than a similar gasoline car. On the original US carbon market, the so-called RGGI, this reduction could be achieved for just US$60″.


  • Neville says:

    Here AGAIN is Lomborg’s NY Post article where he calculates the cost of net zero emissions by NZ. But as I stated the net zero calculation cost is also agreed by the NZ govt’s calculation as well. Here’s the relevant quote and article link and don’t forget they will have no measurable impact on temp at all. Yet they intend to flush 5 trillion $ down the drain for a ZERO return.


    “Across the century, the cost for the small island nation of 5 million souls would add up to at least $5 trillion. And this assumes New Zealand implements climate policies efficiently, with a single carbon tax across all sectors of the economy over 80 years.

    No economy has ever introduced climate policies that effectively, because politicians love to pick winners, promote ineffective solutions like electric cars and lavish subsidies on poorly performing technologies.

    What will this achieve? Let’s ­assume that in every one of New Zealand’s elections between now and 2100, governments are chosen that continue to fulfill the promise of going to zero by 2050 and staying there. Imagine, too, that New Zealanders don’t rebel against the inevitably large tax hikes on energy — no “yellow-vest” protests.

    In these artificial conditions, if New Zealand meets its promise of zero emissions in 2050 and stays at zero for five decades, then the greenhouse-gas reduction, according to the standard estimate from the United Nations’ climate panel, will deliver a temperature cut by 2100 of 0.004 degrees.”
    BTW we know our blog donkeys are clueless about any of this, but the data and evidence couldn’t be easier to understand and yet they prefer to be ignorant and play the fool.

  • Neville says:

    Quick calculations show us that their so called NET ZERO mitigation would cost the entire world about 5K trillion $. Yes that’s right about 5000 Tr $ to try and follow the NZ govt’s extremist nonsense.
    The Chinese govt would have to find about 1450 tr $, the USA about 700 tr $, Aussies about 55 tr $ and every other country according to their percentage of co2 emissions. Anyone starting to see a problem?
    OH and the size of the world economy in 2019 was about 133 trillion $ according to the World bank.

  • Neville says:

    That size of the World economy is disputed by these data from Wiki’s list of 3 different sources, like World bank, IMF and the UN. And the calc is using GDP for every country. Roughly about 83 to 88 trillion $ and lower than the 133 trillion I quoted above.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Why many scientists disagree with other scientists:

    “Federal money allows unelected and protected civil service bureaucrats to control scientific research. They dictate the projects, and often outcomes. They use selective leaks to the press to embarrass any elected politicians who try to interfere with their control over research. The bureaucrats trade in fear and relish it. Politicians who disagree with them are suppressing or ignoring “science.” To them science is not a search for the truth, it is a dogma that must be believed. Worse, they believe a consensus of experts is scientific fact.”


    • Boambee John says:


      Ike’s warning about the military industrial complex is well known. His equally prescient warning about government funded science is not, but deserves to be.

    • Stu says:

      I imagine Don might have strong views on this quote from the Drongo, as he was once prominent (pre-eminent even) in a role doing just that kind of decision making.

      • Boambee John says:


        Public servants are required to implement government policies that are not illegal. Many do that every day. You are trying to build a mountain out of a molehill.

        There are questions above for you to address, do that instead of trying to distract from the issue at hand.

        • Stu says:

          This is a classic case of you guys running of screaming “the sky is falling”. FFS, all I wrote was Don might have an opinion on the comment SD quoted which was “ Federal money allows unelected and protected civil service bureaucrats to control scientific research”. No other comment or value statement either way on my part. You two are pathetic, admit for once you completely misread the situation.

          • Boambee John says:


            I see that your reading comprehension has not improved.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Yes BJ,

            Stuey sez; “I imagine Don might have strong views on this quote from the Drongo”

            He was agreeing with me and I couldn’t see it.

          • Stu says:

            Like I said, you guys are unbelievable. I should add obtuse. And you see any statement from your perceived opposition as an argument to be attacked no matter what the statement. You must live in a very small world, I truly feel pity for you and understand your predicament, poor souls.

          • spangled drongo says:


            And then he reckons we are deniers. LOL.

      • spangled drongo says:

        And it wouldn’t take too much imagination to guess which way Don’s views would point, stueyluv.

        You wouldn’t understand, I know, but genuine scientists are always rational and sceptical:


  • Stu says:

    What were you twerps saying about Tesla? Here is a report from Reuters. “ S&P Dow Jones Indices announced that the company would join the S&P 500 index prior to the opening of trading on Dec. 21, potentially in two tranches making it easier for investment funds to digest.

    “(Tesla) will be one of the largest weight additions to the S&P 500 in the last decade, and consequently will generate one of the largest funding trades in S&P 500 history,” S&P Dow Jones Indices said.

    With a stock market value over $400 billion, Tesla will be among the most valuable companies ever added to the widely followed stock market index, larger than 95% of the S&P 500’s existing components.”

    Funny that. Maybe, just maybe you are completely wrong, but that would be amazing since you have such a grasp of reality, do you not? Yeah, right! Don’t come back saying the market gets it wrong, that would be a total contradiction of your grand stance.

    • Boambee John says:


      Take away the “carbon” (sic) subsidies that he receives, then talk to us about the market.

      • Stu says:

        Mate, “the market” no matter the props, the market includes all that, get over it, loser.

        • spangled drongo says:

          ‘“the market” no matter the props, the market includes all that”

          Your preferred “market” might, stueyluv, but the real world does not favour people who bludge on the public purse.

          When you always prefer to go where the govt provides free money and you don’t provide any benefit for it, the real market eventually catches up.

          But then, maybe you know all that because you love to operate the same way as Elon.

        • Boambee John says:


          Your definition of “market” has more to do with crony capitalism than an actual market.

          Still, since you support subsidies as part of the market, I propose a subsidy to companies that provide reliable continuous power. Call it a reliability subsidy, charged against ruinable companies every time they are unable to deliver at least 70% of nameplate capacity.

  • Neville says:

    We’ve long understood that our blog donkeys are clueless and continue to ignore proper data and evidence.
    Here’s Shellenberger’s latest short video on the S&W disasters and anyone who doesn’t understand ALL the POINTS he makes is ignorant or stupid or just doesn’t care about the environment.
    And all this in about 5 minutes and yet the ignorant donkeys close their eyes and cover their ears because they just don’t care.

  • Neville says:

    You have to ask why Obama , the World bank and IMF etc were so severe towards African countries who now have to suffer the worst indoor pollution in the world? Who wants to inhale dirty dung and wood fires in our 21st century world.
    If they were able to use USA super critical scrubbing technology they could save many lives today and ongoing sickness and millions of future lives.
    These new plants should be built ASAP in Africa and around the world and Aussies should be upgrading our grid as well.
    All lives matter both in Africa and all around the world. Let’s ditch the dirty,unreliable S&W disasters and change to better base-load power for a healthier/,wealthier ,brighter future.


  • Neville says:

    Here Shellenberger tells us why reliable Nuclear power is the safest energy source today.
    Since the industry started there have been few deaths from nuclear plants and the data + evidence are mind boggling over a very long period of time.
    And with new GEN 4 plants the safety features are even more impressive and yet the left wing extremists prefer to wreck the environment and kill wildlife with dirty, unreliable S&W. Then every 20 years you have to clean up that toxic mess and start all over again.


  • Boambee John says:


    You still haven’t commented on the radical changes to the Cannon-Brookes “let’s export renewable electricity to Singapore using a high voltage underwater cable across a tectonically active seabed” plan.

    Do you think it was changed because someone convinced him it was stu-pid, or because the subsidy on offer didn’t offer enough to cover the costs and still let him pocket lotsa moolah?

    • Boambee John says:

      It seems that Stu has been embarrassed by his support for a scheme which could only ever be an engineering challenge and has now been modified almost beyond recognition. Only the subsidy harvesting remains.

      Stu: if you couldn’t see the engineering issues with that scheme, no wonder you can’t see them with solar, wind and batteries.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Lefty Cli-Sci even disagrees with itself about climate change.

    “A new report issued by the United Nations World Meteorological Agency (WMA), “titled The Human Cost of Disasters,” says climate change is causing more frequent and severe weather disasters each year. PBS and other mainstream media outlets uncritically reported on the WMA report. The U.N.’s own data, however, show the claims in the report are false”:


  • spangled drongo says:

    Can you believe this drivel from Deloitte?

    “Just when you thought you’d had enough scary and ridiculous predictions for one year, along comes Deloitte Access Economics with claims Australia will lose $3.4 trillion in income and 880,000 jobs by 2070 unless it takes drastic action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

    The meaningless numbers appear in A New Choice: Australia’s Climate for Growth, which urges the government to “get on with stopping climate change”.

    “There is great opportunity for Australia to act on climate change today,” it enthuses, suggesting we incur $67bn in costs now to slash emissions and secure a gross domestic product and jobs boost of $680bn and 250,000, respectively.

    The report is flawed, misleading, reading more like a manifesto than a sober economic analysis.

    At a basic level, Australia can’t affect the trajectory of climate change whatever it does, having only 1.3 per cent of global emissions, or about 4 per cent including our coal exports”:


    • Boambee John says:


      Perhaps Deloitte might provide details of its links with and revenue from climate related industry?

      Purely in the spirit of transparency, of course.

    • Neville says:

      SD that idiotic Deloitte report is typical of the BS and delusional nonsense we should expect from these pig ignorant extremists.
      Why do they always get away with this fanaticism, while anyone providing proper data and evidence from PR studies is hounded forever for speaking the truth?
      Just think of the problems that Dr Pielke got into for telling the truth about hurricanes, tornadoes,droughts, fires, floods, rainfall, snow and the big drop in deaths from extreme weather events etc over the last 100 years.
      And of course none of their so called mitigation of their so called “climate crisis” will make any measurable difference for thousands of years.

  • Neville says:

    I should’ve linked to Michael Shermer before now and his very intelligent interviews with Lomborg, Shellenberger, Ridley , Murray etc over recent months.
    Shermer is an intelligent lefty, but he has many friends who are conservative or libertarian and he has been a very good debater about religions over the years and I’ve really enjoyed these debates via you tube.
    Dawkins, Pinker, Ridley, Hitchens , Harris etc all seem to enjoy each other’s company and one on one with Shermer you can really learn a lot.
    Here’s his talk with Lomborg earlier this year and Shellenberger’s recent talk is also very interesting. Sadly Hitchens died a few years ago and he was a very hard bloke to toss and I admired him for taking on the Islam extremists and ditto for Hawkins and Harris.

  • Recently there was a scare about the possibility that chlorofluorocarbons used as the propellant gas in spray cans were going to bring serious harm to the ozone layer of the atmosphere. The world got its act together very smartly, and came up with the Montreal Protocol, banning their use.
    Moreover it is increasingly the practice these days for those planning to release a new chemical, drug or whatever onto the market to have it appropriately tested, for consumer protection.
    Unfortunately, nothing like this was around in the mid-Eighteenth Century, when the Industrial Revolution began and started venting large masses of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
    There is little point in arguing the pros and cons of AGW on blogs like this. Suffice it to say that 198 scientific organisations world-wide, including the Royal Society, the AAAS and the CSIRO endorse AGW, leaving a few denialist scientists, many with coal and oil connections carrying the can for it.
    See https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    The denialists and coal shills can always take refuge in the fact that the atmosphere-hydrosphere-biosphere-cryosphere-lithosphere assemblage is the most complex system we know about in the entire universe, with plenty of ideological hidey-holes in it and points on which to stand and take issue with this or that. But the simple fact remains that ever since the time of Arrhenius (c 1900) and his warnings that carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas, the fossil-carbon industry has been on the back foot; and will be so as the cryosphere steadily melts, and sea levels rise.
    As the English chemist-turned-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously said, the planet should be given the benefit of any doubt.

    • Neville says:

      So Ian, please tell us what we can do about your concerns? The co2 data shows us that co2 levels have increased by about 65 ppm since 1988 and most of that increase has come from China and developing countries.
      The OECD countries have flat-lined over that period of 32 years, while the non OECD emissions have soared. So what do you advise us to do about it?
      Or have you thought of travelling to the non OECD countries and lecturing them about their transgressions? Good luck with that.
      Oh and the SH is already a net co2 sink , so I think we’ve already done our job. And the Zickfeld et al study etc also shows us that we could cease all human co2 emissions today and we wouldn’t see a drop in temp or co2 levels for thousands of years. Do you really want to waste 100s of trillions $ for a guaranteed ZERO return?
      And also there is no climate crisis at all.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Ian, what Neville said plus you should be a little more sceptical about the ability of satellites to correctly measure sea levels on an irregularly shaped globe with a constantly moving surface except by using large amounts of assumption.

      Just like our GIGO climate models.

      But try using this record of measurement of Mean Sea Level for the largest piece of ocean in the world for over a century and it shows that as at October 2020 Pacific MSL is actually 182 mm LOWER than it was at the beginning of the record, over a century ago:


      This is supported by the fact that coral atolls are also increasing in area.

      So sea levels and climate are not doing anything they haven’t done throughout civilisation when atmospheric CO2 was considerably lower.

      No climate scientist from Arrhenius onward has ever been able to come up with any empirical proof that CO2 warms the climate.

      Even NASA tells us that their models just don’t work:


      And while CO2 may possibly have a slight effect of unknown quantity, there is nothing happening today, climate-wise, that hasn’t happened in spades throughout the CO2-starved Holocene.

  • Neville says:

    Scott Morrison tells the G 20 online summit that Australia has over achieved on our commitments to Paris COP 21.
    Of course this is irrelevant because the entire SH is already a co2 NET SINK, see CSIRO Cape Grim data. See Morrison’s comment at about 37 secs.

  • Neville says:

    Matt Ridley tells us why the UK’s extreme ,so called Green energy plans won’t work. Here’s the first 5 reasons.


    Matt Ridley: Ten reasons why Boris’s green agenda is just plain wrong – The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) (thegwpf.com)

    “Our fearless leader has descended from the mountain with a 10-commandment plan for a green industrial revolution. At a cost of £12 billion, he will have all Britons driving electric cars powered by North Sea wind turbines and giving up their gas boilers to heat their homes with ground-source heat pumps. He will invent zero-emission planes and ships. This vast enterprise will create 250,000 jobs. I am a loyal supporter of the prime minister, but this Ed Miliband policy makes no sense any way you look at it. Here are 10 reasons why.

    First, if it’s jobs we are after then spending £48,000 per job is a lot. Cheaper, as Lord Lawson put it, to create the same employment erecting a statue of Boris in every town. Anyway, it’s backwards: it’s not jobs in the generating of energy that count but jobs that use it. Providing cheap, reliable energy enables the private sector to create jobs for free as far as the taxpayer is concerned.

    Second, he misreads how innovation works, a topic on which I’ve just written a book. Innovation will create marvellous, unexpected things in the next 10 years. But if you could summon up innovations to order in any sector you want, such as electric planes and cheap ways of making hydrogen, just by spending money, then the promises of my childhood would have come true: routine space travel, personal jetpacks and flying cars. Instead, we flew in 747s for more than 50 years.

    Third, he is hugely underestimating the cost. The wind industry claims that its cost is coming down. But the accounts of wind energy companies show that both capital and operating expenditures of offshore wind farms continue to rise, as Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University and John Aldersey-Williams of Aberdeen Busines School have found. Wind firms sign contracts to deliver cheap electricity, but the penalties for walking away from those contracts, demanding higher prices from a desperate grid in the future, are minimal and their investors know it. Britain already has among the highest electricity prices for business in Europe because of the £10 billion a year that electricity-bill payers spend on subsidising the rich capitalists who own wind farms; raising them further will kill a lot more than 250,000 jobs.

    Fourth, these policies will not significantly reduce the nation’s emissions, let alone the world’s. It takes a lot more emissions to make an electric car than a petrol one because of the battery. This is usually made in China. If the battery lasts for 100,000 miles – which is optimistic – and the electricity with which it is recharged is made partly with gas, then there is only a small saving in emissions over the lifetime of the car, according to Gautam Kalghatgi of Oxford University.

    Fifth, the plan will make the electricity supply less reliable. Already this autumn there have been power-cut near misses and there was a bad blackout in 2019. Costly diesel generators came to our rescue, but keeping the grid stable is getting harder, and in both Australia and California, blackouts have become more common because of reliance on renewables. Smart meters that drain your electric car’s battery to help keep other people’s lights on may help. But if you think that will be popular, Boris, good luck, and wait till the lights go out or the cost of heating your home goes through the roof”.

  • Neville says:

    Germany is finding the path to the Green rev is perhaps a mission impossible and the cost will be horrific. Great to see this happening in the EU and they deserve all the economic pain to come. I mean it’s not as if they weren’t told that this so called Green energy is fraudulent nonsense and won’t change the temp or co2 levels etc for thousands of years. OH and there definitely is no” climate crisis”.


    Germany’s climate consensus cracks as costs mount – The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) (thegwpf.com)
    Germany’s climate consensus cracks as costs mount

    Date: 22/11/20

    “Fretting over costs, Merkel’s Christian Democrats and her Economy and Energy Minister are unwilling to increase renewable energy targets, creating an impasse for the climate bill due to be passed next week”.

    “Germany is revamping expansion plans for wind and solar power over the coming decade, exposing differences within the government over just how much is needed to meet Europe’s carbon reduction goals.

    A bill now in parliament aims to set new targets and financial support for clean power to accommodate Europe’s plan to bump up carbon emission cuts to 55% by 2030. Lawmakers from Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition are divided over the targets’ scope, with Social Democrats backing energy think tanks and utilities calling for a much faster build out of renewables than earmarked in the bill.

    Led by Environment Minister Svenja Schulze, critics of the bill said the EU’s carbon reduction target entails Germany cutting pollution 65% by 2030, not by 55% as set out in the legislation. The higher target is the result of EU burden-sharing rules linked to the size of member states’ economies.

    Fretting over costs, Merkel’s Christian Democrats and her Economy and Energy Minister Peter Altmaier are unwilling to increase green power targets, creating an impasse for the bill due to be passed next week, and an unresolved fight over how wind and solar will grow this decade.

    Germany isn’t alone among the EU-27 to struggle with digesting the implications of the sweeping climate plans. EU leaders may delay a decision on the carbon targets slated for Dec. 10-11 amid divisions, a report said Thursday”.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Here is another reason why scientists disagree about CC:

    Saturday alone saw 35.8 cm (1.2 ft), a reading that smashed the community’s all-time daily record of 21.3 cm (8.4 inches) set on March 17, 1974 (solar minimum of cycle 20)–note, that record is for any day of year, not just for November.


    • Neville says:

      SD thanks for that link and this part is truly amazing. But I’m sure it still isn’t enough snow for the BS merchants and donkeys or they’ll soon change direction and claim that their colder, snowier climate is caused by our SUVs etc as well? See text below from your link.

      “The Kindersley storm delivered more snow in two days than during the whole of last winter, prompting some locals to call it the worst storm they’ve ever seen in the area (westcentralonline.com). The data coming out of Environment Canada are certainly proving that to be true, and while 47.6 cm is the official accumulation, blizzards conspired to create snowdrifts of over 5 feet in height”.

  • Neville says:

    Ken Stewart has started on another massive attempt to make sense of the BOM Aussie temp record and it looks to be another interesting journey over the next few weeks. Perhaps months, because it is a big task.

    Here’s his conclusion at the end of part 1.



    “Decadal means show broad patterns of climate change in various regions but there are many examples of individual stations within these regions standing out from these patterns. They can’t all be right. The accuracy of the BOM’s ACORN-SAT dataset for maximum temperatures must therefore be called into question at a number of its stations. This must then throw doubt on the Bureau’s climate analyses and future projections.

    In future posts I will look more closely at some of these individual stations’ records”.

  • Neville says:

    It looks like Boris’ new 10 point plan is in a mess and starting to fall to pieces.
    Gotta love it when these fraudsters and con merchants run up against very simple maths and data.
    I can’t wait to see the clueless Biden donkey’s team start down this dangerous road and waste endless trillions $ for a guaranteed ZERO return on their delusional investments ( ????).


  • Neville says:

    Here’s more on the super dirty EVs and how much more it now costs to run these sponsors of the Congo cesspit mining disasters. Their OZ market share is ZIP and yet these vile environmental disasters already cost more to run than the BMW or Lexus ICE cars. And they still lie about the data. See below and the link.


    “A rival BMW 330i costs $8.00 per 100km assuming an average cost of premium unleaded of $1.38, one sourced from the NSW Government’s Fuel Check website.

    Consuming a claimed average of 5.8 litres per 100km – well below the 7.0L/100km figure used by the Tesla website – the BMW is 18 per cent cheaper to fuel than a Tesla is to recharge.

    Choose the hybrid-powered Lexus IS300h and that per-100km fuel cost drops to $6.76 – about 31 per cent less than the cost of a Tesla charged with a Supercharger”.

    • Neville says:

      BTW the above link about the dirty EV cesspit sponsors comparison is much worse, because all govts will soon impose an EXTRA LEVY CHARGE on EVs so future roads can be updated, repaired etc.
      But that is already part of your payment that’s built in every time you fill up your ICE car. THINK ABOUT IT long and hard before you consider buying a dirty, super expensive EV environmental disaster.
      OH and the battery will be heavily discounted when you decide to sell your dirty EV and you’ll lose heavily on the changeover to a new vehicle.

  • Neville says:

    I’m sure everyone will be pleased that the Biden donkey has named the Kerry donkey to be his special envoy on climate change. SARC
    Talk about the blind leading the blind in their mad rush to waste trillions $ on this non problem. But I’m sure this loon will hasten the wreckage of the US electricity grid in record time or ASAP.
    Oh and you wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Kerry has been working with the AOC donkey as they draw up their future plans. Gosh, what could possibly go wrong??


  • Neville says:

    North America has just had the highest snow cover since 1967. And yet the 1970s were supposed to be a period of high cover.
    Oh and the last 8 years seem to be higher as well. See the column graph since 1967 at link.


  • Neville says:

    Here’s NH snow cover and Eurasia as well since 1967.

    Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

    Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Matt Ridley’s full list of rebuttals to the Tories so called new Green agenda. Or more honestly this will just be another clueless, super expensive disaster.
    When will these donkeys ever learn to conduct a proper cost/ benefit analysis before they throw endless more billions $ down the drain for another ZERO return?


  • Stu says:

    Nev, when are you going to admit your cult is losing the argument? Every one of your Ridley et al papers is bemoaning another commitment to clean energy. Only the cultists read that stuff, and it is clearly not influencing any decision making. Now there is a new USA admin and they have a climate czar. Right or wrong on the science and the projects the world is starting the shift to a low carbon future. State governments here are moving even if the Feds are a bit slow.

    Where do you go now with your argument. Perhaps it is a good time for you to explain your blind loyalty to coal and oil coupled with your total abhorrence of anything alternative. Why is it so? I am very curious to know.

    • Boambee John says:


      “Right or wrong on the science and the projects the world is starting the shift to a low carbon future.”

      Given the high cost and unreliability of ruinables, perhaps you should think carefully about this sentence, particularly the introductory clause.

      “Perhaps it is a good time for you to explain your blind loyalty to coal and oil coupled with your total abhorrence of anything alternative.”

      Given your blind loyalty to ruinables and batteries, which cannot provide reliable, continuous power needed for a modern economy in their present state of development, perhaps you should explain your total abhorrence of reality?

      PS, come up with even one example of a weather event that is completely unprecedented yet?

      • Stu says:

        Classic response from you, avoid the issue. Never mind who is right or wrong, whether batteries make economic sense or not, you are on the losing side of the argument, just admit it. I don’t mean “who has the best argument”, I mean which side is moving ahead in the real world as if the other does not exist. No need for me to provide any of the “evidence” you crave, but have none of yourself. I freely agree the denial side is not in retreat, in fact it is as loud as ever and you are a great example. But no one who matters (governments and policy makers, even industry) is listening to you and your group. So where is your case going? All of organised life is shifting to get to zero or at least reduced carbon. The world as a whole is totally ignoring your bleating. What are you going to do? I figure your answer is that you will die in the ditch proclaiming your righteousness. Good luck to you, but it must be disappointing for you, admit it.

        • Boambee John says:


          You say

          “All of organised life is shifting to get to zero or at least reduced carbon.”

          I will put aside the racism implicit in the phrase “all of organised life”, since you must be aware that only the developed, largely European, natiins are attempting economic suicide, and re-phrase your silly statement.

          “All of organised (sic) life is shifting to reduced electricity availability, and to intermittent and unreliable power sources.”


          “whether batteries make economic sense or not”

          You favour economic suicide, just because ill- informed people place their (unjustified) faith in an inadequate power system? You first old chap, disconnect from the grid, and use your rooftop solar to charge your EV, and power your household.

  • Stu says:

    Once again you ignore the point. It matters not whether you might be correct or what I might think. In essence you think that the governments of the world have rejected the idea of doing anything about AGW and that your bleating has changed our direction and won the hearts and minds across to your way of thinking. Great, you are as deluded as Trump is about losing the election.

  • Neville says:

    I think we should forget about our stu-pid blog donkeys and concentrate on the REAL planet and leave these fools to their fantasies and fairy tales. Dr Hansen was correct when he likened DIRTY,UNRELIABLE S&W to stories about the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny.
    We’ve provided real world proof and all the data and evidence to support our claims that there is no climate emergency or crisis at all. OH and Shellenberger Lomborg, Christy etc all agree that the IPCC data does not support the extremists either.
    BTW the clueless LW extremists are now urging Biden to declare a climate emergency ASAP and who knows what these delusional fools will dream up next?


    • Stu says:

      “ We’ve provided real world proof and all the data and evidence to support our claims that there is no climate emergency or crisis at all.”

      YES, YES, YES, we get that, but comment on the fact that no one (of any importance) is listening to you. USA, after Jan 20 thinks there is a crisis and NZ is following, bringing them in line with Europe, Japan etc. Even here, with Canavan now in the wilderness, the government is shifting that way to match the various state government policies.

      So, please come back to the key point, even if you are right, which is most unlikely, the strategies you support are going nowhere. What do you do now? Bleat louder I guess. They do say martyrdom makes you feel all warm, does it?

      • Neville says:

        Well at least we have our stu-pid donkey now admitting there is no data that supports his fanatical extremism, but he still insists we agree with his delusional cult.
        My old man taught me long ago that you must not believe anything based on insufficient data and evidence.
        And he would’ve seen through this delusional nonsense very quickly and he wouldn’t have cared less about the cultists or what other ignorant fools were saying.
        And I have a very short fuse when you see con merchants and fraudsters planning to waste trillions $ that can only hurt the poor , the elderly and other vulnerable groups.

      • Boambee John says:


        Having re-read your barely comprehensible ramblings, I think that I have worked out the logic (using the word loosely) behind them.

        You seem to be saying that it doesn’t matter whether or not solar, wind, batteries or the other panaceas being offered by alarmists work or not. It doesn’t matter that they cannot provide the reliable, continuous electricity required to maintain a modern society.

        Rather, (Western) governments, prompted by a self nominated “elite”, and supported by brain dead lemmings like you, and by poorly educated millennials, have decided on a path of economic suicide. You ask what I will do now.

        I will do what any reasonable person would do. I will look to the welfare of my family, our children and grandchildren. Fortunately, we have a potential refuge in a country that has chosen a different course.

        As for those who have chosen to cause suffering among those poorer and less fortunate than themselves, I shall watch as opinion changes when power is intermittent, the lights and stove don’t work, food, and fuel for generators and transportation are unavailable, and our so-called “elites” discover the truth that civilisation is only ever seven days away from anarchy.

        I mentioned grandchildren above. Now that, with your apparent support, the path to ruin is chosen, will you be re-writing that letter to apologise for your stupidiity?

        PS, brush up on your Mandarin. Others will move in to claim the ruins of what once was a wonderful nation.

  • Neville says:

    I’ve tried to present the most accurate data for life expectancy over certain periods of time.
    In 1970 the average world life expectancy was 56.4 years and today that has increased to about 73 years. And this has taken place in just 50 years, so obviously no climate crisis at all.
    Of course in 1970 world pop was just 3.6 bn and today that has more than doubled to 7.8 bn. USE YOUR BRAINS AND THINK.
    And people in our poorest continent in 1970 lived on average to about 47 (pop about then 363 mil) and today life expectancy is 64 years and pop is 1340 mil or 977 mil more people than 1970. Again obviously no climate crisis or emergency. In fact the reverse is true.

  • Neville says:

    The Maldives today have had an amazing increase in life expectancy to 79 years or about the same as some other wealthy OECD countries.
    In 1970 the life exp in the Maldives was just 44 years, but in just 50 years they have gained another 35 years.
    Of course the Maldives were supposed to be one of the more vulnerable island states, but in fact SLR seems to be a minor problem and new air runways have been built and tourism has boomed over the last 20 years.
    But they have had a downturn this year because of CV-19. Hopefully this will be resolved in the next six months.
    Very interesting Maldives’ data through to 2100 at the link.


  • Stu says:

    You guys represent the peak of denialism. You will not slow down the flow of bull for a moment to even address the issue that the argument, right or wrong is slipping away from you. In other words you really think you are winning which is laughable, just like Trump. I see a similarity in approach. Ha

    • spangled drongo says:


      You silly Green New Dealers, thanks to your brainwashing of innocent kiddies, are only just coming to the point of power where you are able to make some laws to reflect your religious beliefs.

      It will take time for it all to go haywire but it will, nevertheless.

      Luckily you are not all at the same level of stu-pidity and with a bit of luck there may be some [as has happened many times recently] who suddenly realise the Green pathway is not what they thought.

      Seeing as you climate worshippers won’t listen to older wisdom, maybe this is the only way that eventual logic and rationality can prevail with minimum disaster.

      Your preferred option does not bear thinking about.

      Even for you.

      • Stu says:

        Oh, woe is us. That is like a Trumpian concession speech, well done. See you can do it.

        • spangled drongo says:

          I don’t have much control over what happens in US elections, stueyluv, but don’t count your chickens too soon.

          If you apply that rule you should also apply the Scomo one which is at least well confirmed.

          Just always bear in mind that for any theory, evidence observation and proof surpass consensus.

          But in those elections you may not even have consensus:


          • Stu says:

            Now I know you are easily lead. Quoting Nova who is in turn referencing the recently sacked Sidney Powell is a give away. Have you actually read any of her (Powell’s) stuff. The whole thing is a total crock including the affidavits and will go no where. She was even an embarrassment to Guiliani and Trump, that tells you something. I especially like the bit where she accuses Hugo Chavez of being behind it. He died seven years ago. Try something more credible.

          • spangled drongo says:

            It’s one thing to fail to produce evidence as you always do, stueyluv, but evidence of a genuine complaint should and will be investigated.

            Why not just wait and see?

          • Boambee John says:

            I see that Stu is another electoral fraud denialist. He believes that Sleepy Joe the people sniffer is more popular than Shrillary in 2016 and Obama in 2008, having apparently got more votes than either of them in those years. He is also apparently more popular with inner city blacks than Obama was.

            Truly a miracle candidate!

        • Stu says:

          Well currently the Trump team is running with a win/loss ratio of cases in court of 1/38. Not a great result so far at least.

          • spangled drongo says:

            But as usual you are in denial of what really happened.

          • Stu says:

            SD wrote “ But as usual you are in denial of what really happened.”. Surely you cannot be serious. It is quite clear who is in denial over there and it seems you have joined him. Frankly amazing. But I suppose given everything else you profess belief in, it is not that surprising at all. Would you like to throw in some opinions on Qanon while you are it. I wait with bated breath.

            And BJ can’t seem to accept that perhaps it is not that people, African Americans included (I think he just called them blacks – which is instructive) are all that in favour of Biden but that maybe people are so sick of the mismanagement by Trump that they turned out in droves.

            I would just say we are a long way from there and our opinions are coloured by our sources of information. Be careful with your sources. And on that note it is interesting that the nightime Skynews guys now seem to be completely out of sink with their Fox counterparts. Perhaps Rupert speaks the truth when he says he does not control editorial policy. But I doubt it.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu, Stu, Stu

            You need to update your terminology. The phrase of the modern era is “People of Colour”.

            Jumped into that one, didn’t you smarty pants?

          • Stu says:

            BJ you wrote “blacks” not people of colour. Try again not so smarty pants.

          • Boambee John says:


            you wrote “blacks” not people of colour”

            And, full of your own self importance and PC rectitude, you corrected “blacks”, a term that was acceptable not long ago, to “African-Americans”, a term that also was acceptable not so long ago, falling into the trap of not noticing the existence of a new PC term.

            Fell into a trap?

    • Boambee John says:


      I have addressed your silly points above.

      • Boambee John says:


        But you haven’t responded.

        Have you redrafted your letter to your grandchildren yet, apologising for your complicity in destroying their future?

        • Stu says:

          Once again displaying your poor understanding of the written word. My letter to them already offers contrition for the mess prior generations (I am assuming your are part of that and as old and fixed in thought as your opinions suggest) have made of the world. It also says there is hope the world will see sense and start to correct the failures. But on the other side there are classic reactionaries like you. They hide behind very myopic ideas such as the southern hemisphere is a net carbon sink so stuff the rest of the world. Remember there is only one earth. However I am a nobody and actually have no impact on the outcome. But I do believe that people like you who propagate the denialist view are doing harm. Climate people admit they could be wrong but agree that reducing carbon will at the least do no harm. Denialists on the other hand are convinced of the merits of their argument and cannot accept that there is any problem and wish to sail on down the path to disaster. Classic head in sand approach. Or do you really think you are a visionary?

          • Boambee John says:


            About the only sensible thing you say is that eventually sense will prevail.

            As it did with Cannon-Brookes and his mad scheme to lay a high voltage cable thousands of kilometers across a tectonically active seabed. Engineering is an unfirgiving specialty. Reality will dawn when extensive blackouts become semi-routine, but hopefully in a limited region so that sense will prevail.

            Then the so-called “elites” and their lemming-like hangers on will be confronted with the reality of their impractical fantasies. Life for them will be tough when those suffering as a result seek vengeance.

            PS, your contrition should be for your complicity in destroying a working systen, whatever its faults, and replacing it with one that is incapable of providing the reliable, continuous power essential fod a modern society. You have been complicit in destroying their future, by your ignorance of basic engineering and scientific realities.

            But, you keep living your fantasy.

          • Boambee John says:


            “Climate people admit they could be wrong but agree that reducing carbon will at the least do no harm.”

            They have an interesting perspective on “do no harm”.

            Increasing the price of electricity, hitting the poor and unfortunate hardest. Destroying (actually exporting to countries with lower environmental standards) industry. Putting essential services like hospitals at risk of unreliable power for their meducal devices.

            And that ignores the reality of Third World children grubbing for minerals in dangerous conditions, and the problem of cleaning up obsolete wind generators and solar panels!

            I shudder to think of the devastation should they accept that some harm is necessary to achieve their aims.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Just more evidence that the denialists here really are incompetant laughing stocks …


    And of course – all this will get worse in the coming decades.

    • Neville says:

      Here again is the data from Dr Pielke jnr about USA hurricanes and USA MAJOR hurricanes since 1900. And here’s his quote using NOAA data. This article was written on NOV 24th 2019. See graphs etc using NOAA data at link.

      “The graphs below show the data (updated from this paper, with data from NOAA). The past 14 years have seen the fewest landfalls of major hurricanes (3) of any such period since 1900. The 14 years ending 1928 saw 13 major hurricanes hit the United States”.

      Understand that” the past 14 years have seen the fewest landfalls of major hurricanes since 1900″. Or just 3 major hurricanes in recent lowest count compared to 13 major storms ending in 1928.


    • Boambee John says:

      Poor little Chrissy

      “incompetant laughing stocks …”

      But at least we can spell incompetent!

  • Neville says:

    More ignorance and groupthink idiocy from the clueless Guardian rag.
    This woman should throw a whopping big party because she no longer works for these censorious, delusional clowns. If this isn’t proof of the Guardian’s totalitarian instincts, then what is it?
    And yet some stu-pid donkeys think this is thoughtful journalism. Certainly shows clearly where these donkeys are coming from and what they really believe in?
    Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin etc would be pleased to see these modern followers promoting their groupthink ideology.


  • Neville says:

    Just to remind everyone of cyclone trends in our region since 1970.
    Here the BOM graph shows a clear downward trend since 1970 and for both CATs, or severe and non severe.
    Importantly the 2015 to ’16 season is the only season without any severe cyclones in the last 50 years.
    OH and the last SUPER cyclone hit the OZ NE coast about 200 years ago, when co2 levels were about 290 ppm. See ABC Catalyst and the work of Dr John Nott.


  • Neville says:

    Sorry above should be co2 levels of 284 ppm in 1820. Levels of co2 didn’t reach 290 ppm until about 1879.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu sez

    “YES, YES, YES, we get that, but comment on the fact that no one (of any importance) is listening to you. USA, after Jan 20 thinks there is a crisis and NZ is following, bringing them in line with Europe, Japan etc. Even here, with Canavan now in the wilderness, the government is shifting that way to match the various state government policies.

    So, please come back to the key point, even if you are right, which is most unlikely, the strategies you support are going nowhere.”

    In summary, it doesn’t matter if the sceptics are correct, it is full speed ahead (in the European based world) on renewables, so suck it up denialists.

    A scenario for Stu.

    It is July 2025. Liddell is gone in NSW, another major brown coal fired generating station is gone in Victoria. SA has a series of windless days and nights, and solar has limited output. Neither NSW nor Victoria has spare power.

    Are there sufficient CO2 emitting diesel and gas generators in SA to keep more than the minimum essential services (hospitals, police, ambulance going? Will supermarkets and families lose everything in their fridges and freezers? Is adequate diesel fuel available to bring in non-refridgerated food? If there is not enough power to keep fuel pumps operating, how quickly will SA collapse?

    Engineering reality bites. Will the alarmists just say “Suck it up proles”?

    • Stu says:

      You show a great tendency to view every issue as binary. Perhaps old fella you might better understand if I say black and white. There is no switch to be thrown that shifts our energy grid from what it is now to some future form. The change will happen gradually step by step and if you really think the generators, regulators and government will leave us in a perilous position you are crazy. But I forgot, you still think Trump is going to be president after January 20. On that score did you read the judgement in the latest case thrown out of court. Now 1 for 39 and sinking. Ah yes he says, “what about the Kraken”? What indeed. Powells notions of vote counting and the operation of voting machines is abysmal.

      • Boambee John says:


        It has obvioysly passed by your notice that SA is already in a perilous state, so it would seem that the “generators, regulators and government” have already slipped up.

        Still, it is amusing to watch Stu Micawber hard at it, ever confident that “something will turn up”. The reality that ruinables and batteries in their current sstateof development cannot provide reliable continuous power, that Liddell will orobably go in 2022, that at least one major Victorian generator could follow? Mere bagatelles, to be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

        And absolutely NO substantive response to my questions, because you don’t have a clue, you only have wishful thinking, and distractions about US politics.

        • Boambee John says:


          And still no recognition that the non-white (Am I allowed to use that term, or does it trigger you?) parts of the globe have no intention of joining the Western lemmings on the path to economic suicide. Perhaps they need someone of your eloquence to inform them that reliable, continuous power is an unnecessary luxury, needed only by those who see economic strength and economic ruin in black and white, sorry, binary terms.

  • Neville says:

    Wonderful aerial photos+video today of Noosa river mouth from 1973 to this month taken by Jennifer Marohasy.
    Jennifer has certainly changed in the last 47 years. See photo 1973 and end of the video.


    • Boambee John says:


      PS, still nothing to say about C-B and engineering reality? You were so keen on his project not so long ago, now it seems to have gone down your capacious memory hole.

  • Chris Warren says:

    I do not know why I waste time reading anything our denialists post. But it is good to get the science right and not be confused by deliberate cherry-picking such as cited by Neville, the chief donkey here.

    Faced with the fact that the Atlantic Basin has just recorded a record number of hurricanes denialists cherry-pick from the full data set just “landfall” hurricanes which are not a representative sample. They peddle this because it suits their dogmas.

    A good presentation is from NOAA here:


    All this was sorted a long time ago, but we seem to have a few slow learners here.

  • Chris Warren says:

    More dirty tricks from denialists. Faced with increasing hurricanes in the Northern Hemisphere, they try to hide behind trends in the Southern Hemisphere when we know global warming is more severe in the Northern Hemisphere than the South.

    But in the North – apart from hurricanes – storms have also been increasing.


    Clearly our denialists have no idea what they are talking about.

    • Boambee John says:


      “we know global warming is more severe in the Northern Hemisphere than the South.”

      So, are you saying that “global” warming differs between regions? Is it then Regional Climate Change, rather than global? That would be more sensible than rabbitting on about a world average temperature, which can only ever be crudely calculated, and should always have (potentially massive) error bands attached to it.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Stupid, stupid Boambee Johnny – Roy Spencer would not like his measurements of North and South slandered by the likes of you.

        • Boambee John says:


          You continue to be as silly as always, I did not challenge “Spencer’s measurements of North and South”, I commented on your statement that there are differences, and suggested, as I have previously, that the concept of a global average temperature is not useful, and such averages should come with error bands.

          These seem to be fairly basic concepts.

  • Chris Warren says:

    And if you want to know why Northern storms and hurricanes are increasing – don’t be as stupid as Neville and look at the South, look at the increase in ocean temperatures from around 1990 (panel E) and compare it to the change in storms trend (posted above).

    Good science exposes all crooks and climate criminals.


  • Chris Warren says:

    There is now clear proof of catastrophic global warming. Sea ice now shows a firm trend lof melt at a rate of 3000 sq. km. per decade and as any scientist will tell you – once ice starts to melt due to heat it continues to melt until all is gone. We now have 40 years of data – to the die is cast.


    And as any scientist will tell you – you cannot reduce global warming unless you reduce greenhouse gases.

    Let our denialists cherry-pick and squirm as much as they like – science shines through all their smoke and mirrors.

    • Boambee John says:


      You forgot to mention that “Arctic sea ice has likely reached its minimum extent for the year, at 3.74 million square kilometers (1.44 million square miles) on September 15, 2020, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado Boulder.Sep 21, 2020
      nsidc.org › news › newsroom › arcti…
      Arctic sea ice at minimum extent for 2020 | National Snow and Ice …”

      That is the likely 2020 minimum.

      At a melt rate of 3000 sqkms per decade, as cited by you, how many decades must pass before there is a major problem? And it won’t be a sea level problem, because the discussion is about sea ice.

  • stu says:

    Well said Chris, at least one person here is on the right side of history. Prediction, they will go berserk over that, particularly the siamese twins. Enjoy..

    • Boambee John says:


      Still avoiding substantive responses to my earlier comments?

      • Stu says:

        Well, we won’t discuss evidence because you deny everything. But you must admit that Chris and I have the overwhelming weight of opinion on our side. Your “evidence” based sect is small and shrinking and I am sure you will not agree. It is not for me to dole out evidence for you to blithely dismiss, I simply follow the science, what is your excuse? But it is fun playing with you, although you bring the game back to draughts rather than chess. But still fun.

        • Boambee John says:


          You have repeated this consoling thought (to you) several times yesterday and today. You must be worried if you have to keep telling yourself how correct you are.

          Still nothing on Cannon-Brookes? Embarrassed by your earlier support?

          And still on the “science by opinion poll” bandwagon? You call that “following the science”? You are showing (yet again) your gross ignorance of science. But we all knew that already.

          Not discuss evidence? Nothing of substance to offer? Stop squirming.

  • Neville says:

    More recent hurricane data from Dr Pielke and Dr Maue and it is clear that there is no trend globally or in some areas the trend is down since 1970 and the 1950s. See the Japanese data at the link.
    See the graphs showing the trends. And the BOM trends are definitely down since 1970 for the Aussie region whether the donkeys like it or not.


  • Neville says:

    Here’s Dr Notts 6,000 year study of SUPER cyclones on the nth Qld coast and he has found evidence for dozens of these super storms hitting the coast.
    But the last of these hit the coast about 200 years ago, when co2 levels were just 284 ppm , so again definitely no correlation at all.


  • Chris Warren says:

    More stupidity from Neville. Clearly he does not understand his own copy-paste from denialist websites.

    We know that denialists cherry-pick data to run their fabrications and it has been observed that “landfall” cyclones have a completely different pattern than all cyclones.

    The chart produced by Weinkle and Pielke is clearly marked “landfall”.

    And they still cannot explain all the world’s melting ice, warming lower atmosphere and cooling upper atmosphere.

    Denialists are a blight on the future humanity and a comedy show for todays.

  • Stu says:

    In case you missed this above.

    Well, we won’t discuss evidence because you deny everything. But you must admit that Chris and I have the overwhelming weight of opinion on our side. Your “evidence” based sect is small and shrinking and I am sure you will not agree. It is not for me to dole out evidence for you to blithely dismiss, I simply follow the science, what is your excuse? But it is fun playing with you, although you bring the game back to draughts rather than chess. But still fun.

    • Boambee John says:

      In case you missed this above.

      You have repeated this consoling thought (to you) several times yesterday and today. You must be worried if you have to keep telling yourself how correct you are.

      Still nothing on Cannon-Brookes? Embarrassed by your earlier support?

      And still on the “science by opinion poll” bandwagon? You call that “following the science”? You are showing (yet again) your gross ignorance of science. But we all knew that already.

      Not discuss evidence? Nothing of substance to offer? Stop squirming.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Notice Jhonny’s little quip…

    “Not discuss evidence? Nothing of substance to offer? Stop squirming.”

    Well here is evidence;


    Now discuss?????

  • Chris Warren says:

    So where does Johnny sit on the Dunning Kruger curve?

    Here is evidence – so; discuss ???


  • spangled drongo says:

    Are blith and stu stu-pid or just natural doomsters?

    How many peer-reviewed papers would you two like that show REAL EVIDENCE that early Holocene temps were considerably higher than today:


  • Neville says:

    Amazing GIGO by the donkeys again and again. The first 1 bn people in history were accounted for in 1800 and since that time another 6.8 bn are now alive today.
    Yet our donkeys yap about a climate crisis / emergency BS, while even the poorest continent on the globe has increased their population by 977 mil people in the last 50 years?
    So how is it possible to add 0.977 bn people in just 50 years ( in the poorest continent) if we are living through a climate crisis and after it has taken the entire recorded history to reach 1 bn by 1800?
    These donkeys are not only stu-pid but they seem to enjoy their regular display of ignorance of very simple maths + logic and reason again and again.
    They’re not worth our time and just play their stupid donkey games to try and divert us from their ignorant POV.

    • Chris Warren says:

      That was neville-nonsense yet again. How does any of that stop global warming and the extinction of the billions he pretends to care about.

  • Chris Warren says:

    So has Johnny run away??

    Why not discuss:


    Has he lost his keyboard???

    • Boambee John says:

      Little Chrissy

      No, I have not run away, just keeping a varied and productive life going.

      PS, learned to spell “incompetent” yet?

  • Chris Warren says:

    So bumbling bomabee thinks you understand ice loss science Arctic in the northern hemisphere by vague references to the Antarctic in the southern hemisphere ????

    And does not even produce any evidence – when IT WAS THIS INDIVIDUAL who said: “Not discuss evidence? Nothing of substance to offer? Stop squirming.”

    What a climate coward! Scared of science? Data phobia?

    • Boambee John says:

      Hissy fit

      Thank you, you have clarified that your earlier alarmism was only about Arctic sea ice. Now, how long at 300 sqkms pa before there is a major problem?

  • Stu says:

    So nev says “ So how is it possible to add 0.977 bn people in just 50 years ( in the poorest continent) if we are living through a climate crisis and after it has taken the entire recorded history to reach 1 bn by 1800?”

    What a classic example of poor logic and assuming unrelated events have a causal link.

    The fact is that such a world population explosion (enabled through many factors including better health care etc) is what makes future climate change so problematic. The “crisis” is that our time for ameliorating action is running out.

    But don’t worry Chris, we know Nev has a very narrow view and cannot be shifted, so I suggest you don’t bother trying.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stueyluv, if you were capable of studying human history it just might dawn on you that the only humans that voluntarily reduce population are the ones that are the most successful and advanced through their own abilities.

      It’s called evolution and it will keep everything in order as long as the catastrophists and doomsters are kept under control.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Yes, it looks like that only the dregs of the denialists are left.

    Good fun kicking them into the gutter.

  • Boambee John says:

    Is Stu still enamoured of the abandoned Cannon-Brookes plan to run a high voltage power cable thousands of kilometres across a tectonically active sea bed to export ruinable power?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Poor ‘ol bumbleboambee,

    Looks like it did not even look at the Spencer data which would have demonstrated that global warming is warming all of the southern hemisphere except the south pole.

    That is all we are getting from this fellow now – data phobia compared with trash talk and fake calls of; ” “Not discuss evidence? Nothing of substance to offer? ”

    Well the evidence has been presented – so go to it kiddo.

    Leave all your denialsts tricks in their bag. You only magnify your stupidity.


  • Stu says:

    Since so much of what is written in this space seems to follow Poe’s law people here might like this one also.



  • spangled drongo says:

    This is how climate “science” communicates and spreads its wisdom these days:

    Climatologist Dr. Prof. Jean-Luc Edouard Germain Michel Mélice recently sent the following threatening comment to climate skeptic Marc Morano:

    Old fart,

    You must must remember me…if your brain is not completely fucked…

    I am going to write you in french, remember that french is the language of every educated gentleman… which is not your case.

    Je suis français et spécialiste en modélisation du climat et des océans, est-tu capable de comprendre ce que j’écris ?

    You are getting very old now, your also bald, looking more and more like the Donnie the con, the orange agent.

    In fact, you are typically an old mafiosi-type italian immigant.

    Of course, you have no scientific training, your brain is to small to understand science, your IQ is under 100 (I have that information).

    My scientist friends here in France welcoming you … with a baseball bat….

    Funny, we are all waiting for you if you have the stupid idea to travel to Europe…

    I am a NASA expert and travel many times in the USA…I know the addresses of your kids and of of yourself. So, try to be very careful…

    Donnie the don is terminated, this will be he case with yourself and the oil industry…

    Too bad for you.

    Dr. Prof. Jean-Luc Edouard Germain Michel Mélice

    You can immediately gauge the depth of intellectual capacity. Here are his details if anyone would like to respond:

    Permanent address: 96, avenue des Combattants, B-1332 Genval, Belgium

    Office Telephone No. +3226541555

  • Neville says:

    Again just for our stu-pid donkeys and even this from their clueless ABC. This just supports the many Holocene optimum SL studies that SD has linked to this morning. Here’s a quote for the donkeys about SLs on our east coast 4,000 years ago. Will these donkeys ever wake up?

    “Dr Macdonald: The date came back at about 4000 years ago, which was quite spectacular we were very surprised.

    Narration: 4000 years ago when Narrabeen Man was wondering around this area the sea levels were up to 1.5 metres higher than they are today”.


    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville – if there was any so-called “SL studies” that a drongo referred to – remember in this case, the S L stands for Slow Learner.

  • Neville says:

    Again, here’s that 5 min Shellenberger video that tells us about the dirty, toxic S&W disaster and how this will destroy the environment.
    Big birds will be killed by the blades and smaller birds can be fried by the giant solar farms.
    These toxic disasters only last about 20 years and then have to replaced again and the dirty toxins are buried in landfills where the poisons leak into the ground.
    IOW these loonies think we can save the planet by ruining the environment forever.
    Oh and the USA would use 25% of their land to try and replace proper, reliable base_load plants. Of course that wouldn’t work properly at night or periods of poor wind or very cloudy still days etc.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Here’s one for a slow learner blitherer:


  • spangled drongo says:

    Something more to assist those that just don’t get it:


  • Boambee John says:

    Funny, Stu was hot for science by opinion poll yesterday, but now that the implications of following AOC and the squad with the Green Nude Eel might be becoming clearer, he seems to have backed off. And he still hides his embarrasment at having pumped up the Cannon-Brookes ruinables export plan that lasted barely a couple of months before being dropped. Did C-B talk to an engineer? Would Stu understand if he talked to one?

    • spangled drongo says:

      BJ, I think that stu and blith privately admit their anti-sci catastrophism but in order to brainwash the kiddies into voting green they don’t dare allow rationality, let alone evidence, to become part of the debate.

      So they have to lapse into long quiets.

Leave a Reply