A new Children’s Crusade

By March 17, 2019Other

In 1212 another Crusade to the Holy Land took place, and this one now has the popular name ‘the Children’s Crusade’, because it is thought to have been prompted by visions that came to children in France and Germany, and because many children apparently took part in it. Some were sold into slavery. The name was also given to a civil rights movement in the USA in 1963.

What we saw last week could be given the same appellation, though this time the focus was on ‘climate change’, not civil rights (unless you draw a long bow) or the Holy Land. I was in a car during the march when the radio carried an interview between a 14-year-old called Ambrose (I think) and an un-named man. Ambrose said something like this when asked what the purpose of the march was: ‘My demands are short and simple: No Adani coal mine, no exports of coal from Australia, and all future additions to electricity must be through alternative sources, not fossil fuels.’

As the interview developed, it became clear that while Ambrose had only three simple demands, he had almost literally no idea of what he was promoting. When the interviewer pointed out gently that stopping all coal exports would make no difference to anyone other than Australians, whose standards of living would drop alarmingly, Ambrose seemed to indicate that didn’t matter. It was important that Australia showed the way. Then I reached my destination, and I heard no more of the interview.

It sounded very much like the Children’s Crusade of 1212, whose youthful participants would have had little idea of what actually was the case in what we now call Israel and Palestine.  But, like the marchers last week, they knew they were right, while the students knew that they were the real victims of their elders’ folly in not dealing with climate change much earlier. I thought again how black and white things are when you are young (I was like that too), and how fusty the olds can be. Then I received an email, and I thought its message was so apposite that I’ve reprinted it here. The author, Brian Dingwall, is a New Zealander. I know no more about him, but his essay is sanity itself.

An Open letter to anyone marching for the climate today

Many of you will be marching today, demonstrating for an issue you believe to be very important.

Many years ago, I was young, well informed, and absolutely convinced I knew enough to make good decisions for the future of the world, and couldn’t understand just how obtuse all the oldies were, how they just didn’t know the stuff I had just learned.

Malthusian economics drove most of us, the Club of Rome had reported, and to my subsequent shame, I confess that in 1975 I voted for the Values Party… I wanted a better world, I knew resources were on the verge of running out, the population was out of control, and we were polluting our one and only planet. It was, I thought, time for the change that was so desperately required. The Values party did not get in, to our surprise the resources did not run out, Simon won his bet with catastrophist Erhlich, as countries became more wealthy they cleaned up their environments, particularly water, farmlands, and air.

China is now wealthy enough to be doing exactly that right now, following in the footsteps of Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. We certainly never see the famous foaming rivers of industrial Japan anymore. Economists now understand that the ultimate resource, the human imagination, never runs out.

So is it likely to be with climate change. I urge you to never abandon your scepticism, for a critical mind is your most important asset. Be able to articulate exactly what evidence has persuaded you to your opinion. Opinions though, are not evidence. Consensus is not evidence.

The world has many historic consensuses that have turned out to not be so. So far, I don’t mind sharing with you, I have yet to be persuaded. My background is in science, with a smattering of economics, and statistics and I well understand the case for catastrophic climate change. I find it unconvincing. As do a raft of well qualified experts in many fields, even Nobel prize winners, and I urge you to find out who they are, and why they have reservations. There are two sides to this debate, but only one is well resourced, so you have to work a bit harder to find the arguments of the sceptical scientists.

One of the very great tragedies of the whole issue is that since 1990, it has been very difficult for scientists to garner resources from governments to research natural climate change, but we can be certain that the forces that wreaked great climate changes in the past are still active, and may be a much greater magnitude than those wreaked by CO2.

For today please reflect on these things: All the CO2 being released today is simply being returned to the atmosphere whence it came, and is now available to the biosphere, which we can see is already flourishing as a result. Global temperatures have increased (about 0.7C degrees in last 100 years) ever since the little ice age, and continue to but at nothing like the rate predicted by climate models.

We live from the equator to (nearly) the poles, and hence are particularly adaptable, and will adapt to minor temperature changes and have in the past through climate optima, and little ice ages. Much of the land surface of the earth is too cold for habitation or agriculture, some warming of the northern latitudes of Canada and Russia for example will be welcomed.

Here in New Zealand, we produce food for the world, with one of, if not the lowest “carbon footprints” of any country. Should you actually succeed in killing this industry, that production will be conducted elsewhere, at a higher carbon cost… so the improvement as you see it, in New Zealand’s emissions will be more than offset by extra emissions elsewhere… we will be adding to the problem, not mitigating it.

It is also very important that each of you understands that for any complex problem, there are a range of decisions, trade-offs, to be considered. Do we understand all the benefits that follow from the use of fossil fuels? How many of these are we prepared to sacrifice? What would a fossil fuel-less world look like for you (hint: I don’t think you would like it very much). Have you read or even heard of the “moral case for fossil fuels”, and do you understand the extent to which they feed and clothe the world, provide us with our tools, and our leisure, empower our devices, and enable our travel at present? House us and clean us?

You are not informed if you only read one side of the case. I happen to believe in free markets, the economics of von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Simon, McCloskey, and many of the moderns but I have also read Marx, and various of the collectivist economists, you must know what all the opinion leaders are saying and why. So do seek out “lukewarmers” like Curry, Lewis, Christy, Soon, Balunias, they will lead you to a raft of others “the counter-consensus” that you, like me, may find rather more convincing than the orthodox climate church.

Personally I have learned that what I knew at your age (vastly more than my parents knew, of course) was not always right… now captured in the expression “it’s not what we don’t know, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so”. We once believed in leeches, blood-letting, that washing our hands was not important, that continents didn’t drift, that stress causes ulcers, a daily aspirin is good, and that there is always an imminent catastrophe on the horizon that never materialises.

The question is whether what we know for sure that the specific climate change you worry about is human caused, will have a measurable and substantial impact, and is real. What climate change would have been quite natural? Will we look back in years to come and think “we believed what?” Have we included accurately in our models the impacts of short and long term natural oceanic cycles, cosmic rays impact on cloud nucleation, clouds, the sun and sunspots, what, if anything, is there still that we don’t know that we don’t know? Can we get initial conditions right?

Always examine closely the logic of the case…we have only one world so all we can do is create computer models of the climate, and wait to see if nature tells us the models are a good approximation of the real world suitable for projecting future climates… and if climate is a 30 year average of all our global “weather” then we probably have to wait at least two preferably more periods of 30 years simply to validate the models so 100 years or so.

So far the projections and predictions have been wildly wrong, the polar ice is healthy, the Manhattan freeway is not underwater, sea-level rise is not accelerating, and snow is far from “a thing of the past”. As climate scientist and keeper of one of the satellite records ironically observes “the models all agree the observations are wrong”. And the economics don’t work, as Nobel prize winner Nordhaus teaches, the cost of mitigation is an order of magnitude greater than the cost of the problem, so the cure is worse than the disease.

Don’t take my word for it, or anyone’s. Read for yourselves, go to source. Do not trust any scientist who calls a peer scientist a “denier”. Understand peer review, and that a peer reviewed paper is more often than not just the opening salvo in a chain of events that may or may not ultimately expose a scientific truth. Be very careful of any theory where the accepted facts (historic temperatures, and the location and number of the thermometers)) change regularly to suit the narrative.

And finally, enjoy your day, be yourselves, trust your own judgment, read widely, and look behind the data to the motives of the players. There is a (slim) chance you are right, but even if you are, trust in human ingenuity, that fabulous engine of change, to ensure survival not of the world as we know it, but of an even better world than previous generations enjoyed… we will not revert to sleeping with our food animals on dirt floors with unpainted walls! As humans have done for most of our time on earth…

A note on prepositions

This note follows my last end-note on syntax and comes from the same source: television. I notice that cooking programs, which I watch with pleasure, given that I am no longer able to cook, after a lifetime of cooking for my family and friends, frequently involve the presenters in using unnecessary prepositions. So, bacon is ‘rendered down’, meat is ‘seared off’ or ‘browned off’, onions are ‘sweated down’ and so on. Where did this come from?

Join the discussion 103 Comments

  • Peter Ridd says:

    Don, This is an absolutely excellent essay. It deserves to be spread far and wide.

  • Neville says:

    Don thanks for your comments and I really enjoyed the very sane email from NZ. Only comment I have is that according to the alarmist scientists there is no chance of mitigating their CAGW problem at all.
    I’ve tried to discuss this with people and sometimes the hostility this stirs up has to be seen to be believed. Most people have no idea about how impossible the mitigation fantasy is to implement.
    But then again most people understand very little about the history of our Holocene and the natural variation of our climate over the short and long term.
    IOW most people are in it for political reasons and are happy to ignore the evidence and data. This certainly applies to some of the brainwashed kids and their handlers.

  • amortiser says:

    I attended the climate rally in Brisbane on Friday. There was a young girl, about 14 years old, who was holding a sign saying that the planet had only 11 years without action. I approached her and politely asked her what she meant by the sign. She said that if action is not taken to stop fossil fuels the planet would be uninhabitable in 11 years. I asked her if she honestly believed that 7 billion people would die in 11 years. At this point an adult accompanying the group intervened. He admonished me for picking on the youngest in the group.

    I told him that I was asking her to explain the meaning of the sign. This was supposed to be a student inspired call to address climate change so it was not unreasonable to ask students to explain their positions. If they couldn’t then his actions in using children as pawns in a political campaign was disgusting.

    The whole demonstration was replete with kids like this. There were six and seven year olds sporting signs they had no idea about. This is what now passes as intelligent political discourse today. Quite depressing.

  • Neville says:

    Just a thought about making it more difficult to produce food/products/fossil fuels etc from NZ and OZ.
    It doesn’t seem to interest these silly fantasists that OZ is responsible for at most 0.006 c and NZ about 0.0006c of so called AGW since 1800.
    So OZ is about six thousandths of a degree C and NZ is about six ten thousandths of a degree C.
    We should be able to have a good belly laugh at this nonsense but geezzz I think we’ve been taking the stupid pills for far too long.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Don, yes, calling it a Children’s’ Crusade is a cunning use of genuine historical necessity.

    My children are now approaching their sixties and are non-committal about their views on the politics of climate change but I asked one of them the other day if he remembered the times, as a 4 year old, sitting and splashing in the shallow water on the path that ran along the top of the sea wall of our house at the mouth of the Nerang River during the big tides.

    Yes, I do, he said, I used to do it often.

    Well, I said, I’ve just been to check it out today at the king tide and guess where it came to?

    It must be quite a bit higher, he said.

    No, I said, it’s about a foot lower.

    He found it hard to believe, as did a neighbour there of those times who now lives close by and to whom I mentioned the same details.

    That doesn’t seem right, he said.

    Go and check it for yourself, I said.

    When mature, professional people are so easily convinced simply because they believe what they are told by these “scientists”, what hope have the kids got to resist being brainwashed?

  • Chris Warren says:

    It is best if “opinions” and “consensus” are based on science.

    So far, it is the opinions and consensus based on science that seem to be concerning the younger generation.

    They are not just children, but range from high school students down to younger years, but the leaders are students at the same age as baby boomers were when they took to the streets during the Moratoriums, Springbok’s and Women’s Liberation etc. campaigns.

    Claims that sea level rise has not accelerated is debunked by Olle Humlum’s site.

    Polar ice is not healthy – as shown clearly by NASA scientists (and others). If present trends continue – it will all melt.

    There is no reason to distrust any scientist based on their using the word “denialist” unless you also seek to distrust pundits who cry “alarmist”, “religion”, “donkey”, “corrupt” or impute their motives by any number of other tricks.

    Students tend to see these issues in crystal clarity because they have not yet become enmeshed in the vested interests of economic growth, getting a job, and lusting for stock market booms. The opposition to climate science is either mere economics disguised as “skepticism” but launched as crass denialism or it is a refusal to see changes that need to be made.

    I think Keynes said it best – the old world is not intelligent, not just, and does not deliver what we want but we are perplexed as to what to replace it with (paraphrase).

    He should have added – suicidal.

    There is no need to propose a fossil-free future. This is a canard. We only need to ensure that CO2 emissions into the atmosphere do not exceed the CO2 being reabsorbed by the land, water or new carbon capturing devices.

    The science is perfectly clear. The Earth will warm forever if CO2 accumulates forever.

    No science contradicts this fact.

    • amortiser says:

      “The Earth will warm forever if CO2 accumulates forever.
      No science contradicts this fact.”

      It’s actually the other way around. The great sink of CO 2 is the oceans. As the oceans warm CO2 is released. If the oceans cool more CO 2 is absorbed.

      The ice cores show that CO 2 increases lag warming. You are completely back to front.

      • Chris Warren says:


        This reflects a misunderstanding. Ice cores only indicate periods when the earth moved closer to the sun so temperatures rose due to this effect. Co2 increases followed.

        Increased CO2 did not cause this warming. No scientist has ever said that the CO2 increases in ice core data caused temperature rises. This would be the wrong way round.

        And today, warmer water will release CO2 meaning it is loosing its ability to soak up CO2.

        However over a period when the Earth has maintained the same distance from the Sun or moved away, if CO2 increases first – then temperature rise follows. This is the case today.

        Except for a feedback mechanism, todays increase in CO2 is not caused by warming but by burning fossil fuels and the oxidation of methane. Warming is caused by greenhouse gases.

        There is another difference between ice core trends and industrial trends. The natural cycle of ice core warming NEVER, NEVER increased CO2 over 310 ppm. Ice core theory cannot explain CO2 levels over 410 and moving towards 450.

        If you delve into ice core theory, you will find US government data that shows the Earth has been moving away from the Sun and we should be in a cooling phase.

        See here: http://www.tinyurl.com/US-gov-vostok The changing distance to the Sun is represented in the bottom trace.

        A reworked version of this chart is here: http://archive.is/FG1MF

        You can see how unnatural CO2 levels are by placing 410 ppm at the appropriate point in the CO2 scale in blue.

        You can be sure that ice core data has no relevance to modern CO2 warming.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Chris, it seems to me that if kids are demonstrating about something, but do not themselves understand the science behind it, then they are best categorised as ‘believers’.

      Yes, there is no need to post a fossil-free future — indeed, at the present level of understanding it is not just a canard, but a hopeless idea, in every way. But it was ‘Ambrose’ who wanted it, not me.

      • Chris Warren says:


        Maybe this indicates a cause for reform of the high school curriculum guided by the Australian Academy of Science.

        If NBEET still existed I’m pretty sure it would be an agenda item.

    • Bruce of Newcastle says:

      Chris – Recent data shows there has been no real world warming for a couple of decades. How can that happen when pCO2 has risen over 10% in absolute terms in that period? It is clear that essentially no global warming is occurring, as can be expected by the retracement of the solar and ocean cycles since their peak around 2005 or so. This strongly suggests ECS is well under 1 K/doubling, which is harmless.

      Note that the dataset I’ve linked is not subject to adjustments, it is a primary direct measurement proxy – unlike the temperature datasets which are all adjusted indirect measurements due to unavoidable technical issues.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Bruce of Newcastle

        Climate change is a long-run trend, and you can certainly find many periods of pause or cooling based on decades.

        But they loose significance when place in context over time.

        If you average over decades (10 years – 120months) over almost any global data set you will see these periods popping up but not to reverse the ongoing warming.

        This is an example: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:120

        There has been some recent slowing and Ole Humlum presents this is a good context – as at January 2019. See here:


        • Bryan Roberts says:

          ” loose ”

          You would be marginally more credible if you would learn to spell.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          Chris – The 60 year cycle is persistent in the paleodata for at least the last millenium: see Mike Mann’s paper (PDF).

          If you remove the artefact of the 60 year cycle from the temperature rise last century, because of the endpoint selection the IPCC uses, you drop the actual rise down to about 0.4 C. That immediately halves derived ECS.

          The point about the linear trend in snow cover extent is that is drawing a linear trend across the top of a waveform. That is the top of the 60 year temperature cycle. So now as the temperature falls with the change in phase of the cycle we’re seeing more cold weather.

          The Arctic sea ice extent is similar, except it is much more closely aligned with the AMO because of the extensive links between the Arctic and the northern Atlantic. The AMO hasn’t flipped to cooling yet if you see the WFT AMO graph. But as you see when it goes it does so precipitously. (Incidentally you can clearly see the 60 year cycle in this graph.)

          In short the climate changes we’ve been seeing this last century are mostly natural. ECS is well under 1 K/doubling if you factor them in. Harmless!

    • Aert Driessen says:

      “The science is perfectly clear. The Earth will warm forever if CO2 accumulates forever”. Chris, this is only true if CO2 is the only reason for warming. In any net effect, cooling factors could mitigate all the warming caused by CO2, and then some more, to result in an overall cooling.

      “There is no reason to distrust any scientist based on their using the word “denialist” unless you also seek to distrust pundits who cry “alarmist”, “religion”, “donkey”, “corrupt” or impute their motives by any number of other tricks”. Chris, governments (and they have all the money are only funding research projects, the objective of which is to show the extent to which CO2 warms the climate. It is nigh impossible to get funding to study natural variational causes. Follow the money.

      ‘Polar ice is not healthy – as shown clearly by NASA scientists (and others). If present trends continue – it will all melt”. Chris, which pole? You don’t have to listen to what (government-funded) NASA scientist are saying, you can look at satellite images and listen to the news. There are some losses of ice on one side of Antarctica (I think the west side) and gains on the other side. As for the North pole, on the news only today, cruise ships are having to modify schedules because of excessive sea ice there. Besides, ice at the N pole is sea ice, not glacial ice sitting on a land mass as at Antarctica. Remember your class room experiment observing an ice cube melting in a glass of water? You must have seen it. Every teacher ran that demonstration.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Aert Driessen

        The flow of money may be biased, but most data is public and as a retired senior research officer I have found no difficulty getting published in refereed journals and similar without institutional funding. The quality and rigor of most alternative claims is suspect or has been debunked.

        Did you check the source I cited – NASA? See: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

        Bye, bye ice.

        Alternatively Ole Humlum covers this territory providing a picture of dramatic sea recent ice collapse as at February 2019.

        See: https://archive.fo/7jsZh

        Seeing is believing.

        • spangled drongo says:

          If you are so sure that the world’s land ice is net melting, blith, why don’t you go outside and check sea levels?

          Do you know why GRACE is being replaced?

          Because she does not WORK. Her gravy meter malfunctions [even though it works for the “scientists”].

          She’s like you, keeps telling lies.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “It is best if “opinions” and “consensus” are based on science.”

    That is about the most unscientific statement that it is possible to make.

    Scientific assumptions-without-evidence [on which all your “opinions” and “consensus” are based] are not science, blith.

    And this is what you SJWs brainwash the kiddies with.

    It is very easy to see precisely who the real deniers are here.

  • Doug Hurst says:

    I watched two girls on Sky this morning – articulate, emotional, full of moral certitude and wrong most of the time. They had no idea how we would power Australia if we abandoned coal, or what difference it would make to the climate, but they knew it had to be done, and must be done soon if we were to last past 2030. One through nuclear might be a good idea if we could eliminate the wastage problem

    The interviewers were kind to them and waited until they were gone to show Trump’s latest tweet quoting Patrick Moore (whose founding role in Greenpeace is being denied by the current management), who said (words to the effect) that there is no climate crisis, just changeable weather, and extra CO2 would stimulate plant growth but do no harm otherwise. Perhaps Trump is anticipating the findings of his Red and Blue teams.

  • John Morland says:

    As an ex-alarmist and now a climate calmist and my wife as disinterested (climate agnostic?), we both came to the same conclusion; a children crusade.

    However today, we are aware of child abuse and have laws to deal with it, We both consider this student strike as an example of child abuse.

    The schools and the teachers encouraging, provoking and allowing this strike and demonstration should be brought (arrested if necessary) to a court of law.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    How about a national prize for the student who successfully predicts when Tuvalu will disappear?

    The world will end in 12 years, so much better odds than the lottery. Prize – A trip to Tuvalu.

    • JMO says:

      I read that Tuvalu is receiving more and more visitors, it had to expand its airport, built more hotel and other tourist attractions. Is this the country whose prime minister did a news gimmick photographing himself signing papers underwater before the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference? If so,Tuvalu does not seem so concerned about rising sea levels now. Neither do the Chinese making all these artificial islands with airfields and navy bases in the China Sea – they are only a few feet above high tide. Neither do Australian beach front property owners have to worry about sea level rises, what they have to worry about is how their stupid local councils address this farcical prophecy.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        “Is this the country whose prime minister did a news gimmick photographing himself signing papers underwater before the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference?”

        No, I believe that was the Maldives.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      The nation might not be there, but the plane could circle over where it used to be.

  • Aert Driessen says:

    Thanks Don, also for sharing that email from NZ. Good stuff. Also good to hear that you were in a car (and not a bed) when you heard a particular broadcast, and also that this is your second post in about a week. That’s almost back to your usual schedule. Keep it up!

  • Neville says:

    Just as we thought the kids have been exploited by left wing climate activists. But why doesn’t this fall into the category of child abuse?
    This should disgust everyone when these creeps use the most vulnerable, inexperienced and innocent members of society to promote their very dubious CAGW extremism.
    Certainly there must be a lot of stupid parents who apparently couldn’t care enough to stop them.


  • peter edgar says:

    A first-class essay from NZ. Thanks for forwarding.
    What do we have here? A practice session for a new red guards cultural revolution? An adult scaring of the children witless? A pied piper of Hamelin try-out? What next – some ‘corruption’ trials in which a leading figure is accused, howled down by a mob and sentenced for a crime she did not commit?

  • On climate change, I cannot argue, not having the background, but I doubt the Inuit or the wildlife “welcomes” the ice melt on the tundra.

    On dangling prepositions, I can comment, “retreating back” being one of my most recent cringe-worthy favorites. Generally, I just shut up about grammar and try not to be pedantic. As with the climate, grammar is always changing. As with both climate and grammar, they seem to be changing fast.

    • Neville says:

      Gosh Nicole if the climate is changing so fast you should be able to tell us how to mitigate the change? So what dial would you use and how long before we would see the result and AT WHAT COST? Just asking?

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Yes, grammar is always changing, and I am a pedant. But one doesn’t need to add a preposition , or to replace ‘continuing’ with ‘ongoing’. These changes do not add meaning, rather, they indicate that the user is uncertain of what they should say or write.

      I did like ‘retreating back’!

  • Neville says:

    Willis thinks that Europe has already shown what we can expect from 2 c of warming. His deaths from extreme weather events since 1920 graph should be shown to every kid at school.
    This is the data that was used by Lomborg, Goklany, Ridley, Rosling etc and the world’s population was less than 2 million in 1920 and is about 7.4 bn today. That drop in deaths is remarkable.
    Of course all European countries are much healthier and wealthier than at any time in history. But China’s life expectancy today is only about 5 years behind wealthy OECD countries and follows their very rapid industrialization and extreme use of fossil fuels in the last 30 years. Just check the data.

    But will the religious fanatics ever wake up? Don’t bet on it.


  • Neville says:

    Larry Kummer now concludes that climate science has become a corrupted science. The use of RCP 8.5 as business as usual is certainly a bridge too far for most sensible and responsible scientists.
    But who cares when you’re a happy fundamentalist trying your best to brainwash the great unwashed? And particularly doing their best to to use any fra-dulent means available to mess with the minds of children.


    • Chris Warren says:


      Kummer could be corrupt?

      Do you deny that GHGs warm the Earth so that if GHGs increase the earth’s temp. will increase?

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Do you deny that GHGs warm the Earth so that if GHGs increase the earth’s temp. will increase?”

    Do you deny, blith, that you haven’t got a clue on feedbacks specifically and cli-sci generally?

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    You don’t have to be a pedant to despair. From the almost ubiquitous Pizza’s to the constant grammatical errors promulgated by the ABC and the ‘experts’ at the Conversation, I don’t see much hope for the literacy of children.

  • Boambee John says:

    My response to a comment by stu on the previous thread.


    Perhaps inadvertently you might have exposed the nub of the whole CAGW hypothesis.

    “Once again you cant read can you, or you dont want to. I did not attest to the efficacy of the AGW argument at all. Read again. I merely suggested that right or wrong the public perception argument was over, the game is moving on, you have lost, or will soon, the war.
    Your hand wringing over temperature records is becoming irrelevant so far as the politics and action are concerned.”

    You can’t attest to the efficacy of the argument, but gloat that the public perception favours it. Actual temperature records (that Chris assures he bases his argument on) don’t matter.

    In essence, you are saying that the whole business is about politics, not the climate. You might ask yourself what is the aim of many politicians. The answer is simple. Power, from Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot to todays wannabes, power is the objective.

    Might that explain that no matter how often I ask Chris and others to detail their solutions to the problem, they never offer coherent answers? If the aim is power, the problem is just the route to power, and does not need a solution.”

    This is all about politics and gaining power. The unwillingness of proponents to offer specific proposals to achieve mitigation without destroying western civilisation (there seems to be little concern about CO2 emissions in non-western nations) demonstrates that.

    Though I do concede that in an earlier thread Chris did propose banning all plastics except Bakelite.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Boambee John

      “… in an earlier thread Chris did propose banning all plastics except Bakelite.”

      This is a complete lie. I never proposed banning all plastics except Bakelite.

      Please read this twice to make sure you understand words.

      • Boambee John says:

        From the “Good Ban” thread.

        Chris Warren
        February 23, 2019 at 2:25 pm

        I thought plastics caused micro particles in the sea and represent a reliance on fossil fuels.

        So a general campaign against plastic products seems reasonable.

        Except for bakelite – plastics are pretty much a recent development and we all lived perfectly happy without them.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Yes, precisely.

          Now do you see your corrupt rewording of other peoples stuff to suit your own motives.

          • Boambee John says:

            So a “general campaign against plastic products” is not intended to get rid of them?

            Sure, Chris.

          • Boambee John says:

            Ah, now I see your problem, you want to ban bakelite also!

          • Chris Warren says:

            Denialists usually lie and manufacture diversions.

          • Boambee John says:

            Those with no arguments to offer usually resort to ad hominem insults.

          • Chris Warren says:


            “Playing the victim” now I see.

          • Boambee John says:

            No, just pointing out the weakness of your position.

          • Boambee John says:

            PS, nothing yet to offer in the way of practical solutions to the “problem”? I am sooooo disappointed!

          • Chris Warren says:

            By lying about it.

          • Boambee John says:

            So do you deny that your statement “So a general campaign against plastic products seems reasonable” has any implication that plastics should be banned? What were you suggesting? Gathering in the streets waving signs made of plastic?

  • Boambee John says:

    PS, you said above that you are a retired senior research officer, and you have previously mentioned working in the Department of the Special Minister of State and the National Board of Education, Employment and Training. Were you a scientific research officer or a policy research officer?

    Either way, you have been pursuing this issue for yonks. Using your research skills, what are your top five recommendations for worldwide action to delay or prevent CAGW? Surely you have thought this issue through to the extent of such conclusions?

    • Chris Warren says:

      You could try reading the latest issue of New Scientist for hints.

      You could try keeping abreast of proposals coming out of petrochemical companies such as Shell.

      You could try learning from the work being done across the globe.

      • Boambee John says:

        So you have no actual “solutions” to offer, even with all your experience as a research officer? Policy or scientific research?

  • […] A majority is equally unconvinced by the palpable evidence of higher electricity prices and a less reliable network due to a replacement of controllable fossil fuel generation by intermittently available renewables that require both expensive back-up and high cost transmission.  The simplistic cry that renewable energy is free and must be cheaper than those ancient coal generators is accepted by professionals outside the industry, and some within it.  It is becoming a dominant perspective of bankers, doctors, lawyers as well as teachers. […]

  • Stu says:

    I have been away having a refreshing break from the circle here. There are a few points in the NZ letter that need challenging.

    “One of the very great tragedies of the whole issue is that since 1990, it has been very difficult for scientists to garner resources from governments to research natural climate change, but we can be certain that the forces that wreaked great climate changes in the past are still active, and may be a much greater magnitude than those wreaked by CO2.”

    It sounds like a reasonable statement till you think about it. Practically all the scientists in the field are not studying global warming per se. They are studying aspects of the earth system such as sea ice, permafrost, glaciers, sea temperature, solar insolation etc. in other words the state of those things and the changes that are occurring. They look for causes of change including natural forces. In many cases they have found that natural causes cannot explain the recent and current changes. Others working at a more aggregated level take all these aspects into account formulating and testing hypotheses about the whole climate system. Hence their conclusions re climate change. Someone seeking to just study “natural changes” has to study the whole picture also or have a very big gap in their results. Silly argument by the guy.

    Secondly “All the CO2 being released today is simply being returned to the atmosphere whence it came, and is now available to the biosphere, which we can see is already flourishing as a result. Global temperatures have increased (about 0.7C degrees in last 100 years) ever since the little ice age, and continue to but at nothing like the rate predicted by climate models.”

    Another simle statement. But “all the CO2 being released today” took a very long time to be sequestered into the earth. In other words we have put back into the air in a hundred years what took a hundred million to bury. Clearly that creates an imbalance that the system will take some time to restore to equilibrium. But of course if you deny that the trace level of GHG’s in the atmosphere are what actually make the earth habitable, temperature wise, there is no point going further.

    There are other bits to challenge such as “the polar ice is healthy” but the above caes illustrate the point.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Challenge it by all means, stu, but don’t forget to use evidence instead of speculation.

      This sort of evidence does fine:


    • Chris Warren says:

      “that the forces that wreaked great climate changes in the past are still active,”

      Why don’t they name this theoretical “force” and show evidence of it (or them) being still active?

      Is the force code for God, or Zeus, or Rainbow Serpent???

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Why don’t they name this theoretical “force” and show evidence of it (or them) being still active?”

        They already have, blith, but you’re in complete denial of it.

        It’s called Nat Var and to witness it you only need to put your head outside and look at the scenery.

        Amazing what reality dawns on you when you survey the real world.

  • Stu says:

    How about “During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable. ”

    That is from that Danish mob you seem to like to quote.


    And do tell are you the bird or the wildly unsuccesful racehorse of the 1920’s?The latter would match your picking of science sources.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Get up to date, stu-pid. Your link is 10 years behind.

      Here’s the real story for the last 10 years:


      But check all the bed-wetting and the alarmist [wrong] predictions:


      • Stu says:

        Oh do pay attention. Those figures (carefully chosen no doubt) all relate to a period of particularly poor sea ice coverage all the way through, so no trend to see eh. The shit had already happened so to speak. Try looking a little further back for a real understanding. You are easily lead, except by common sense.

        Also it is somewhat relevant to also consider sea ice volume, a figure related to extent and thickness. On that scale things are pretty dismal.

        And “during the1980’s multiyear ice comprised 50 to 60 percent of the ice in the Arctic Ocean. However, by the end of summer in 2010, only 15 percent of the remaining sea ice was more than two years old. Because first-year ice is thinner and more prone to melting than multiyear ice, the increase in the amount of first-year ice drastically alters the dynamics of sea ice in the Arctic. The thinner ice is more easily pushed around by winds, and fractured by waves. It moves with currents more rapidly and easily, and so the ice is flushed out of the Arctic faster than it was before.“. -NSIDC.

        But go ahead and live in your ivory tower and believe these proven dodgy web sites. I will stick to the government sanctioned ones. Oh yes, I forgot again, it is a huge conspiracy by the evil money grubbing scientists. How do you suppose they managed such a brilliant coup.

        Have you actually gone to those sites you point to?. They are laughable.

        • spangled drongo says:

          They managed such a brilliant coup because so many stu-pid SJWs are frustrated that nothing has happened in the last 10 years but simply must hand-wave, bed-wet and brain-wash the kiddies anyway.

          The fact that so many are trying to make ever more navigable passages around the arctic with nuclear powered icebreakers never helps the ice situation but there are arguably less passages now than there were 500 years ago when Frobisher, Davis et ors explored it in wooden sailing ships.

          • Stu says:

            Geez, you are getting desperate. “ but there are arguably less passages now than there were 500 years ago when Frobisher, Davis et ors explored it in wooden sailing ships.”. I think the key word is arguably, most definitly. To equate the very difficult passage of small wooden boats, which lift out of the ice when trapped, with passenger liners, oil tankers and container ships is just plain laughable. Try again.
            You are sounding ever more likely a troll.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Still can’t refute current ice, hey stu?

            And this: “… small wooden boats, which lift out of the ice when trapped…”

            What on earth are you talking about?

            They were wooden sailing ships that went nary an inch to windward and so needed twice as much open water as any modern ship and so were exponentially more difficult and dangerous to operate in ice than any modern ship accompanied by an icebreaker.

            And Amundsen got through the NW passage in a small wooden ship over a century ago.

            Does the possibility of Nat Var ever dawn on you, stu?

  • spangled drongo says:

    This should stop live exports:

    “The University of Sydney will also host researchers from California, Alabama and parts of India to speak at their Multispecies Justice symposium in June to workshop topics including the “political status” of animals.”

    “The same people who want to kill cows to stop climate change now want to give wombats the vote.”


  • Stu says:

    You Drongo,
    Get real. Amundsen took several years (1903-1905 including two winters) in a tiny boat with just 8 guys. And “As the water was as shallow as one metre, a larger ship could never have used Amundsen’s route. While his achievement ranks as one of the key milestones in the exploration of the Arctic, the discovery of a passage for commercial shipping – the original motive for finding the North-West Passage – was still out of reach. It would take the effect of global warming to open up the possibility of deeper routes for large ships in 2007.” Have a look at the map of his route.

    You could also be thnking of Nansen and the Fram. On that voyage the drifted in the ice across the Arctic, it was hardly open water.

    And what on earth do you mean I can’t refute current ice. I did in that post if you read it.

    The big change in the Arctic is the opening of the Russian Arctic seaway which has been virtually ice free in recent summers. The fabled NW passage is across the top of Canada and remains dangerous and little travelled even with the melt. A couple of cruise ships have traversed. And more expect to as the melt continues. Meantime you could probably paddle across Amundsens route in summer.

    You are getting desperate, your arguments are as thin as the sea ice.

    • spangled drongo says:

      The NW Passage was as free of sea ice in 1903-5 as it is today.

      And is quite capable of taking large ships if the ice allows.

      Your waffle on one metre depth is simply a small ship manoeuvring to dodge ice.

      And sea ice has not reduced in the last 10 years.

      In spite of all the nuclear powered activity.

      And in spite of your false claims to the contrary.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Learn a bit about sea ice, stu:

    Arctic AND Antarctic Sea Ice More Extensive Today Than Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years.

    “It is often claimed that modern day sea ice changes are “unprecedented”, alarming, and well outside the range of natural variability. Yet scientists are increasingly finding that biomarker proxies used to reconstruct both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice conditions since the Early Holocene reveal that today’s sea ice changes are not only not unusual, there is more extensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice during recent decades than there has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years.”


    • Stu says:

      I think the key element in what you quote is “tricks”. Sorry, what they say is all bull shit. Stick with some real science. Can’t you even begin to see the error in your ways with the data coming out all over the place regarding ice and temperature? Never mind, events are overtaking all of us. Scientists are notoriously conservative and are very careful what they say. And they are beginning to express grave reservations about where we are headed. Never mind, you fossils will all be dead and wont see just how wrong you were and why future gens will only refer to you as climate pariahs. A pity really as I would like to see you atone for your sins.

      You are just a troll aren’t you?

  • spangled drongo says:

    There has been no trend in Arctic sea ice extent or volume since the start of MASIE records in 2006:


    • Stu says:

      If I was a christian I might say “jesus, get your facts right and don’t cherry pick”. Talk about about a misuse of data and cherry picking date ranges to prove a point. Go and look at the long term data and what they write about MASIE and come back with another argument. Troll.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu is too confused to realise that I am giving him correct details via numerous peer reviewed science papers for the same period that he was incorrectly supplying above.

        But he has the hubris to reject science in favour of his sad hand waving and name calling.

        If you don’t agree please supply evidence to the contrary.

        • strangled drongo says:

          After supplying me with a tiny sample of out of date declining sea ice, I reply with many peer reviewed papers of data from all over the world showing that currently all the world’s sea ice is at a high stand for the whole of the Holocene.

          And stu-pid accuses me of cherry picking?

          And trolling?

          Can you bear it?

          And for the ignoranters such as stu:

          NSIDC say this about MASIE:

          MASIE-NH stands for the Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent – Northern Hemisphere. It is similar to the Sea Ice Index (SII) product in that it is easy to use and gives a graphical view of ice extent in various formats. However, it relies more on visible imagery than on passive microwave data, so the ice edge position will generally be more accurate than that of the Sea Ice Index.

        • Stu says:

          Bullshit. Here is another quote from NSIDC, joint producer of the MASIE product.

          “On March 13, 2019, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.78 million square kilometers (5.71 million square miles), the seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record, tying with 2007. This year’s maximum extent is 860,000 square kilometers (332,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average maximum of 15.64 million square kilometers (6.04 million square miles) and 370,000 square kilometers (143,000 square miles) above the lowest maximum of 14.41 million square kilometers (5.56 million square miles) set on March 7, 2017. Prior to 2019, the four lowest maximum extents occurred from 2015 to 2018.”

          Read those numbers. 860,00p square kilometers below the 1981 to 2019 average maximum. That does not gel with those unsubstantiated figures carefully cherry picked by your not very learned sources. I reger of course to oteickszone and Realclimatescience. Real indeed. Note the lack of proper attribution on their charts.

          Go and look at the NSIDC published data, and the Danish site. The trend is down. Your so called peer reviewed papers are crap. Never trust the stuff claimed to be scientific from the sites you quote. They are as weak as you are. Troll!


          • spangled drongo says:

            You really have no idea, hey, stu?

            Your “evidence” does not refute that Masie graph at all.

            And how can those last 12 years be a “cherry pick” when we were only discussing the last 10?

            And I also covered the last 10,000 years [awa the Antarctic] just for good measure.

            You really are becoming a most desperate alarmist.

            And if you have any evidence that those peer reviewed papers covering the Holocene sea ice are faulty in any way, please supply evidence.

            But please, not like your previous hand-waving and/or nonsense evidence.

          • spangled drongo says:

            To use the choice words of the learned stu above; “Bullshit. Here is another quote from NSIDC, joint producer of the MASIE product.”

            NSIDC say this about MASIE:

            “MASIE-NH stands for the Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent – Northern Hemisphere. It is similar to the Sea Ice Index (SII) product in that it is easy to use and gives a graphical view of ice extent in various formats. However, it relies more on visible imagery than on passive microwave data, so the ice edge position will generally be more accurate than that of the Sea Ice Index.”

            Oh, dear!

            Can you bear it?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Al Gore was responsible for the Arctic sea ice correction.

    All of the NOAA pre-1979 sea ice data disappeared after Al Gore took office, because it wrecked his CO2 agenda:


  • Stu says:

    Show me the link to the “MASIE” graph at a MASIE or NSIDC web page, not the tricked up version on the dodgy websites where they fail to provide proper attribution.

    I am not a “desperate alarmist”, merely quoting you real data from the source not a tricked up alternative version via proven dodgy sources.

  • spangled drongo says:

    There is nothing more desperate than a desperate climate alarmist:

    Google, with the help of Greenpeace, is revising Greenpeace’s history to erase Dr. Moore from his role in co-founding the environmental group. But Greenpeace’s own website has previously featured Moore as one of its “founders.”

    Moore: “Google has removed my photo and name from the ‘Founders of Greenpeace’. It was still there 2 days ago but now I am erased. Tech Tyranny!!”


    • Stu says:

      I repeat show me the link to the source of the MASIE graphs, not the doctored versions.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Either find it yourself or do your own analysis as Tony Heller did.

        All you need is the max and mins since 2006.

        Treat yourself to some evidence for a change and give yourself a rest from being all mouth and no brains.

        • Stu says:

          You drongo,
          As I thought you can’t. And Tony Heller alias Steven Goddard is not a good source. Funny business that, why use an alias in science circles? Did you know his quals are degrees in elec engineering and geology. Not much climate there. So I don’t trust his figures and neither should you.

          For other folk reading here, if there are any, the following link takes you an interesting take down of Patrick Moore’s climate talk for a trumped up outfit pretending it is a uni.


          I know the correct source for the data you can’t provide it is NSIDC and MAISE. The words I quoted come from there and they directly and authoritatively debunk the figures you quote from the didgy sites.

  • spangled drongo says:

    When you are too lazy to look but simply bad-mouth Tony Heller it shows you up for what you really are.

    An evidence – free blitherer.

    There a many private scientists who have those Masie details and provide similar results.

    Not hard to find.

    And cherry-picking someone’s cherry-picked ad hom on Patrick Moore is similarly pathetic.

    Come up with some substance or give it away.

    • Stu says:

      Tell me again, how do you outdo MAISIE itself. Curious. All these private “scientists” somehow come to different conclusions from the source. But there you go eh. No chance of shifting your view, but future events will in the end.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Well, where are your “different” views?

        The ones I found were all pretty similar.

        Just some levels better than others.

    • Stu says:

      Oh and by the way, not bad mouthing Heller, simply pointing out some facts, giving some quotes and asking a few reasonable questions regarding his bona fides.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Why don’t you trust his figures?

        To say that without any evidence is straight out ad hom.

        Many geologists have a far sounder idea of long term climate than so called climate scientists who get alarmed when the world is still in the bottom quarter of Nat Var for the last 10,000 years.

        And then convince you bed-wetters and crusading kiddies that we have a problem.

        When any rational person can see where the probabilities lie.

        • Stu says:

          Because he is misusing the data from the source to come to a different conclusion, hugely different. I trust the original creators of the data with their conclusions more than someone who does not explain how he manipulated the data to come to his very different conclusion.

          “Without evidence”, really!. See the above para. Who is without evidence?

          And I think you will find it is glaceologists et al who understand the temperature record of the last ten thousand years not geologists, try again.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Because he is misusing the data from the source to come to a different conclusion”

            R U Sirius?

            He is using the data to come to the conclusion the data comes to all by itself.

            You sound like you would prefer him to manipulate it like someone we know.

  • Stu says:

    Have a look at this graph from NSIDC. Interesting. Shows a clear long term declne. And shows how, if you stick with 2006 onwards, where there were the two lowest ever recodings, you appear to flat line. But the full data shows the long term decline. Convince me otherwise, with real data, not the bullshit from Goddard and co unatributed as always.


    • spangled drongo says:

      That’s not Masie data.

      You may as well use the data I gave you in all those peer reviewed papers going back 10,000 years.

      At least you would be getting the facts.

      And here’s some ’70s satellite data NOAA conveniently deleted:


      • Stu says:

        FFS just look at the real source. Why are you afraid to go there and see the real data? Something about vampires maybe or just plain trolling. I am quoting (pointing directly to) real data, you are operating in some imaginary space. But that is how trolls operate I suppose.

        No one else is bothering here, it looks like just you and me and you refuse to confront fact, so we should just end the charade. Cheerio.

        • Stu says:

          Oh but I forgot to mention (quoting NSIDC AGAIN) the sea ice extent for September each year is now approaching half what it was in 1980. But there you go, just facts. You stick to your recent year data to show a false picture. As you have said somewhere previously when mounting a different argument, you need more than a few years to show a trend. Not good at numbers are you?

          • spangled drongo says:

            It still doesn’t dawn on you, hey, stu? [yawn]

            Why do you think they introduced Masie?

            Read what NSDIC say AGAIN:

            “MASIE-NH stands for the Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent – Northern Hemisphere. It is similar to the Sea Ice Index (SII) product in that it is easy to use and gives a graphical view of ice extent in various formats. However, it relies more on visible imagery than on passive microwave data, so the ice edge position will generally be more accurate than that of the Sea Ice Index.”

  • Stu says:

    Feathered friend, read about MASIE (and dodgy fiddlng by your mates) in this article from 2016.


    • spangled drongo says:

      Is that the best data you can come up with?

      The stu-level of evidence! LOL

      It is just a silly, 3 yo, name calling argument with evidence-free opinion.

      From a person-free blog site.

      At least those many who detail Masie and put their names to those graphs pretty much agree.

      And if there is any problem with those graphs Walt Meier isn’t complaining.

      I know who I’d believe.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Hopefully this might slow the Kiddie Klimate Krusade:

    “A brand new Dutch climate sceptic party has swept the field in its first election. New Populist Party Goes from Zero Seats to Largest Party in Dutch Election”

  • spangled drongo says:

    For those who don’t get what the “No Tricks Zone” is all about.

    Some people are hard to help. Just a little slow:


  • spangled drongo says:

    Brainwashed at the blackboard. The Kiddie Klimate Krusade:

    If these ‘striking’ school children were at all informed on the matter that exercises them so much, they would be demonstrating not in Parliament Square but outside the London embassy of the People’s Republic of China:


  • Stu says:

    You did not acknowledge that the radical party elected in the Netherlands is first, foremost, and almost exclusively EURO sceptic. The leader is also a bit of a climate sceptic, but they were succesful because of their anti europe, anti immigration views. The only places calling it a victory for climate denial are guess what, climate denying web sites. Big deal.

    As for this new bit posted, Musser is a god bothering evangelist so I will just ignore what he has to say, it is too influenced by his imaginary friend in the sky.

    And as for the Bergen story, what a load of cods. Bergen is the mist mild city in Norway, very wet, but always a lot warmer than Oslo for example. The reason of course is a thing called the gulf stream/NA drift. That is why the port is ice free. A very poor place to base that story.

    Finally get into your head this debate is not about the small increase in temperature in individual places over the past century. It is about the effect of an increase of the world average and what will occur if it warms much more in the future. Action to change is not to reduce the temperature it is to reduce the future increase in temperature. But that will all mean nothing to you if course.

    There is no further point in dialogue. There are better trolls than you with more interesting discourse elsewhere to joust with.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Sea ice in Newfoundland and Labrador:

    “The worst ice conditions in 30 years

    Durnford and the government do agree on one thing — that the ice this year is incredibly thick.

    Conditions are “the worst they have been in 30 years,” says the statement from the transportation department.

    Durnford acknowledges the ice breakers themselves are having a hard time.”


  • spangled drongo says:

    Al Gore at COP 15, Denmark, Dec 14, 2009.

    The Arctic to be ice-free in summer in 5-7 years:

Leave a Reply