Bushfires and climate change

By January 15, 2020Other

A commenter has urged me not to wait until the bushfires are out before I comment on them. He doesn’t think anyone cares what I think about legalised drugs (I hope he’s wrong) but goes on ‘Everyone is waiting to read your first post on the bush fires and climate change’. He thinks I should illustrate with some current photos of Lilli Pilli, ‘where your old holiday home used to be’. How could I resist such an invitation?

Let me begin by agreeing that these fires have been ‘devastating’ in terms of scale, loss of life and loss of property. The pretty little town of Cobargo, which was first settled in the early 19thcentury, has gone, as have several other villages and settlements. More houses have been lost than ever before, but then there are more people than we have ever had before, five times as many as we had a century ago. If we are to think that these fires are ‘unprecedented’ we have to have a sense of scale. According to the ABC, there have been 140 reports into what caused bushfires, and what ought to be done in future. 

We don’t seem to learn quickly. As Judge Stretton said, in his report on the 1939 bushfires in Victoria,The soft carpet of the forest floor was gone; the bone-dry litter crackled underfoot; dry heat and hot dry winds worked upon a land already dry, to suck from it the last, least drop of moisture. Men who had lived their lives in the bush went their ways in the shadow of dread expectancy. But though they felt the imminence of danger they could not tell that it was to be far greater than they could imagine. They had not lived long enough. The experience of the past could not guide them to an understanding of what might, and did, happen. And so it was that, when millions of acres of the forest were invaded by bushfires which were almost State-wide, there happened, because of great loss of life and property, the most disastrous forest calamity the State of Victoria has known .[My emphasis, and my thanks to Jennifer Marohasy, who has provided a longer extract on her website.]

So, back to the South Coast of NSW. We have owned two houses on the South Coast, one in Lilli Pilli, and then, after we had sold that one, another in Sunshine Bay, or Denham’s Beach or Batehaven, depending on which authority had made the appellation. We sold the Sunshine Bay property in 2014, and really haven’t been back to see how it looks. It was right on the cliff edge, with quite magnificent views, which was in part why we bought it. 

The man from whom we bought the house told us to keep the public land, as well as our own, grassed and short. Some boys, he said, had lit a fire on the cliff edge that had swept through to the house itself. The house was brick and concrete, but I did what he said, and used every fallen branch as fuel for our slow combustion stove. The Council agreed to remove a couple of gums which might fall on our house, but refused to remove a couple more which might have done the same, and allowed me to remove one on our property, at our expense. That was many years ago. In the forty years we had a coast house there a number of fires occurred in the area. They were extinguished without much damage to property and none to life. But the experience of the fires made me wonder why people chose to live in these forests. Fires have been before, fires will come again. Check your soil. If there is black carbon in it, there has been a fire there in the past.

Startled by the commenter’s claim that one of our houses had been destroyed, though indeed the people who bought the Lilli Pilli one demolished ours and built a much nicer house, I rang our real estate agent, who said No, neither property had been touched by the fires. The damage had been done mostly west of George Bass Drive, the main beach-linking road south of the Bay, and of course at Mogo, on the Pacific Highway. I am pleased for both our successors on our properties. It must have been an incredibly scary time. For those who lived along Dunn’s Creek Road and on to Mogo, I have great sympathy. That I would never have lived in those parts, because of the trees, makes no difference.

Now let’s look at some of the statements of this commenter. They are typical of what we have been hearing daily for weeks now. The urge to find scapegoats of one kind or another has been immense.

The BoM has announced that 2019 was Australia’s hottest year on record. Yes, but the ‘record’ starts in 1910. There seems to have been an even hotter year in 1909, and we don’t have records for the hot seasons of the 19thcentury.

It was also Australia’s driest year on record. Maybe so, and as Mandrake’s giant Nubian slave might have added, ‘mebbe so not’. I would add, ‘so what?’ What does that tell us about what happened and what we should do in future? It sounds scary, I accept that.

Canberra, where you live, recorded its highest temperature on record (44 degrees), and is now also experiencing its worst air quality on record (from the said worst bush fires on record). Canberra’s records are even shorter in length than those for Australia, and it now measures 50 km from the northwest to the souttheast. The ACT’s health officer has pointed out that the smoke, while a problem, is free of the sort of particulates that make the air in Delhi and Beijing hazardous to everyone. As for all these records, there has been an increase, irregular but persistent, in temperature for the past century and more, so new records can be set every day, and may continue to do so until this warm phase is followed by a cool phase, as has happened many times in human history. Warming is generally good for all eco-systems. Why is it a worry?

The bushfires and climate change   Conventionally, ‘climate’ is the average of thirty years of ‘weather’. Whether ‘climate change’ is good or bad depends on what aspect of weather and climate you are interested in. In terms of temperature the world is a little warmer than it was a century ago. Is that good or bad? Significant or insignificant? It depends. ‘Climate change’, per se, does not cause bushfires. Carbon dioxide molecules, if you think that CO2 or greenhouse gases are central to ‘climate change’, do not wander around causing fires. They can’t do it. Do they make things hotter? Maybe a bit. The jury is still out on that one, after forty years. Would imposing a carbon tax or something like that, have stopped the fires?  No, that’s too long a bow to draw.

Yet, to say it again, at times like these people feel somehow that someone must be to blame, and the principal target has been our Prime Minister, who so far as we know lit no fires but went to Hawai’i for his holidays, in retrospect an unfortunate decision. What caused the fires? A long dry spell, though not the longest or driest on record, years of forest litter, other fires’ spreading, dry lightning and arson. No doubt the promised Royal Commission will try to put numbers to all these potential causes. They will be rubbery.

So what would I do? First, make sure that there is a grassed area of real size between settlements and forests. Keep the grass down with sheep or goats. Second, insist that people who want to build in forests have their houses insured. If they don’t, then they should not be given publicly-funded help if their house is destroyed. Third, keep the forest litter down as far as is possible. Fourth, stop thinking that our native trees are wonderful things. They’re not, for they need fire to regenerate, and fire is bad for human beings. If you plant trees, choose deciduous ones, which are much better for Australians.

Will that stop fires? No, they are part of our eco-system. But if properly managed, these measures would reduce the frequency and heat of the bushfires we will have in the future, save some lives and some property.

ENDNOTE: James Murdoch has apparently criticised his father’s media interests for denying the link between climate change and bushfires, despite the ‘obvious evidence’. That’s what I think the ABC said this morning. I can’t find an exact quote on line. But if he did say that, it would be nice if he said what the obvious evidence is. As far as I can see, there isn’t any at all.

Join the discussion 268 Comments

  • Peter Ridd says:

    Well said Don. I think the smoke from the fires has cause a new form of psychological disorder in all you southerners. It is understandable, but it will pass. We just need to wait until the smoke blows away and it finally rains. Hopefully we can then have a rational debate. I suspect that the obvious exaggeration of the effect of a small increase in temperature over the last century will become more obvious. Let’s hope we do because if we continue to fail to learn the lessons, some of which you allude to today, we will kill more people in the future. Peter Ridd

    • Aert Driessen says:

      Thanks for the comment Peter, I’m a big fan of your and admire your courage, leadership (if only our pollies had some of that), and tenacity. The only embellishment that I would add is to bold, underscore, and italicise the word ‘Hopefully’. I’ve been waiting for over 20 years for a rational debate, and still waiting. As I see it, the only way to fulfill our hopes is to have a Royal Commission with focus on the ABC and BoM as purveyors of false news, much more serious than just inaccurate comment. I see their contributions as more deadly than the dry litter on the forest floor. At least that can easily be removed where there is a will. Keep up the good work.

  • Karabar says:

    It is completely unfathomable that people buy into this idiotic notion that atmospheric carbon dioxide is in any way, shape or form responsible for or even related to the temperature or the weather. There is simply no reason to imagine such nonsense, and shitloads of evidence to the contrary.
    One of the most easily comprehended explanations for this can be found in this article, and in the “overview” in particular.

    • Chicken Little says:

      By denying the existence of acorns, all you unbelievers will die!

      And you will cause the premature death of millions of children, and little puppies, and baby deer … when the sky full of acorns finally collapses on all our heads.

      All the literature says, or at least the parts of it that I read, that acorns exist, and one definitely fell on my head.

  • bb says:

    Well said Don what really irks me about “Climate Change” is that it is being used to beat up on the populous in fact. It is used by the Greens to say nothing can be done about the fires we must reduce emissions. This is causing hardship and won’t diminish the fires.

  • Neville says:

    To reduce dangerous bushfires we must reduce the dangerous fuel loads and follow up for many years and require that everyone has a larger area cleared around houses that are close to trees.
    Reducing our co2 emissions is ridiculous and can never, ever make a difference in 10 years time or 100 years time. Just look at the data and evidence to prove the point.
    Africa has just experienced flooding because of a strong positive IOD while we have suffered from bushfires and drought because of the same IOD that just caused the African floods. Is any of this really so difficult to understand?
    And a 2019 la nina would’ve been handy as well. But I’m afraid they’re the breaks we have to endure, the same as 100 years ago or 200 years ago or …..

  • Stu says:

    Don, as always you provide a thoughtful well written essay, and as always I agree with some of it but not other parts. Thus is the nature of opinions.

    Regarding facts and temperatures here is what the BOM wrote in. 2018.

    “Australia’s climate has warmed just over 1 °C since 1910 leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events.
    Oceans around Australia have warmed by around 1 °C since 1910, contributing to longer and more frequent marine heatwaves.
    Sea levels are rising around Australia, increasing the risk of inundation.
    The oceans around Australia are acidifying (the pH is decreasing).
    April to October rainfall has decreased in the southwest of Australia. Across the same region May–July rainfall has seen the largest decrease, by around 20 per cent since 1970.
    There has been a decline of around 11 per cent in April–October rainfall in the southeast of Australia since the late 1990s.
    Rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s.
    Streamflow has decreased across southern Australia. Streamflow has increased in northern Australia where rainfall has increased.
    There has been a long-term increase in extreme fire weather, and in the length of the fire season, across large parts of Australia.”

    And I would add that the temperature changes, which a significant trend, match the global changes.

    As to Ridd’s assertion that small changes don’t matter I would point to the relatively small difference between now and the calculated global temperatures during the ice age. We do not really know but as with the assertions by many here that we should take greater precautions with the forests, perhaps we should also be more cautious about climate change than simply dismiss it as nothing to worry about.

    • dlb says:

      If you look at the BoM’s climate changes maps there has been a 50 to 200mm decrease in annual rainfall for the eastern States since 1970. This would definitely be having a drying effect on the forests. But if you look at the data since 1900 there is almost no change in rainfall, which would tend to indicate the last 50 years are part of a dry cycle that has happened before.

      Summer maximum temperatures in eastern Australia since 1970 have increased by 0.75 to 2c. This is much higher than global averages. Though I doubt this would be having a major effect on fires. Dryer vegetation could produce higher temperatures by reduced transpiration of water.

      Surprisingly, pan evaporation rates have broadly stayed the same in eastern Australia since 1970.

      I have also heard of paper that says over the past millennia 30 year droughts are not uncommon in Australia. I will have to check this paper out.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Stu, Just because the BoM says things doesn’t make those things ‘facts’.

      A warming of 1 degree C does not necessarily lead to ( = cause) an increase in ‘extreme weather events’, unless that is simply a tautology.

      What is a marine heatwave? This is the first time I have seen this phrase.

      The oceans have not warmed very much at all. The oceans around Australia are not ‘acidifying’ — that is a scare word. Inasmuch as there is any change, it is that the oceanic pH is faintly less than it was.

      Rainfall and streamflow have many different measurements. The second half the 20th century seems to have been a bit wetter in Eastern Australia than the first half, and so on.

    • Boambee John says:


      “Australia’s climate has warmed just over 1 °C since 1910″

      Don actually addressed this point in his post. This is statistical legerdemain, choosing a start point that “proves” what you already believe (or wish others to believe). I note that the BoM selects other start points to discuss rain.

      The statement that “The oceans around Australia are acidifying (the pH is decreasing)” is quite dishonest. The sea is becoming less alkaline, but that is quite different to becoming acidic.

      Still, I am glad to see you apparently supporting a precautionary approach to the forests. Does this mean that you support my suggestion on the ABC thread for a 5 kms intensive land management space around Infrastructure and centres of population? There is, of course, a huge difference between fuel loads in an intensively managed forest and what environmentalists pompously call “wilderness”. Intensive management would lead to large changes, that do matter.

  • Chris Warren says:


    “Warming is generally good for all eco-systems. ” is a political statement.

    Science may well show that warming ‘up to some point’ is good, but without this condition, your statement must have been generated by other motives.

    There is no scientific evidence that there was a hotter year in 1909.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Chris, what I said is not a political statement, for plants, animals and humans all prosper when it is warm, and have trouble when it is cold. If you can think of exceptions that are other than trivial, please point them out.

      If there is no scientific evidence that there was a hotter year in 1909 (plenty of historic evidence that it was likely), then the same can be said for the BoM’s ‘estimates’ of average temperature from 1910 onwards. You can’t have it both ways.

    • Boambee John says:


      “There is no scientific evidence that there was a hotter year in 1909.”

      Define “scientific”. If yoy mean measured byva thermometer, tgere is ample such evidence for many years before 1910.

  • David NB says:

    – Useful plants to assist in protecting homes from fires: https://apsvic.org.au/fire-resistant-and-retardant-plants/
    In sandy soil Myoporum Insulare has proved a great tree that, as it grows, can be pruned to form a shady canopy. It grows around a meter a year in difficult conditions.
    – Arctic sea ice, at the moment a little below average: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/category/daily-image/
    – I remember a newspaper report around 1991, after Kirner in Vic lost power, reporting a senior leftist saying the left would take over the public service in order to implement its agenda. See also American Thought Leaders – The Epoch Times, How Communist Ideology Infiltrated America’s Security Agencies & Fueled Spygate—Diana West, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM34-eOgcHs

  • Doug Hurst says:

    Thanks Don – agree that.

    My biggest bitch is with the press who don’t ask the obvious questions.

    1. When you say climate change, do you mean things are different now than in the past, or are you also implying the change is from human production of CO2 from burning fossil fuels and we could have prevented this change?

    This is an important question, because it also relates to the idiotic beliefs that by his deliberate lack of action the PM contributed to the drought and fires and closing our coal-fired power plants would somehow improve things now and in the future. It also related to the equally stupid labelling of people who know the climate has always changed as ‘climate deniers’. This leads to the next obvious question the press don’t ask:

    2 When you accuse someone of being a climate denier, what do you mean?

    3. Why do you think that if we stopped mining our 400 million tonnes of coal each year the rest of the world would not simply buy coal elsewhere to meet the current appetite for 7 500 million tonnes pa, or that China and India would change there plans to increase coal consumption for the next 20 years or more?

    4. Why is the focus on electricity production when merchant ships use vast amounts of fuel oil each day and could mostly be nuclear powered, just as USN carriers, cruisers and submarines have been for years with no detriment to the crews or the world at large?

    5. If we did what you want, what change would it produce and how would you know?

    6. What evidence do you have that CO2 is a major agent of climate change, not the sun and the oceans?

    7. When you say a temperature is the highest, lowest or whatever ‘on record’, why do you ignore the geological record that paints a picture of far hotter and colder past times with no consistent correlation with CO2 levels? Which leads on to:

    8. Do you think that 1910, when the BoM started it’s current data base, was the ideal climate for the Earth, and if not, why do you care if we have deviated a degree or so?

    There are more, but that would be a good start.

  • Alan moran says:

    Great post Don. But if you were still leading an academy would you have written it without a bow to climate change? And if not why are you unique within an academic establishment that views the fires as resulting from Australia failing to do more?
    All so depressing to ese the descent into superstition

  • John says:

    I frankly don’t care about climate change (either natural or man-made) because I can’t see that a temperature increase of about 1 degree over 70 years is any major change. (Yes, the records show greater warming than that, but those records are corrupted by incorrect temperature data adjustments.) As for the drought, Australia has had them in the past, sometimes for several decades back before the arrival of the Europeans, and doubtless we’ll have them again.

    The issues as I see them are:

    1. – Councils and state governments not allowing the clearing of fire fuel from around buildings and property. Does the council think that people who like the bush enough to want to live near it are going to clear more than what’s necessary?

    2. – Locking up forests, which means that 4×4 enthusiasts, loggers and forest workers can’t keep fire access tracks open and in decent condition. Again the government doesn’t seem to trust these people to do the right thing. Loggers aren’t going to threaten their own livelihood and 4×4 enthusiasts aren’t going to set out to destroy the bush they like driving through and camping in.

    3. – (In Victoria at least) Fires that started from lightning were often allowed to burn, even when the forecast a few days ahead was for hot and strong winds. Some of the main Gippsland fires just after Christmas were started by dry lightning on Nov 21st. Some of the fires in north-eastern Victoria at the moment started from dry lightning on New Year’s day. Some say it was too difficult to quickly extinguish those fires as if that’s an excuse (and I’d like to know how difficult it’s been for people who lost their houses, farms and livelihoods, not to mention friends’ lives). Others argue that we didn’t have the water, but surely a small fire just takes a few helicopter buckets to extinguish whereas a large fire requires far more water.

    4. – Insufficient fire fighters (again in Vic). Forest fire fighters are put on contract over summer by the relevant state government department, to fight fires on government land. This summer the number is down by 33% on last summer’s number, probably because the state government can’t afford them. Last year the contracts ended on March 31st but final pay didn’t come through until September; the government even sent out letters asking if any were in financial hardship and in desperate need of the money earlier than September. (All this is no rumour. I had it directly from one such firefighter.)

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    Research by Dr Weng Cai et al. (CSIRO) during the past decade has identified the Indian Ocean Dipole as the “main driver” of Australia’s heatwaves and droughts.

    “The connection to bushfire conditions is very strong,” Dr Cai said last week. “They are much more strongly connected to IOD than to El Niño.”

    There have been 11 negative (good) and 10 positive (bad) IOD events between 1960 and 2016, based on Bureau of Meteorology data. There is no good data prior to 1960.

    My conclusion: there is clearly no causal relationship between the observed IOD negative-positive switching pattern over the past half century and the 27 per cent increase in global atmospheric “carbon” (dioxide) emissions – from 317 to 403ppm – over the same period.

    Carbon dioxide emissions – whether national, regional or global – therefore do not determine IOD behaviour (type, frequency), and hence Australia’s bushfire vulnerability.

    IOD behaviour is unpredictable and determined by natural climate variability, not a consequence of so-called “human-induced climate change.”

    Be wary, therefore, of model “projections” – so often promoted as “predictions” by the MSM and others – in the IOD space.

    Take modeller claims – Trenberth, et al. – that they know how to distinguish the so-called “human-induced” component of climate change – whatever that means – from natural variability cum grano salis, with a pinch of salt.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Science says there was no warmer temperature in 1909.


    This is fake news being spread by denialists.

    • Boambee John says:


      “Science says”. No, modelling says, that is not the same as “science”. Which version of Acorn was that? Acorn seems to change every so often. Is that because the earlier versions were faulty, or simply didn’t produce the desired result?

      But I suppose alarmists gotta alarm!

      • Chris Warren says:

        No modelling … ignore this denialist fakery.

        • Boambee John says:

          It would be much more productive to ignore the alarmist fakery.

          • Boambee John says:

            For those unfamiliar with the process, the BoM has produced two versions of Acorn (neither of which apparently include any data before 1910).

            The first version adjusted earlier temperature records, rather than simply converting them from Farenheit to Celsius. The later version made further adjustment, some to recent years. These adjustments can only have come through revised assumptions, ie, a form of modelling.

            Those who wish to learn more should go to jonova.com.au, and search for Acorn.

            Note, Chris will reject that site as a den of “denialism”, his code for material with which he disagrees.

    • Kneel says:

      Chris, please go to http://realclimatescience.com to get Tony Hellers take on this.
      You can read about the man himself via the page, but as a primer, this is a guy whom NASA call in when they can’t find issues – the man is somewhat anal retentive, never skips a step, never assumes, always trusts but still verifies. NASA gave him a thank you plaque as “bug king” for his work. Very thorough.
      He has both records that BoM have decided are no good, as well as media stories and other corroborating evidence that suggests it almost certainly was hotter in the late 1800’s – I don’t recall that in the last few years we have seen Kangaroos and birds die from heat stroke as was reported at that time.
      The real question here is: why do BoM ignore records prior to 1910, even those that are documented to be from similar equipment in similar housings to what they do trust? I would have thought they would cite this with a large error margin, not just ignore it.
      In my view, there are only two possibilities: incompetence or malfeasance. Neither is acceptable in a department that has a significant impact on our economy.
      BoM needs to quit playing politics and get back to studying and trying to accurately predict weather.

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    January 15, 2020 at 4:09 pm

    “Alice what is your background, if you don’t mind my asking?”

    Neville, thanks for your question. I have an MSc and DIC from Imperial College, London; a major in geophysics in my BSc (Hons) and pure also mathematics II.

    Take a look at IOD data on BOM website. The above point will be clearer.

    In 2009 some modellers made a brave call: their “projected IO warming pattern” would “continue to manifest as an increased frequency in pIOD occurrences”.

    However, based on actual empirical data the proceeding years showed no such trend: a nIOD in 2010, 2014 and 2016, a pIOD in 2012, 2015, 2018 and 2019, with a “spurious’ pIOD in 2017. In any case, extrapolating three or so years of pIODs is surely insufficient to infer a trend.

    A late 2018 paper by Chang Hui and Xioa-Tong Zheng, titled “Uncertainty in Indian Ocean Dipole response to global warming: the role of internal variability”, admitted “the response of IOD to global warming is quite uncertain in climate model projections”.

    Paul Homewood and others agree: “it has nothing to do with [dangerous anthropogenic] climate change. Inevitably attempts have been made to link its strength with global warming, but there is simply not enough data to make such a deduction.” (Not a Lot of People Know That, January 5, 2020)

    • Neville says:

      Alice thanks for that reply and I thought perhaps you would have such a background.
      You’ve given me more to think about, thanks very much.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Thanks Don.

    Apart from the one in my reply to commenter Reg who requested this post, there are a few scientific articles that investigate our historic droughts going back long before recorded history. They all tell us that, like other countries around the world, Australia has had worse droughts in recent history than any we have recorded since settlement.

    Here is another:


    Dry periods that follow good seasons, particularly during a positive IOD, always result in serious bushfires and when, through green pressure, we also fail to observe the logical steps to prevent these bushfires, the result is very predictable.

    Climate alarmists using this situation to push their warmist barrow is a very unscientific argument.

  • Stu says:

    Don and Co, I continue to be dismayed by the ready willingness to totally dismiss the words of specialists in the field in favour of amateur (what other word is there) views of complex scientific matters. It reminds me of a teacher I know who remains perplexed by the utterings of parents who feel they know all about the education of their children because they once went to school. For my part, I profess no professional knowledge of the issues of climate science, but I do claim to have some ability to read science and differentiate between valid and spurious claims.

    Yes I know, you will point to scientists with different views, but how many of them are acknowledged experts in any of the diverse fields of climate science? Yet Don says “Just because the BoM says things doesn’t make those things ‘facts’.”. That is pretty strong stuff.

    As someone joked today, if you are sick – see a doctor, if you need legal advice – see a solicitor, if your car is broken. -see a mechanic, but in this space if you need advice on the climate see an ex furniture salesman (or many of the other amateurs here). For those slow on the uptake I refer to the MP Kelly.

    We are fully entitled to our opinions on the subject but should be wary of claiming the expertise to discredit the words of major, respected institutions, both government and academic without considerable, respected information to back the claim.

    One small step from disrespect for institutions to disrespect to government itself and the rule of law.

    • Boambee John says:


      “As someone joked today, if you are sick – see a doctor, if you need legal advice – see a solicitor, if your car is broken. -see a mechanic, but in this space if you need advice on the climate see” a mammalogist/paleontologist (Flannery), an economist (Garnaut), a psychologist (Lewandowski).

      I could go on, but perhaps that is enough for even you to get the point?

      • Stu says:

        Get a life mate. The people you quote are bit players just like yourself (except they perhaps have a more cred than you). Whereas there are very many credible scientists speaking on this subject. So, please, you should get the point.

        • Boambee John says:


          “Bit players”? So who are the big players? Upside down Mann, Climategate Jones? Pray tell us, so we will know what other bit players to ignore!

          PS, love your deference to authority. A hypothetical for you. The minister for defence comes to PM Stu, with a paper from the military chiefs, wanting to double the Navy, triple the Army and Air Force and quadruple the defence budget. Do you 1. Call in the treasurer, and order that the money be found, or 2. Ask for review by PM&C?

    • spangled drongo says:


      Do you consider that there is some conflict in the BoM talking and promoting warming when their website shows that mean sea levels have not risen during their lifetime of 105 years?

      When major institutions or anyone else including you have been unable to list or produce any weather or climate event happening today that cannot clearly be shown to have occurred during the recent period of civilisation, where is your proof that we are experiencing human-caused climate change due to our CO2 emissions?

      Your total “science” is based on assumption, not evidence.

      Particularly when these institutions indulge in adjustments, ignoring and removal of long term historical data.

      We have had many past enquiries into bushfires and come up with good solutions but they have been ignored because they contravene the green ideal.

      The more you go on about CAGW the less chance we have of ever developing a system for preventing these bushfires.

  • Stu says:

    BJ, SD, your posturing shows the shallowness of your knowledge and your susceptibility to falling for the misinformation presented by “commercial” opponents of the fact of CAGW. You have been and continue to be duped. Think for a moment on the scale of the conspiracy required to pull off the false hoods you claim across so many scientific bodies, get real.

    As for that being any block on working to avert future fire catastrophes, that is just stupid.

    Meantime it will soon rain, the land will green, and you will chortle “told you so” only for us to step up to the next shelf of the climate stairway and we start all over again, but perhaps too late to be able to achieve any real progress at halting it.

    As I said before you are hell bent on drastic action to stop fires, in case, but have no concept of preparedness for further climate change and preventing it. Hypocritical at best, devious and evil in intent and outcome at worst. Not really worth talking with. At least Don writes well.

    • spangled drongo says:

      All your false “hoods” require, stueyluv, is a leftist mental attitude which is so very well rehearsed in much of the education and MSM system today.

      It’s known by sceptics as brainwashing and groupthink.

      What? You haven’t encountered it yet?

      Also your complete lack of any evidence other than assumption helps to reinforce these false “hoods”.

      If only these “hoods” could be used to smother the bushfires instead of fanning them.

    • Boambee John says:


      I once thought that you might be an intelligent man out of his depth in science. Having read your post of 2222 yesterday, I must conclude that you simply lack the breadth of intellect to question any statement by any (carefully selected) person or institution which you believe to be “authoritative”.

      You did not respond directly to my comment that the BoM statement that “The oceans around Australia are acidifying (the pH is decreasing)” is quite dishonest. The sea is becoming less alkaline, but that is quite different to becoming acidic”. Yet, with your passionate rejection of “disrespect for institutions”, you implicitly defend an institution which made, and as far as I know has not retracted, a statement of scientific nonsense.

      One does not need to be an Einstein to have an understanding of the difference between acidic and alkaline, and the pH scale, yet it seems that many of your “very many credible scientists speaking on this subject” either do not understand such simple concepts, or are willing to turn a blind eye to gross misrepresentation.

      As for your “scale of the conspiracy required” remark, I have commented previously on your ignorance of the working of bureaucracies. You continue to demonstrate it.

      Your final point, that “As I said before you are hell bent on drastic action to stop fires, in case, but have no concept of preparedness for further climate change and preventing it”, ignores many points that I have made previously.

      The most important is that, assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct about CAGW, it is quite clear that nothing that Australia can do in terms of reducing CO2 emissions will have any impact on what (you believe) will happen. It is also quite clear that neither China nor India will divert from their present course. Therefore, if you are correct, our only sensible course of action is to adapt to the inevitable. Build sources of reliable, continuous electric power (nuclear??), increase water storage, etc. I have gone through it all before, you have ignored it all before.

      PS, this thread is about bushfires. Discussing action to stop (more realistically, reduce the impact of) them is a logical subject for the thread.

    • dlb says:

      Duped by who Stu?

      If we are duped it is by a handful of middle aged to old white men and women who run websites like this. Hardly the big commercial conspiracy the alarmists would like to think.

      In Australia I suppose you could argue that if you worked for News Corp, the Libs or the IPA you are being paid to promote climate scepticism. As far as the big fossil fuel companies go, they are so woke now you would never guess they were in the business of “destroying the climate”.

      On the other side we have the orthodoxy championed by most academics, a majority of politicians, many companies, half the commercial media, and of course the ABC. Many of the people who work in these areas are handsomely paid to proselytize the cause. Of course I also shouldn’t forget the Extinction Rebellion provocateurs who have been upping the temperature in a different way.

      You are brainwashed if you think the commenters on this site are hypocritical at best, devious and evil in intent. Many of us have sincere doubts about the magnitude of AGW or if it is a problem at all. Unlike many in your camp I will admit as a sceptic I could be wrong. I don’t know how old you are, but when I went to primary school we were told fables about an emperor and his new clothes, a king and tides, and a boy who cried wolf. These stories resonate with me strongly to this day.

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    Richard Feynman: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
    address “What is Science?”, presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, in New York City (1966), published in The Physics Teacher, volume 7, issue 6 (1969), p. 313-320

    Once upon a time gods – or goddesses – “controlled” the climate, witches the weather. James I wasn’t very happy when the latter interrupted his honeymoon voyage home from Copenhagen in 1601. Today millions believe the fiction that we can control both by turning down the carbon dioxide “thermostat” as if it were an independent variable in a chaotic system. Hubris worthy of a Greek tragedy.

    Fortunately, two “whistle blowers” recently admitted that climate models are “not fit for purpose”. Tim Palmera and Bjorn Stevens did so because they want bigger supercomputers and more money. Perhaps they also sense the sector is fast approaching – or already is impaled on – the pointy end of credibility.

    “……for many key applications that require regional climate model output or for assessing large-scale changes from small-scale processes, we believe that the current generation of models is not fit for purpose.”

    “By downplaying the potential significance that model inadequacies have on our ability to provide reliable estimates of climate change, including of course in terms of extremes of weather and climate, we leave policy makers (and indeed, the public in general) ignorant of the extraordinary challenge it is to provide a sharper and more physically well-grounded picture of climate change, essentially depriving them of the choice to do something about it.”

    “What is needed is the urgency of the space race aimed, not at the Moon or Mars, but rather toward harnessing the promise of exascale supercomputing to reliably simulate Earth’s regional climate (and associated extremes) globally.” (Source: The scientific challenge of understanding and estimating climate change. October 21, 2019)

    This presumably means that despite decades of modelling and billions spent already, there remain significant “modelling inadequacies”. Have we been duped for years, if not decades?

    • Chris Warren says:


      The answer to your question is (on behalf of the vast majority); “NO”.

      The answer to your question is (on behalf of the few remaining denialists); “YES”.

      • Boambee John says:


        To borrow from Mandy Rice-Davies, you would say that, wouldn’t you?

        Alarmists gotta alarm!

        PS, what is your opinion on the BoM statement that “The oceans around Australia are acidifying (the pH is decreasing)”? Is it an accurate representation of scientific reality, or is it exaggerated and misleading?

  • Karabar says:

    A couple of decades ago, when folk were enamoured by the space race, the phrase “It ain’t rocket science” became “cool”. Anyone with an ability to apply logic and reason in an unusual manner could be regarded as a “rocket scientist”.
    There is no such thing as “rocket science” or “rocket scientists”. Science is science, full stop. The applied scientists who put real science to work are the engineers and technicians and astronomers who enable rockets to propel telescopes and cameras into space.
    The CAGW hoax hijacked this reverence for the term “rocket science” and made “climate science” “cool”. There is no such thing as “climate science”. Please investigate the meaning of the term “climate” which is an appraisal of the weather in a certain geographic locale over a period of thirty years or more and assigned a classification in order to compare with other locales. Science is science, full stop. People who study the atmosphere in general and the weather in particular are atmospheric physicists and meteorologists. Almost to a man such people regard CAGW as the absurd hoax that it is. There is no such thing as a “climate scientist”. Only activists and alarmists.

  • Neville says:

    Gosh I think it’s time to link to that Wiki countries co2 emissions page and graph AGAIN.
    Stu just never seems to wake up but I suppose we’ll just have to keep on keeping on.
    We’ve asked him endlessly how we should mitigate his so called CAGW, but he just runs away and hides.
    Please look at China, India and other countries trend lines and explain to us how we can change anything?
    I’ve given you the very simple co2 level numbers ( 1989 350 ppm 2019 about 412 ppm) repeatedly but you still tell us we ( the OECD ) must do something.
    If you know how to stop China, India and developing world from increasing their emissions you seem to want to keep it a secret.


    • Chris Warren says:

      More idiotic trickery from our denialists.

      If every nation responsible for our level of emissions claimed exemption or dragged the chain, over 27% of global emissions would continue to rise on their current trajectory.

      This by itself would doom the planet to a climate catstrophe even if China disappeared.

      Our denialists really are brain dead stupid.

      • Boambee John says:

        More sophistry by alarmists.

        To the extent that CO2 affects the climate, it does it as an element of the global atmosphere, measured in parts per million. It does not do so on a per capita emissions calculation, presumably to be measured in kilograms per capita.

        But, feel free to adopt your own solution, and convert your personal lifestyle to one that matches world average per capita emissions. I doubt that we would hear from you again, as the electricity required to charge and operate your electronic devices could use up your share, leaving nothing for food and clothing!

        Oh, you meant everyone else should adopt that lifestyle. Not you, your continued participation in the anti-CO2 campaign means you must be exempted?

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Stu above says that I and others ‘totally dismiss’ the work of specialists in the field. I don’t do that, at all. I subscribe to and read websites that are from the ‘alarmist’ side, to see what they’re saying. They do include scientists who are actively promoting what I would call the ‘orthodoxy’, which has as its goal the ending of our dependence on fossil fuels on the ground that if we don’t there will be some kind of runaway heating of the atmosphere.

    I do not take seriously any of the pronouncements of the learned academies that follow this line for three reasons. First, no learned academy has ever called for a vote from its members, so the statements are made by the executive. In the case of the Australian Academy, the statement was devised by a group that included people who were not Fellows and were known alarmists, like David Karoly. Second, there was a concerted effort to dragoon the Academies into support for the IPCC and its reports early on, which I know from my own contacts with the Academies. Third, there is a lot of money involved which has gone to the Academies and their programs supporting the orthodoxy. Since the Academies exist in part to attract money to science it makes no sense for them to do otherwise than support the orthodoxy.

    Finally, and whether you like it or not, there is an abundance of refereed articles that do not take the alarmist line, and there have been recent studies of alarmist papers whose work simply can’t be verified. In short, there is no clear distinction between ‘reliable’ and ‘unreliable’ papers in this field, which simply has no core of knowledge. As somebody else has noted, people come into ‘climate science’ from whatever field they have studied, physics, chemistry, meteorology and so on.

    • Stu says:

      And the Bureau of Meteorology?

      • spangled drongo says:

        “And the Bureau of Meteorology?”

        Ah, yes, the BoM.

        Such pillars of honesty-in-science, hey stu:

        “The scientific revolution rejected unnatural causes to explain natural phenomena, rejected appeals to authority, and rejected revelation, in favour of empirical evidence. Today, the biggest threat to science is from the sophisticated remodeling of data, known in climate science as homogenization.

        An analogy can be made between the remodeling of scientific data, which is now common in a variety of disciplines from conservation biology to climate science, and “fitting up” people the police know to be guilty, but for whom they can’t muster enough forensic evidence for a conviction. This is also a form of “noble cause corruption”.

        When will they accept an audit, do you think?

        • Stu says:

          I was not asking you, I was referring to Don’s reply to my post. I still think it is a big call to rubbish a professional outfit, without serious proven justification and have not seen any here.

          As for the “acidification” you are being over pedantic again. The concept of the lowered Ph leading to ocean “acidification” is in widespread use by the science community around the world. Like your views on climate change you are once again part of the tiny minority.

          • Boambee John says:


            “The concept of the lowered Ph leading to ocean “acidification” is in widespread use by the science community around the world.”

            And you scream “conspiracy theory” at any suggestion of world wide coordination of “climate science”!

            The pH scale goes from zero (very acidic) through 7 (neutral) to 14 (very alkaline). Dropping from, say, 12 to 11 does not make a solution acidic, just less alkaline, just as increasing from 3 to 4 does not make it alkaline, just less acidic.

            That the “science community” (or is that just the “climate science community”?) uses such loose terminology says all that needs to be said.

      • Boambee John says:


        The BoM? The masters of the deceptive “ocean acidification” claim?

        Get back to us when they learn the difference between “acidic” and “less alkaline”!

  • Neville says:

    Geeeezzzz I see “upside down Mann” thinks that Aussies could become climate refugees because it will soon be too hot for us to live here.
    But we can mitigate this problem by using more S & W and ditching coal and fossil fuels. We should also ignore those terrible fossil fuel barons and we could then make a difference and return to a nicer climate.
    Gosh and we’d achieve this just by reducing our co2 emissions. Those emissions are just 1.1 % of global emissions, so 1.1% of the 60 ppm since 1989 = 0.66 ppm over the last 30 years.
    Gee I didn’t know it would be this easy and how wonderful our electricity grid would be and no more very hot days/weather/climate to worry about. SARC
    But even Labor doesn’t think we could cut all our emissions, so the 0.66 ppm would be much less even if we were mad enough to try such a loony strategy.
    Meanwhile the developing countries will happily build hundreds of new coal fired stns for decades to come.


  • Neville Gardner says:

    Two volcanoes lowered the early satellite temp data and Dr Spencer calculates that this lower beginning could have added a 40% higher trend since 1979.
    The 2017 Christy, McNider study also came to the same conclusion.


  • Karabar says:

    This little ditty puts short shrift to the CAGW nonsense.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Here are the countries with emissions over half % or world total and less than 2% (includes international air travel).

     United Arab Emirates
     Spain,  Andorra
     France, Monaco
    Italy, San Marino, Vatican City,
     United Kingdom
     South Africa
     World – International Aviation
     Saudi Arabia
     South Korea

    Denialists would have all these countries trying to exempt themselves using the too little to impact trick.

    All for the sake of their own greedy self interest ion the short run at a catastrophic cost for their own progeny.

    Denialists be damned.

    • Boambee John says:

      Alarmists be damned until they adopt a personal lifestyle that emits less than the global per capita CO2 emissions level!

      • Boambee John says:

        In another sleazy alarmist trick, Chris apparently “forgot” to mention that many of the countries on his list are already exempt, because they are developing nations. As well, both China and india, as “developing” nations are not only exempt from cuts, but have approval to keep increasing their CO2 emissions for at least the next 10 years.

        Chris also “forgot” that some nations on that list are major users of nuclear power, which he opposes for Australia. We could readily reduce our CO2 emissions, and get highly reliable, continuous electric power, if we also used nuclear power.

        Alarmists be damned.

    • spangled drongo says:

      We know you don’t have a clue, blith, but please don’t keep proving it:

      “In a normal world, if environmentalists cared at all about carbon dioxide, Australia would be the star of the Kyoto Agreement. Instead, when nearly all the major nations are failing to meet their Paris agreements, plus the US has left, Indonesia has threatened to, somehow when we are one of the only nations trying to keep up with this game, we are the big evil polluters?”


  • spangled drongo says:

    I wonder how much the “Carbon Farming Initiative” contributed to the bushfires and what happens when your emission reduction fund gets burnt out?

  • Hi Alice

    Thank you for your contribution- one question I have is what was the IOD between summer 2010 to 2013. In those two summers,especially in 2012, it rained every week in Adelaide. I did not have to water my lawn.

    Are we able to control the IOD to green the middle of Australia and reduce the hot summers?
    Neville please chime in as well.

    • Neville says:

      John we definitely can’t control the IOD. But the later 20th century decades on have seen more rainfall in WA ,the NT and SA.
      And 2010, 2014 and 2016 were all NEG IOD years and here’s the link to the BOM IOD page and see years since 1960 at the bottom.
      Missing years are the IOD neutral years where rain tends to move north to India etc.
      2010 was also a la nina year and the heaviest rainfall in the MDB since 1900. And 2016 was also a MDB flood year.
      Also remember that IOD usually starts to set by the end of our winter and usually does its thing by the end of spring or perhaps early DEC.
      Then it doesn’t have much influence until the following late winter. But Africa certainly received a lot of rainfall this time from the POS IOD.
      A pity it wasn’t a NEG year for us and then we would have had more rainfall from late winter to late spring. It all depends on whether the ocean temps are warm enough to evaporate the water and carry it over to SE OZ.
      The line south of Broome to Wollongong is usually referenced but sometimes goes higher.
      Thanks again to Alice for her comments.


  • Boambee John says:

    However much alarmists might say that they do not rely on computer modelling, their “projections” of future environmental doom must come either from models or from the fevered imaginations of the alarmists.

    In that context, this comment came from a friend who spent many years in computer programming.

    “Re Global warming/Climate change, I know nothing about the science, but I do know how computers work. If the analyst can’t specify down to the last nitty-gritty bit how a program is to use the data to do the required calculations which are thoroughly verified by much time and testing of said program to produce known results, then the old GIGO comes into effect. Not one of the scientists of any description can say how the climate works, so a model/program is just so much wishful thinking/garbage.”

    Alarmists be damned.

  • Stu says:

    The Don had this to say earlier.

    “Rainfall and streamflow have many different measurements. The second half the 20th century seems to have been a bit wetter in Eastern Australia than the first half, and so on.”

    As he was rubbishing BOM I thought it relevant to share something else written by them that runs counter to his “evidence”. I do wonder at the quality of the fact checking of posters on this site.

    “ Declines in streamflow have also been observed in four drainage divisions: the Murray–Darling Basin, South East Coast (Victoria) and South East Coast (New South Wales) (which include Sydney and Melbourne), and the South Australian Gulf (which includes Adelaide). In each of these drainage divisions between two thirds and three quarters of streamflow records show a declining trend since the 1970s.“

    There is similar stuff regarding rainfall patterns creating the above stream flow information.

    Similarly I note the dismissal of the ocean warming (quite counter to recent reports of the great amount of heat being absorbed) and the “pH….faintly less than it was” seems typical of the too easily unsubstantiated dismissal of serious science.

    • Boambee John says:


      “Serious science” would never confuse “acidic” with “less alkaline”.

    • Boambee John says:

      PS, I note that the BoM, according to your quote, still uses a different base point for rainfall/streamflow to the one that is used for temperature.

      More statistical legerdemain? Why is this done? What is the scientific reason?

      • Stu says:

        What are you talking about?

        • Boambee John says:


          If you cannot understand the simple concept of comparing like with like, you should just sit back, observe, and learn, rather than displaying your ignorance.

          Using diffefent start points for different elements of the matter under debate is a dishonest statistical trick. Is that clear enough for you?

          • Stu says:

            Irrelevant in the context of what I posted. And not worth arguing about, you are a nit picker.

          • Boambee John says:


            Not nit picking, the point is extremely relevant to what you posted, but you seem to lack the intellectual depth to understand that.

  • Boambee John says:


    I must apologise to you.

    I have allowed Chris to provoke me into joining his childish name calling. I realise that this causes you some angst, and will try to ignore his foolish game in future.

    Again, my apologies.

    • John Stankevicius says:

      Neville, once again thank you. Disappointed we are unable to control the IOD so that every year was a 2016, 800mm in Adelaide.

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    Stu: “Similarly I note the dismissal of the ocean warming (quite counter to recent reports of the great amount of heat being absorbed) and the “pH….faintly less than it was” seems typical of the too easily unsubstantiated dismissal of serious science.

    Note this critique: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/14/the-ocean-warms-by-a-whole-little/

    “There’s a new paper out. As usual, it has a whole bunch of authors, fourteen to be precise. My rule of thumb is that “The quality of research varies inversely with the square of the number of authors” … but I digress.

    In this case, they’re mostly Chinese, plus some familiar western hemisphere names like Kevin Trenberth and Michael Mann. Not sure why they’re along for the ride, but it’s all good. The paper is “Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019“.

    So here’s the hot news. According to these folks, over the last sixty years, the ocean has warmed a little over a tenth of one measly degree … now you can understand why they put it in zettajoules—it’s far more alarming that way.

    Next, I’m sorry, but the idea that we can measure the temperature of the top two kilometers of the ocean with an uncertainty of ±0.003°C (three-thousandths of one degree) is simply not believable.”

    • Neville says:

      Yes Alice and “upside down Mann’s” inclusion should be a big red flag for anyone, see Steve McIntyre, Dr Mueller, Dr McKitrick, Dr Christy, Dr Curry etc criticisms of this clown over many years.
      But of course he is the US Dem’s no one choice as their go to science guy and again that should add many more red flags to the above.

    • Stu says:

      Alice, that is not my field, and it appears not yours either, or for that matter Eschenbach. I think the latter claims expertise in psychology and massage.

      You miss the point, as does Willy, that the oceans as a whole are huge and stable. Most of the extra heat retained within the system by the greenhouse effect has been absorbed by the oceans. As a result the change in energy potential appears small in total but is massive in actuality. On the graph he so carefully reengineered one unit is equivalent to 18 times the total energy consumption of mankind in a current year. Elsewhere you can find references to the equivalent number of Hiroshima bombs going off every hour.

      But that is ok, because you people on the far right continue to think that the ocean is a fine place to deposit sewerage and other junk and that the earth’s resources are infinite etc. Do you still think the same regarding the water resources in Australia?

      • Neville says:

        Stop your silly nonsense Stu. BTW here’s Dr Muller’s criticism of Mann and how he used a blatant “trick to hide the decline” in Briffa’s previous proxy data.
        Don’t forget he refused to hand over the data to Muller etc until the emails were leaked and among them “his hide the decline trick”.
        Dr Briffa was not amused although Dr Jones seemed to enjoy the fun and the trick.
        BTW Dr Muller also believes that the emails were leaked by some person who may have been part of this group. See video.
        I also think that Mann was told to drop the litigation against Dr Tim Ball, because of the fear of further info and perhaps highly respected scientists giving evidence to support Dr Ball.
        Here’s Dr Muller’s “hide the decline video”.

        • Stu says:

          Oh please not that hoary old idea again. It has been discredited so often that even the smart denialists no longer refer to it.

          Also, you do realise that Muller went on to recant? You have presumably heard of the Berkeley Earth project that set out to prove that AGW was all false, funded strangely by fossil fuel money. The funny thing is that it reaffirmed the findings of Mann and Co,

          Here is a good paper by Muller and others from 2013.


      • Boambee John says:


        “Elsewhere you can find references to the equivalent number of Hiroshima bombs going off every hour.”

        Perhaps you might provide us with an “Hiroshima bombs per hour” estimate of solar radiation on the earth, just for comparison purposes?

        • Stu says:

          Once again you appear to demonstrate no knowledge of the global claim mate system. When the earth is in equilibrium, think Holocene, the energy inflow is balanced by the outflow. When something changes, through volcanic action, orbital change etc, there is an imbalance until the system adapts to the new situation. In the current time frame 20th and 21st centuries, the major disturbance is the emission of an amount of CO2 (that the earth had very neatly buried over 100 million years) in a hundred years that has altered the system. More of the solar radiation is now being retained by the earth rather than re-radiated to space, net result it is getting warmer, the land, the air and the oceans. In other words AGW. This is deliberately a very simplified explanation so you can follow it BJ. Meantime try some research, go and find the number and then rethink your opposition to solar and wind power.

          • Boambee John says:


            “the global claim mate system.”

            A Freudian, but accurate, description of climate “science”.

            “When the earth is in equilibrium, think Holocene,”

            So, do you deny the existence of cycles affecting climate, such as Milankovitch, thermohaline, et al, during the Holocene? You claim to have identified a period or periods of climate stasis? Who knew, Stu is a climate change denier!

            And you really have no idea about an “Hiroshima bombs per hour” estimate of solar radiation on the earth, just for comparison purposes do you? So you have no idea about the relative significance of the “ocean heating” equivalent number, do you?

            You are flapping about like a headless chook.

  • Neville says:

    Australia’s northern wet season rainfall has been higher over the last 20 years according to the CSIRO.
    What was “upside down Mann” saying a few days ago about Aussies becoming climate change refugees to escape the heat? He should wear a silly wig , baggy pants, oversize shoes and a big red nose.
    That rainfall map of OZ is very interesting.


    • Stu says:

      Please remind me, how big is Australia, how many climate zones does it cover. You are pathetic repeating that kind of drivel.

      • Boambee John says:


        “how big is Australia, how many climate zones does it cover”

        What? Climate zones? Surely you are not challenging the concept of a global climate, with the very important global average temperature? Heresy!!

        • Stu says:

          Surely you have come to grips with the concept of averages by now. Or did you never do any basic statistics in your education? Perhaps you never had an education.

          • Boambee John says:


            When you sink to this kind of personal abuse, you have nothing left to offer.

            The daily temperature range on earth can exceed 100 degrees Celsius, from minus more than 60 to plus more than 40. A global “average” has no scientific significance.

            You do not know my academic background, and i have no intention of enlightening you. It is more fun to watch you descending to ad hom arguments and allegations on (yet another) subject on which your knowledge is minimal.

  • Boxer says:

    To return to bushfires…

    From Wiki, which I must accept does not have the high reputation of BOM as a peer reviewed and completely impartial source:

    “The Black Thursday bushfires were a devastating series of fires that swept approximately 5 million hectares of the state of Victoria, Australia, on 6 February 1851. Twelve human lives were lost, along with one million sheep, thousands of cattle and countless native animals.”
    There’s other interesting information at the site about the conditions experienced that day. with some temperatures and mention of an ember attack on a ship 30km out to sea.

    So an area similar to the total area burnt along the east coast this summer (about 6 million hectares) was burnt in Victoria, in one series of fires.
    This area was about 20-25% of the entire state, at the time when Victoria was still technically part of New South Wales. Must have been caused by early coal mining around Sydney at the time.

    In 1974-75, Australia wide, there were 117 million hectares burnt in Australia, which was about 15% of the nation. Most of it occurred in remote areas. So this tends to be overlooked as insignificant, but only from the human perspective.

    It’s not that the current fires are insignificant, because they obviously are, but it does illustrate to me that humans, while important to humans, are puny in the overall scheme of things. We are actually not the cause of everything. The Club of Rome and many other catastrophist movements throughout history have always put us at the centre of everything.

    Carbon emissions may be of some significance, but in the current state of hysteria, we will never determine how significant, or not, those emissions are. Hysteria is not meant to be a characteristic of science.

  • Stu says:

    “Carbon emissions may be of some significance, but in the current state of hysteria, we will never determine how significant, or not, those emissions are. “

    Explain how the “hysteria” (presumably you mean in the media and politics) will determine the outcome of scientific research into the significance of emissions. Science is science and as they say “in the end there is still gravity”.

    • Boambee John says:


      You are (for a change) quite correct. Hysteria will not “determine the outcome of scientific research into the significance of emissions.” What hysteria does is impede impartial scientific research, and you are a willing, nay, enthusiastic, participant in impeding that research.

      • Stu says:


        • Neville says:

          Stu can you provide a link where Dr Muller recanted what he said about Mann in the video talk that I linked to earlier?

          • Stu says:

            Here is a quote from the referenced paper of which he is one of the key writers.

            “Our analysis does not rule
            out long-term trends due to natural causes; however, since all of the long-term (century scale) trend in temperature can be explained by a simple response to greenhouse gas changes, there is no need to assume other sources of long-term variation are present. If all of the residual evolution during the last 150 years is assumed to be natural, then it places an upper 95% confidence bound on the scale of decadal natural variability at ± 0.17°C. Though non-trivial, this number is small compared to what our correlation analysis suggests may be anthropogenic changes that occurred during the last century.”

          • Stu says:

            Neville, sorry I pressed send too soon. Here is the article regarding his recanting.


            In it he says “Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming,” Muller wrote. “Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

        • Boambee John says:


          Perhaps you might specify precisely which part of my response is “bullshit”? Or you might refrain from primary school level abuse.

          Is it where I said that “You are (for a change) quite correct”?

          • Stu says:

            Definitely primary but not school. Sadly the problem for science is not public hysteria but political lobbying (funded by groups with a vested interest in the status quo) to curtail and restrict quality research. As an example read up on what has been happening in the USA for the last three years since Trump began appointing fossil fuel linked employees and lobbyists to key roles including the EPA, Agriculture and Interior. The EPA is the classic case where an early move was to eliminate mention of climate change from the main website. Fortunately US law meant they had to archive all the old pages. But at the time there was a huge effort by researchers to offload and backup mountains of research material to ensure its survival. Meantime funds continue to flow to the anti forces at Heartland the GWPF and other groups to sow disinformation. The continued attacks on the credibility of scientists such as Schmidt and Mann is just a further example of that strategy.

          • Boambee John says:


            “Sadly the problem for science is … political lobbying (funded by groups with a vested interest in the status quo)”

            You seem to have forgotten that you regularly assure posters here that the battle is over, we are a losing minority, and that climate “science” is the new status quo. So, I must agree with you that the problem is indeed “groups with a vested interest in the status quo”.

    • Boxer says:

      Science is a fragile human construct, and it is fundamental to progress.

      But as a human construct, it is subject to political influence, and science is itself part of the political sphere. It should be less polically engaged in my opinion.

      Read the initial mandate for the IPCC. It was politicised from the outset, by scientists, because it is another fundamental feature of science that funding comes to a scientist as a result of political lobbying.

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    January 17, 2020 at 8:14 am
    “You miss the point, as does Willy, that the oceans as a whole are huge and stable. Most of the extra heat retained within the system by the greenhouse effect has been absorbed by the oceans. As a result the change in energy potential appears small in total but is massive in actuality.”

    What is “massive in actuality” is the synthetic data: https://www.thegwpf.com/ocean-warming-not-as-simple-as-headlines-say/

    Dr David Whitehouse: “It’s the usual story. It’s the beginning of the year and the statistics of the previous year are hurriedly collected to tell the story of the ongoing climate crisis.

    It’s a badly written paper full of self-justifying statements and unwarranted assumptions that should have been stripped-out by the editor. Essentially there is only one new bit of information in the paper – the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) for 2019 as calculated by the Chinese Academy of Science using a newish technique that fills in places (and there are a lot of them) where there is no temperature data, so one should be careful analysing the output of their model.

    The authors find, unlike many other studies, that there has been an almost perfect linear increase on OHC since about 1986. It is remarkable that the oceans have been able to do this. As one can see from their other figures the increase in OHC has not been uniform globally. The heating has been patchy, mainly the Arctic and the eastern seaboards of continents. How these warming regions, separated by vast areas that have not warmed much or even cooled, have maintained the coherence of a global linear trend of such precision is a wonder indeed!”

  • Boambee John says:

    Roger Underwood, via Quadrant On Line.

    “I reject the ‘blame it on climate change” position because it has two killer flaws: firstly, it ignores fuels, which are the main contributor to uncontrollable fires during a drought; secondly, it provides no practical solutions to the immediate problem. Both of these factors render the climate change argument utterly unsustainable, indeed ridiculous.”

    What solutions which might have an immediate effect do the believers that “climate change” is the cause have to offer? A theoretical reduction in temperature in many decades time if we reduce our per capita CO2 emissions to or below the world average? A great magic wand made of wind generators and solar panels? Or just wishful thinking?

  • Neville says:

    Stu I’ve always understood that Muller believed in AGW, but in the video he told us that mixing up recent measured temp and sticking it onto paleo studies that were dropping since 1961 is not acceptable for any scientist. Particularly when the scientist(s) calls this a trick.
    That’s what I need to see as a recant, not that he suddenly believes in AGW, because he has been a believer for a long time.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, here’s some data on Muller. He certainly agreed that Mann’s Hockey Stick was bunkum but didn’t let that bit of intellectual honesty deter his natural philosophy:

      “Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre’s debunking of Mann’s Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate, “This result should not affect any of our thinking on global warming”‘.


      No wonder our stu IDs with him so well.

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    Fellow sufferers from truth decay and climate sensitivity, note that a remedy is now available. You can purchase a Mann-endorsed toothpaste online from The Climate Store (USA).

    Tired of having people yawn when you start talking about climate change? Are your friends distracted by Facebook when we’re facing a planetary emergency? What they need is Climate Toothpaste – with ANTI-APATHY STIMULANT! This product combats climate change by turning bystanders, deniers and couch potatoes into climate activists! After just one brushing they’ll be calling legislators, marching in the streets and demanding climate justice NOW. (Hey, it happened…)

    Climate toothpaste, n., 1. A paste used for cleaning the teeth, esp. one promoting anxiety about truth decay. Apply with a trowel and rinse twice with noble-cause mouthwash. 2. Example: the anti-apathy oral product with UH-OH formula, launched in October, 2017, at The Barking Dog, Bethesda, Maryland. (Devil’s Dictionary of Climate Change, George Lexicon, 2018, Athena Books)

  • Chris Warren says:

    By posting Muller’s dated video, without mentioning Muller’s later publication – Neville has committed a denialist fraud.

    The decline that supposedly was hidden – does not exist in Muller’s co-authored paper.

    There was no decline and any such trace in the data was temporary and did not reappear.

    Stu is correct in linking to this paper.

    “Here is a good paper by Muller and others from 2013.


    Not only that, but the noisy campaigns by denialists, were all found to be false when Mann’s work was reviewed.

    If there was a decline – it would be visible in fig. 1 and fig. 2 in Muller et. al. (2013).

    Denialists are deliberately spreading lies.

    So the question for our house-denialists is simple;

    “If some decline was hidden – where is it now?”

    Denialists are fools – there was no decline. At this stage, it is (and was) just a manufactured tool of denialist propaganda.

    Muller was a patsy.

    But Neville’s video was even worse. Any honest person could easily use Google to find Richard Muller’s recantation as here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqPuKxXUCPY [and others]

    Notice the different tone from Muller, when he now has to speak with is tail between his legs.

    This fraudulent conduct by denialists who must be damned.

    It is about time,with all the data we now have, that real skeptics followed Muller’s lead.

    • Boambee John says:


      So “Mike’s Nature trick” to hide the decline, referred to in the Climategate emails, was actually a figment of the imagination of various climate “scientists”? Thanks for letting us know that they didn’t actually know what was going on in their own specialisation.

      Good to see some consistency from you, you still fimn amusement from schoolyard insults. Never change, we would no longer recognise you!

      • Chris Warren says:

        The so-called trick was just a simple mechanism to clean-up data, as always happens.

        If it was wrong or actually hid something that ought not be hidden – then the decline would be clear now.

        There is and was no decline – so the steps were entirely correct and have bee validated.

        Only the dumbest of denialists are still sprouting your canards.

        So – no decline – no problem (except for dumbo denialists).

        • Boambee John says:


          “There is and was no decline”

          Again you show your ignorance. The “decline”was in the paleo data. Mann “patched” on some thermometer data to hid the fact that his paleo data, when compared to measured data, went the wrong way.

          The “decline” demonstrated that the reconstructed temperature gradient using paleo data did not match reality once measured data were available. This discredited his hypothesis that the paleo data provided an accurate reconstruction.

          It was not referring to a decline in current temperatures.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          “The so-called trick was just a simple mechanism to clean-up data”
          Absurd and indefensible. No reputable scientist would refer to such a procedure as a ‘trick’.

  • Neville says:

    Forget about these BS merchants, there was a “hide the decline” and there were the emails that mentioned “Mike’s Nature trick”. Whether they like it or not.
    It doesn’t matter how much yapping they want to engage in now, everyone understands very clearly what they tried to pull.
    The proxy temps declined after 1961 and the trick enabled them to fill in with recent thermometer temp to show a continuation of the warming trend.
    Then you have to ask whether their proxy temps were accurate up until 1961, because Briffa’s data then did a rapid decline.

    • Chris Warren says:


      There was no decline.


      There was no decline.


      There was no decline.

      Got it …..

      Nothing was hidden – as if to hide something that existed, but merely to correct the data, as one eliminates errors in data transmission (or clicks in a LP record) or to hide something that did not exist in reality. To leave it “unhidden”, would have produced a false picture.

      So th scientists did what they had to do, and it has been validated by a formal review plus later work by your onetime video star Muller.

      Anyone who says there was a decline – with no evidence IS deliberately lying.

      If there was no decline, then the false and apparent decline artifact in the data should have been corrected – as it was.

      It really is all in your head.

      • Boambee John says:


        “the false and apparent decline artifact in the data” showed that the earlier “proxy” data could not be trusted, because in the overlapping period when measured data were available, the proxy did not match the measured data.


        The proxy data could not be trusted. The proxy was useless. Another proxy, which matched reality when measured data could be compared with it, needed to be found! This might have been done since, but at the time Mann chose to hide the discrepancy!

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Dr Curry’s post in 2011 about hiding the decline and the emails and what concerned McIntyre etc at the time.


    • Chris Warren says:


      Curry probably understands that there was no decline, and Curry has not maintained this stupidity since 2011.

      Again you have just referenced outdated material, that does NOT show there was a decline.

      So remember – there was no decline.

      Has this registered by now?

  • Neville says:

    I suppose the donkey thinks he’ll also believe his silly nonsense if he repeats it often enough.
    There was a decline as mentioned in the Climategate emails and there was Mike’s Nature trick as well.
    Wake up to yourself.

    • Chris Warren says:


      There was no decline – this was a feature that needed to be corrected in the data – and it was corrected.

      If there was a decline that was hidden -it would have been revealed by BEST project headed by your favourite video star.

      You are a denialist – so you and you kin, will make anything up that suits you.

      You will even make up an imaginary decline.

      If you really think there was a decline was it:

      – an aberration in the data? or

      – a real decline?

      You do you have no idea and care not?

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu and Chris

    Would it be possible for you to divert for a short time from your fascinating perorations on the general subject of climate change, to focus instead on practical proposals to mitigate the effdcts of bushfires in the short (next 12 months) term?

    • Chris Warren says:

      Boambee John

      Whats upset the Boambee? Why does it want to restrict issues?

      Is it because Neville has made such a fool of himself?

      Or does Boambee think there was a decline that should not have been corrected?

      You cannot mitigate the effects of climate change, all you can do is salve the hurt that is wrought.

      • Boambee John says:


        As usual, you fail to comprehend what was written.

        The request was to “divert for a short time” to the subject of the thread, which is bushfires. The “hide the decline” material might be interesting, but is not the subject directly under discussion.

        If you have nothing of value to say about “practical proposals to mitigate the effdcts of bushfires in the short (next 12 months) term”, then say so and return to your peroration.

        You say that “You cannot mitigate the effects of climate change, all you can do is salve the hurt that is wrought.” Climate change and bushfires are not synonymous. The subject is bushfires!

        Does the statement above mean that you can see no means to mitigate the effect of bushfires for many decades, until your ideal level of CO 2 might, perhaps, possibly, maybe, is reached? You see no value in fuel reduction? You see no value in attempting to reduce the numbers of fires caused by deliberate or accidental human action?

        Or do you copy Stu, and fling your hands in the air in despair?

        • Chris Warren says:

          Boambee John and Neville really are making fools f themselves.

          If one denialist presents an irrelevant, redacted video as somehow relevant, that does not mention bushfires, why would another denialist try to cover for them with some other confusion???

          Do bushfires link with Neville’s video?

          Do bushfires link with the “hidden decline” lie?

          If Boambee wants to complain about being exposed – then he is best complaining to Neville who posted the original video.

          We have here – two peas in a pod, and the pod is decaying on the ground, threatened by approaching flames from fires they thought would never happen.

          What is their next trick???

          • Boambee John says:


            You really are a monomaniac. Try to broaden your outlook a bit, it will make your posts less boring and repetitive.

            “why would another denialist try to cover for them with some other confusion???” Perhaps because the “other confusion ” is the primary subject of the thread, though your reading comprehension seems to be too poor for you to understand that???

            Far from thinking that fires “would never happen”, like many others I have watched the decline (there’s a word for you) of good forest management with dismay. I forsee that there will be more devastating bushfires unless improvements are made. But you seem to have nothing practical in th way of improvements to offer there, so please carry on with your obsession.

            PS, you write “If Boambee wants to complain about being exposed”. I checked my zipper, I am not exposed, but thanks for your consideration.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Latest loony statement from a denialist.

    This from Boambee John;

    “Again you show your ignorance. The “decline”was in the paleo data. Mann “patched” on some thermometer data to hid the fact that his paleo data, when compared to measured data, went the wrong way.”

    Crazy – anyone can go back and look at Neville’s silly video and they will see clearly that the decline was explicitly data from 1961.

    1961 was NOT paleo data.

    This just shows how denialists simply make up fake facts and are completely incapable of delving into serious issues. Those erstwhile denialists that can, have recanted now that we have the necessary data.

    So why did this Boambee make up its rubbish?

    is that it did not even look at the relevant video?

    Did not understand it?

    Has no concern about the facts?

    This fakery from denialists, is why we have to damn them for the noise they are injecting.

    Who else thinks 1960’s data is paleo data ?????


    • Boambee John says:

      Chris again does not read what was written.

      The proxy data (from tree rings) produced a simulated temperature record that formed the basis for the “handle” of the hockey stick. Unfortunately, the proxy data showed a decline when thermometer records showed an increase in temperature. The “modern” proxy data were replaced by the thermometer record to produce the rising line of the hockey stick.

      Rather than look for a better proxy, the modern record was used to “hide the decline”.

      Dose of reality: if the measured empirical data and the reconstructed proxy do not match, the proxy is wrong.

      Any useful thoughts on mitigating bushfires, or is your obsession with climate change too powerful?

      • Chris Warren says:

        Now what is this Boambee John going on about? Is this the “next trick”?

        The fake decline was specified by Muller – not Boambee John.

        Boambee is in a world of its own – hiding in a burrow of its own..

        Why the switch from 1961 to “paleo” and associated junk statements with no evidence or sensible references.

        Why don’t they admit that there was no decline as argued by Muller ???????

        Obviously there was no decline and the, now debunked, “Climate Gate” provocation was just another denialist dirty trick.

        No wonder they want to talk about anything but Neville’s video.

        Has Neville retracted his video?

  • Neville says:

    BJ leave the donkey to his delusional nonsense, he really doesn’t understand any of this.
    Here’s Steve McIntyre on the Mark Steyn show ( NOV 2019) telling us how Mann’s HS was changed after the proxy data was changed to modern temp data to produce an increase in temp.
    This is referred to as “Mike’s Nature trick”in the emails and also “hide the decline”.
    See McIntyre at 46 mins 35 seconds explanation.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Amazing – Neville’s latest video makes the same false point as is (now) rejected by Muller.

      Only very, very slow learners would conduct themselves like this. Particularly dense denialists will probably claim this is all about a paleo decline.

      Repeatedly producing denialist videos claiming the was a decline that was “hidden” – when there was no decline, is absurd.

      Just piling up fake news from one denialist on top of another does not make fake news into science.

      There was no late 20th C. decline. If there was, it would be clearly apparent in the data. But denialists do not need data – they have dogma.

      Truely – both denialists do not know what they are talking about, and are simply regurgitating dated, false commentary from denialist websites.

      it is all fake from start to finish.

      • Boambee John says:

        Repetitive, boring.

        Alarmists live in their own “enclosed” world, and have nothing practical to say about mitigating the effects of bushfires. They spend their time arguing how many CO2 molecules can dance on the head of a pin!

  • spangled drongo says:

    Poor silly blith is in denial that his prized hockey stick has been thoroughly debunked and totally removed from it’s once proud position as the climate alarmists’ sign of delusion.

    They had to do this to maintain any cred at all.

    But not our blith.

    Never mind blith, in spite of the world returning to normal, here’s a new disaster for you alarmists to bed-wet over:


    • Boambee John says:


      The amazing thing is that the climate cabal reconstruct history, and the acolytes immediately fall into line to promulgate the “new” history.

      It reminds me of the history of relations between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The Germans were eeevvil in the minds of communists world wide until the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed in August 1939, when they became fraternal socialist brothers. Communists world wide immediately fell into line, and denounced the early stages of WW II as a plot against the workers. Then on 22 June 1941, the Germans again became eeevvil, and communists world wide fell into line to support WW II. Mindless!!

  • Neville says:

    Here Steve McIntyre reviews Brandon Shellenberger’s E book on the Mann fiasco. But he also highlights many of the other books that supported his efforts to expose the upside down fool.

    Remember there were so many scientists that opposed what Mann was doing that Mark Steyn wrote a book using the quotes from many of them. Unbelievable but true.

    Here’s a short piece about the Shellenberger book, plus some of the other books links that agreed with Steve and Ross McKitrick. BTW good comments at Steve’s link by Shellenberger and others.

    Wonderful that so many people were concerned enough to write books and expose this fool. Here’s the link and comments.


    “A couple of years ago, Brandon Shollenberger wrote up a lengthy review of Mann’s Hockey Stick Wars at Lucia’s. Brandon has fleshed out his review in an ebook here. Brandon summarized the book as follows:

    “there is a great deal of misinformation, and even disinformation, polluting the airwaves. One prime example was world renowned climate scientist Michael Mann, and his book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines. Mann’s book contains many errors, misrepresentations and outright false statements. Responses to his book have been limited primarily to the blogosphere where the average person will never look. Even worse, those responses have been disjointed, broken up across many web pages and scattered throughout numerous discussions. This book is the first part of an attempt to bring together those responses to create informative counternarrative which allows people to quickly get up to speed on the infamous hockey stick controversy while correcting much of the misinformation present in Mann’s book. It covers about half of the hockey stick controversy in slightly over ten thousand words.”

    Other books on the incidents are, of course, Andrew Montford’s Hockey Stick Illusion and Hiding the Decline; Steve Mosher and Tom Fuller’s The CRUTape Letters; Fred Pearce’s The Climate Files; and Rupert Darwall’s The Age of Global Warming, as well as fictional accounts of events by Mann and Bradley.

    Brandon’s objective was to focus on deceptions in Mann’s Hockey Stick Wars and does not attempt to cover the same ground as the other works. Brandon’s work is also influenced by the interest in 2014 in connection with Mann v Steyn in itemizing the most direct misrepresentations in the Mann corpus, some of which, as Brandon observes, Mann has unrepentantly repeated for over a decade. For example, Brandon observes about Mann’s bizarre Excel spreadsheet fabrication: “Despite this correspondence being readily available for a decade now, Mann has continued to repeat his fabricated story about a spreadsheet error. This demonstrates an apparent pattern of deception consistently found in Mann’s book and other writings.”

    Take a look.

    “I regret not giving more coverage to the earlier works. Because their coverage of me was so favorable, I felt somewhat abashed in endorsing them, but, in retrospect, I should have done so”.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a very funny talk by Mark Steyn at the Heartland conference a few years ago.
    He talks about Mann etc and how he’s waited for years to have his day(s) in court. But he is a very funny bloke and everyone thinks that Mann must have lost his reason to sue Steyn in the first place.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Great stuff, Neville.

      I wonder if it ever occurs to our blith why Mann beats around the bush so much and never goes ahead with his case against Mark Steyn?

      Could it be that it is because the whole alarmist world might get a big kick in the pants?

      Our blith just doesn’t get [or simply denies?] that if Mann had a case he would proceed with it and cash in but instead he keeps delaying it forever, as the next best manoeuvre.

      When you see climate scientists as dishonest as this [and there are many] the penny would drop for any rational person.

      • Boambee John says:


        “Our blith just doesn’t get [or simply denies?]”

        A world class denialist?

        • Chris Warren says:

          Boambee John

          What is this all about – you cannot use a drongo for anything?

          What did it say?

          I deny nothing – I only use august science.

          Any claim to the contrary is a lie and/or slander.

  • Neville says:

    Here another volunteer fire fighter explains why we must get rid of excessive fuel loads in the winter months.
    He also provides a real case example of why off season burning works so well.
    But when are we going to wake up?


  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    Steyn: on Mann versus Bell case – September 2019

    “A few weeks ago, the indefatigable Anthony Watts broke the news that Dr Tim Ball had prevailed in Mann’s defamation suit against him. As many of you know, the climate mullah’s other defamation suit – against yours truly – is currently in its eighth year in the constipated bowels of the District of Columbia court system. So I was interested to learn the disposition of the Mann vs Ball case, now in its ninth year. Mann had sued Ball for reprising an old joke that the guy belonged in the state pen rather than Penn State. Jessica Alba doesn’t diss him like that, and Doctor Fraudpants sees no reason why anyone else should be allowed to.
    Well, Mann’s suit is now well and truly dead.
    Doctor Fraudpants issued his own response to Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi of the British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision, denying he had lost at all, no way, no how.
    Almost every word of his statement is false, starting with the evasive phrase “dismissal of libel litigation” unmoored from any proprietorship. It was his case, his suit, his action that was dismissed. Truly, the scale of Mann’s lies is the most impressive thing about him. Intriguingly, although the words initially purport to be “our statement”, the fact that they are in the first person – “my claims”, etc – suggests that his counsel, Roger McConchie, a skilled advocate widely respected in British Columbia, was not willing to put his own name to such arrant poppycock.
    So I would urge all those other than his usual doting Mannboys to read the Court’s actual judgment.
    Even a judge is capable of simple arithmetic. He notes that there have been at least two approximately year-and-a-half periods when plaintiff Mann did bugger all – not a solitary thing. Whether or not this is because he dare not cough up for discovery his magic climate-apocalypse formula is a question I leave for another day. But, as a basic principle, a plaintiff has a legal duty to prosecute his case – and Mann didn’t, year in, year out, for nigh on a decade.

    • Chris Warren says:


      If you are going to conduct yourself by slandering people as ” Fraudpants” then you will be paid back in your own coin.

      Why do denialists always slander first and then winge when they cop what they have earned?

      You will join the ranks of a drongo, dumb Boambee, or crazy Neville.

      So mend your speech a little – less it mar your future.

      • Alice Thermopolis says:

        CW: “If you are going to conduct yourself by slandering people as ” Fraudpants” then you will be paid back in your own coin.”

        Had you checked the link provided and noted the quotation marks, you would have seen that what I posted was entirely a quote from a Mark Steyn post.

        That Steyn, a legally-savvy person, was prepared to make such remarks publicly suggests his assessment of the case is correct, at least to me.

        So, like Steyn, I urge you to “read the Court’s actual judgment”.

      • Boambee John says:


        “Why do denialists always slander first”

        Good question. Why do alarmists always use childish insults? Are they not capable of mature debate?

    • spangled drongo says:


      It’s hard to bear the hubris of our blith when he criticises you for doing what he does [and worse] daily, in spades, but very well said.

  • Neville says:

    Don’t forget there’s been no Amicus brief support for the Mann fool from all the usual left wing groups and media because they still believe in freedom of speech.
    The National review, Cato institute and Mark Steyn have their support and yet normally they wouldn’t want to know them at all.
    These groups still believe in free speech and even Steyn jokingly calls them right wing for supporting him etc instead of silly Mann.
    Great to see this fool deserted in his hour of need. But how long before this case gets a boot up their collective backsides and they either start to make a move or perhaps ends the same way as the Dr Tim Ball case?


  • Chris Warren says:

    We now have a linear trend of 0.8C per 40 years.

    This means that those being born today will experience global temperatures over 2C warmer than 1980 with associated sea level rise and disrupted energetic weather systems.

    And the solution to avoid all this amounts to no more than 7-8% of GDP per year.

    But there are too many Murdoch’s and Koch’s in the way.

    • Boambee John says:


      “And the solution to avoid all this amounts to no more than 7-8% of GDP per year.”

      And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you, going cheap at 1% of GDP PA for only 40 years.

      Have you signed up to have your remuneration reduced by 8% per year, to lead by example?

  • Boambee John says:


    I note that you have not offered any practical proposala to mitigate damage caused by bushfires in the here and now, and in the short term future.

    I must assume that you lack the ability to solve real problems, while continuing to babble about theoretical future problems. Obviously, reality is too hard for you.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris “phones in” another drive by post, using the by now standard formula: a snide reference to sceptics as “denialists”, followed by a link to a well known alarmist website.

      He still is strangely reluctant to address the primary subject of this thread, bushfires. Seems that he has no practical proposals to mitigate damage caused by bushfires in the here and now, and in the short term future. Perhaps he simply lacks the ability to solve real problems, but can only babble about theoretical future problems.

  • Stu says:

    I note that a few have dredged up the old Ball v Mann story again with the usual misrepresentations. The dismissal of the case was due to delay and death of witnesses etc and at no stage were the merits of Mann’s action decided on and therefore no implications regarding hockey sticks or any other climate related matter. As Alice said, read the court decision. Obviously Steyn thought no one would actually do that.

    Second somewhere amongst that trove was a link which in turn revived the very bad misrepresentation made here in the past that the IPCC funds climate research, they do not. They barely have the funds for the secretarial services and travel for delegates, who are all employed elsewhere and volunteer their time.

    • Boambee John says:


      Yeah mate, whatever you say.

      What significance do you ascribe to the judge awarding costs against Mann? Is this usual in the circumstances you describe?

    • Boambee John says:


      “The dismissal of the case was due to delay”

      How much of that delay was due to Mann dragging the chain on legal proceedings? Given that he brought the case, surely his reluctance to actually pursue it is significant?

      Take your time responding, those who draft your talking points might need it.

      • Stu says:

        Sure, Mann dithered causing the case to fail and therefore Ball was awarded costs. But the point is Ball did not WIN the case. No case happened. Time for all to move on. It is a bit like the Ridd case. The ruling had nothing to do with climate change, it was all based on a clause in the contract of employment. But again one side then tried to portray it as a huge victory which it was not. I gather JCU may yet appeal.

        • Boambee John says:


          So Mann was so offended that he sued, then didn’t bother to pursue the case? Yeah, right!

          Consider an alternative scenario. Mann sued to shut up a critic who had a good argument, then dithered to keep the case sub judice and cause his critic to incur substantial legal costs, but never intended to actually pursue a case which he knew to be weak? Sound more logical?

          Mann is quick to sue, but seems to hope that simple extended lawfare will cause his victims to settle rather than be bankrupted by legal costs. He minimises his own costs by doing as little as possible, and avoiding actual court appearances.

          • Neville says:

            Another problem with the Mann V Steyn case is that Steyn’s lawyers have counter sued, so I think this might also keep Mr U S Down Mann awake at night?
            Many millions $ involved and if Mann wins the USA will be the laughing stock of the world, because Steyn also used the FR ..D word in numerous media around the world.
            So if Mann were to win the so called “land of the free” would look fairly clueless and totalitarian to say the least. The silly fool can’t be enjoying any of this and he has only himself to blame.

          • Neville says:

            Here’s another true story about silly Mann.
            A few years ago he attacked the Bolter online, implying that he was doing what Murdoch told him to do.
            Andrew told his audience he’d replied to Mann and had given him 24 hours to withdraw the accusation or else he would take action.
            Mann then withdrew his allegation and apologised to Andrew.
            Gotta love it.

  • spangled drongo says:

    And our blith thinks all that warming is down to human and unicorn farts.

    How much is fakery at the bakery? [and compare the last 40 years with UAH]

    And how much is Nat Var,?

    BTW, have you checked the falling sea levels yet?

    You and stu are also dodging the serious bushfire questions:


    Wake up, get sceptical and look around!


  • Neville says:

    Over the last 30 years there has been a 60 ppm increase in co2 emissions and also a vast improvement for people around the world.
    Just check out the many graphs at the link. Let’s drop stupid S&W and build more coal, gas or nuclear power plants ASAP.


    • Stu says:

      Neville, so you finally give us the proof you are nothing but a troll. This time you even surprise me.

      How about watching this video about the causes of the fires. I bet you can’t watch it past the first five minutes. Which is a pity because it is a very good presentation drawing on lots of expertise worth watching right to the end.


      • Boambee John says:


        Good to see you finally taking an interest in the subject of bushfires.

        Now that you are fully educated courtesy of You Tube, perhaps you might give us the benefit of your suggestions on how to mitigate bushfire risk now and in the near future?

        • Stu says:

          No, I freely admit that I am not an expert in that field. Unlike others I an happy to leave that to those who do know what to do. Where do you fit on that scale?

          • Neville says:

            Come on Stu, you must be able to tell us how to mitigate the fire risk?
            Of the 60,000 fires that can occur about 87% are claimed to be started by people, both deliberately and by accident.
            And of course co2 is greening the planet and every continent and while we’ve had a very dry season Africa has had very bad floods.
            So come on tell us your solution,but I believe we should be getting very serious about clearing up the bush and using fuel reduction burns as soon as it is safe to do so.
            In fact it is the only sensible control that is available to us and if we get serious it is the only control that will work.
            But we’ve got decades of neglect to overcome, so it will take many years to win back control.

          • Boambee John says:


            Multiple commissions of enquiry, advised by real experts in the field, have recommended fuel reduction, including by hazard reduction burning. Who am I to challenge their expertise?

            Have you followed up on Roger Underwood and Phil Cheney yet?

            Remember , fires need three elements: fuel, oxygen and ignition source. We cannot control the oxygen; to a degree we can reduce the sources of ignition by jailing arsonists, but we cannot control lightning. We can control fuel levels, and for many years we did so with reasonable success. Indeed, WA still employs that method with significant success.

            Follow the expert recommendations, make it a criminal offence for individuals or governments to hinder hazard reduction, and pursue arsonists vigorously might be good starts.

      • spangled drongo says:

        That video is manipulated garbage, stu.

        You obviously have no experience or idea about govts and authorities just choosing the easy way out and going along with the alarmist green movement when they preach tree hugging.

        For the last 30 years I have had a sizeable farm/orchard occupying all the land between 2 national parks and I have first hand experience with how the state govt has been dodging its responsibilities.

        Also, during that whole period land carers have been busily replanting all the trees that farmers removed in the previous century and with many years of good seasons to help, the fuel load has gone ballistic.

        When you add to that the enormous increase in small acreage residences throughout that huge farming zone, it has been the making of certain disaster.

        From the govt’s POV it has been so easy, cheap, convenient and politically correct just to ignore their responsibilities and reduce staff and admin offices previously controlling this ever-increasing hazard but now it’s come to bite them on the bum.

        The solution is something the said govt’s past admin as well as any person involved with bushfires to any degree easily understands.

        I’ve been doing it since I was a teenager on much larger properties and when you remove the fuel with regular cool burns by back-burning at the right time from cleared fire-trails, the problem is solved.

        There are many months of this “right time” throughout every year for this job to be done. Even during droughts.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville is now a laughing stock.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Here are some believable summer temperatures that go back a little further:


  • Chris Warren says:

    A very good example of a deliberate lie from SkyNews.


    There are plenty of other examples – this is the tip of the iceberg

  • Stu says:

    Neville, no, you lost me at 87% man made. You did not watch the video did you?

    And BJ to what you wrote I say “so what?”. By which I mean I don’t see any problem with fuel reduction, except for the ones like too damp, too hot etc mentioned by Fitzsimons. Watch the video.

    It would appear you are just looking for an argument again.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu, Stu, Stu

      You really, really do not understand how bureaucracies work.

      Fitzsimmons’ bureaucratic empire gains power with an expanding budget and extra personnel. Aerial water bombers are big budget items, with specialised crews. Much more impressive than a patchwork of hazard reduction burns in autumn and winter in terms of press releases and photo opportunities!

      However, they have not really cut the mustard this season, largely because of massive fuel loads. Combined, they could be effective, but his line seems to be suppression rather than mitigation.

      Go read Underwood and Cheney.

    • Neville says:

      Stu you’re a silly donkey. Here’s my source AGAIN showing that of the 62,000 fires per year, 87% are man-made.
      Deliberate arson and accidents or whatever. Will you donkeys ever wake up? I had to spend time schooling the other clueless donkey about U S down Mann and now I have to remind you about data that I linked to just a few days ago.
      Just for you AGAIN and from the lefty SMH as well. Best to THINK before you yap in the future.


      • Stu says:

        I note that the article us very, very short, on sources for his claimed numbers. And supposing his numbers are correct (unlikely) what is new this year, if arsonists are always with us. And please explain how satellite pictures reveal the cause of fires?

      • Stu says:

        Oh and your psych mate is probably lumping house fires in with the bush. Correct me if I am wrong

  • spangled drongo says:

    Over the years there have been 57 govt enquiries into bushfires costing millions of dollars.

    If we can just go back through all those and read the repetition of the conclusions that would be better than any silly new royal commission.

    And while we will never be able to prevent bushfires in this country, we can reduce their severity by following those conclusions.

    And the most important of those conclusions is fuel reduction.

    If only dopes like stu and blith would open their eyes and try assessing the real world from actual observation rather than bladder tremors.

    How long have you two lived in this country?

    Or are you still in high school?

    • Stu says:

      SD, where have you been? Apart from sarcastically suggesting you as a Royal Commissioner, I have not recommended we have one. Likewise what is your argument on fuel loads and hazard reduction. But I have quoted other people including Fitzsimmons who have said it is not a panacea and therefore even where it has occurred may still not stop the development and advance of emergency level fires. You just keep looking for an argument for the sake of it. Try a cup of tea, Bex and lie down mate. Chill.

      • Boambee John says:


        Show us where hazard reduction has been described as a “panacea”. The consistent line has been that to reduce the intensity of fires, fuel must be reduced. That does not say that there will never be fires, rather that they should be less intense.

        If reduction has nor been done for a long time, as with many of the areas burned this season, the “development and advance of emergency level fires” becomes almost inevitable.

        • Stu says:

          I agree with all that, why are you banging on about it?

          • Boambee John says:


            So you agree that state governments have contributed to the scale of the current disaster by being derelict in their approach to hazard reduction? At the same time as you agree with Fitzsimmons that practical problems have prevented much hazard reduction?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu, if you agree with me that hazard reduction is basically and fundamentally essential to keep bushfires to a minimum, just come out and say so.

        And stop blithering.

        When I was claiming that your [and the green] “solution” to “climate change” was precisely what was causing these bushfires, you didn’t deny it.

        But if you have had your damascene conversion, give us an unequivocal statement.

        I’m all ears.

        And somehow I think you are all wind.

    • Boambee John says:


      Have been travelling, so delayed response.

      Chris and (espedially) Stu desperately want those 57 previous reports to be memory holed. They want an inquiry preferably led by the Victorian or NSW governments, stacked with rabid “climate change causes everything” fanatics, who will dismiss the conclusions of all previous reports as faulty (because we just had huge bushfires), and decide that the only practical solution is to have many…many more wind farms and solar farms.

      Ironically, albeit at massive unnecessary expense, this might help. To meet the renewables target, pretty much every ridgeline in Australia would need to be cleared of trees to make space for wind generators, and much of the level ground cleared of trees for solar farms.

      That there are better and cheaper options will be rejected as heresy against Gaia!

      • Stu says:

        As they say when they hear Trump speak Jeeeeessssuuuusssss. What are you on about? This statement of your is once again bullshit

        “Chris and (espedially) Stu desperately want those 57 previous reports to be memory holed. They want an inquiry preferably led by the Victorian or NSW governments, stacked with rabid “climate change causes everything” fanatics, who will dismiss the conclusions of all previous reports as faulty (because we just had huge bushfires), and decide that the only practical solution is to have many…many more wind farms and solar farms.”

        Stop making things up and writing lies, you are as bad as Trump, Jeeeessssuuusss!

        • Boambee John says:


          So you agree that all that we need is a summation of the recommendations of the 57 previous reports, and that measures to mitigate “climate change” are irrelevant to future bushfire management?

          Great to know!

      • spangled drongo says:

        Yes, BJ, that would the only way these solar and wind wankers could come up with anything resembling a solution.

        But yes, apart from the economy destroying effect, it would do more damage to wildlife than bushfires.

  • Stu says:

    Don, please discipline BJ, he has totally lost the plot and is now increasingly offensive, on the nose even. Have a look at the last dozen posts each way and you will see. It does not even help to agree with the dick.

    • Boambee John says:


      You have in the past implied fairly strongly that I am beholden to fossil fuel interests, or that I am a paid shill for them. This is, as I have said at the time, totally incorrect.

      You are in no position to bleat about some leg pulling.

  • Chris Warren says:


    “Chris and (espedially) Stu desperately want those 57 previous reports to be memory holed. ”


    “They want an inquiry preferably led by the Victorian or NSW governments, stacked with rabid “climate change causes everything” fanatics, ”


    I do not want any reports memory-holed and I do not want an inquiry.

    I have never discussed 57 reports.

    I have never discussed any inquiry.

    • Boambee John says:



      Why is it so difficult to get a clear statement from you? Why is it necessary to push you to get a clear statement from you?

  • spangled drongo says:


    Can you beat our blith?

    Never stops bed-wetting about our lack of attention to correct “climate change” and when you assume that is still his philosophy he gets all uppity.

    And stu is doing likewise.

    Could we be having some effect at last?

    Maybe blith got a real fright from those bushfires.

    Just shows to go what stepping out into the real world can do.

  • Stu says:

    Chris, they are just going around in circles because they have run out of ideas and won’t admit it but the debate regarding climate change has left them behind. I suggest we just leave them to their circular fantasy project. You and I know that events (in global climate) have overtaken them, just a matter of time before they and Scomo will look totally ridiculous. It is only in this tiny echo chamber where they appear (to themselves) to make any sense. Even agreeing with them on bush fire issues leaves them confused and rotating, so no point trying. Cheers

    • Boambee John says:


      “Chris, they are just going around in circles because they have run out of ideas and won’t admit it but the debate regarding climate change has left them behind.”

      Let me amend that for you.

      “SD, they are just going around in circles because they have run out of ideas and won’t admit it but the debate regarding bushfires has left them behind.”

      That amended statement is at least as valid as your original. The difference is that this thread is focussed on bushfires, yet it has been necessary to push you and Chris to get any kind of comment from either if you on that subject. Why? Worried that your climate change mates will “disappear” or cancel you?

      You also say “You and I know that events (in global climate) have overtaken them, just a matter of time before they and Scomo will look totally ridiculous. It is only in this tiny echo chamber where they appear (to themselves) to make any sense.”

      Putting aside your reversion to your habit of claiming triumph in relation to climate change, which often seems as if you are trying to reassure yourself, statements like that above beg the question of why you spend so much time in this “tiny echo chamber”. Given your hypersensitivity today, I shall forebear to speculate.

    • spangled drongo says:

      So, stu, you finally agree that the Green solution is not the answer but haven’t got the courage to admit that you were wrong?

      That’s OK, you can go now. Come back when you finally see the light but don’t forget to check those HATs coming up soon.

      Achieving rationality takes a while, hey?

    • Chris Warren says:

      Yes, one time there were issues that needed clarification such as a possible “pause” and the responsiveness of temp to CO2 accumulation.

      There were issues over data that have also been clarified.

      So all we get now is vague statements with no science or increasingly, lies and irrelevant distractions.

      If CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation, then there would be clear science now – so denialists and faux sceptics must scrape the bottom of the barrel to search for alternative, non scientific, issues.

      The latest trick is to misuse Kyoto carry-over credits (which were restricted to carry-over in the next Kyoto period) to paint over the failure to make any progress on Paris targets.

      Denialism is ‘well and truly’ a political device – not a scientific endeavour.

      We now have a linear warming trend and ongoing land ice melt plus record temperatures that denialists and fellow travellers have no reasonable explanation for. All their rhetorical tricks amount to naught.

      I now have a huge database on denialism and so-called skepticism and will be making a presentation, with a co-sponsor, at the ANU in the near future. Hopefully it will be recorded.

      As the “Canberra Times” editorial said today: – Climate change now impossible to deny [p. 14].

      • spangled drongo says:

        Before you make that presentation in support of all your assumptions, blith, will you be sensible, sceptical, rational enough to check those HATs:


        It’s called evidence.

      • spangled drongo says:

        And your “climate change” that no one ever denies is mostly natural variability.

        You have yet to name one thing currently happening with the climate that hasn’t occurred during the Holocene.

      • Kneel says:

        “Yes, one time there were issues that needed clarification such as a possible “pause” and the responsiveness of temp to CO2 accumulation.”

        The Pause was, and remains, real. It can be covered up if you believe the “pause-buster” paper, but that has more holes than swiss cheese – more “adjustments” that just happen to support their pet theory.

        “There were issues over data that have also been clarified.”

        Yes – it’s clear that errors are not propagated.

        “The latest trick is to misuse Kyoto carry-over credits…”

        No global thinking allowed on mitigation, that only applies to temperatures – we can ignore the global impact and move CO2 emissions around countries so we are the “good guys”. Don’t mention global ice either – you should only look at whatever part is melting, and ignore parts that are freezing.

        “We now have a linear warming trend…”

        Well, I supposed “flat” is linear…

        “… have no reasonable explanation for.”
        Svenmark would disagree, and he has some supporting data for his theory. Not sure it’s right, but not much evidence it’s wrong either.

        Ask Pielke Jnr and Judith Curry what happens if you quote IPCC references, but don’t stay “on message” – both were hounded in a completely unconscionable way for doing just that, labelled as “deniers” for pointing out issues using IPCC data!

        Sorry, it’s “trust by verify” before we spend a lot of public money. CliSci fails on both trust and verification – trust because they have been caught lying multiple times and have failed to correct the record even where they admit mistakes, verification because they keep hiding their data and methods enough to make replication either extremely difficult or impossible.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Maybe if blith’n’stu can wake up on bushfires there is still some hope:


    • Neville says:

      SD keep up the good work, but you’ve got your work cut out.
      I still think this short video from the Bolter is a good one and covers quite a bit in a few minutes.
      The celebs at the end are a joke as always and they even admit they’re hippos, but we should nonetheless take notice of these super wealthy morons.
      And the Labor donkey is speaking to a very less than full house of Reps. Gotta love these fools.
      The SLs at Balmoral beach in the video don’t look to have changed at all since 1905. How can that be will all the melting ice?
      And Gore, Flannery,Prince Charles, Greta, AOC + so many DEMs etc are telling us that SLs will rise by a metre + by 2100.
      Robyn Williams, ABC Science expert ????? believes it’s possible that SLs could rise 100 metres in one hundred years.
      But he’s missed out badly in the last 10+ years, but don’t expect any left wing media to pick him up on his lousy prediction any time soon.

      • Stu says:

        The Balmoral rock SL thing is a complete joke and you know it. In case you have trouble following I will spell it out for you. Regarding those two photos we do not know the day of the year (relevant to the seasonal variation in tides), the state of the tide (high, low, in between), the air pressure (affects height), state if regional weather systems (surge, no surge, negative). Why do you think the Tide tables refer to “predicted heights”! They are quite variable in outcome. Try something else, and not the Dolter

  • Neville says:

    More common sense and very good advice from Viv Forbes about our bushfires and how to reduce the future risk.
    Let’s hope they’re are starting NOW to plan for BIG cool season reductions burns in 2020.
    And let’s hope they’re not planning to stupidly reduce our co2 emissions, unless they plan for zero change at great cost, because China, India etc will be going full bore with coal power into the foreseeable future.
    And please no more bird and habitat destroying wind , plus stupid solar energy, because it will build more unreliability into our grid for a 100% guaranteed ZERO change to temp, climate etc. Just check the data for co2 levels over the last 30 years.


    • Stu says:

      Nev, you wrote “And let’s hope they’re not planning to stupidly reduce our co2 emissions, ….”

      Sorry to disappoint you but that is exactly what the government is planning. Where have you been hiding? Try reading more than the Australian to keep up to date.

      • Boambee John says:


        Good to see that you agree that the government is planning to “stupidly” reduce our CO2 emissions.

        Who was it said that “Stupid is as stupid (government) does”?

        • Stu says:

          Being ultra pedantic again I see. To no avail of course. Get a life.

          • Boambee John says:


            As the philosopher said, “Reading maketh a full man, writing an exact man and conversation a ready man”.

            You seem to read nothing but alarmist propaganda, your writing is regrettably sloppy. I know norhing of your conversational skills, however, so there is some limited hope there!

            Just joking, Stu!

  • Chris Warren says:


    There is no point repeatedly presenting Fort Denison without correcting for the heat expansion of land which moves tide gauges.

    You need to present the actual data with the necessary heat expansion coefficients for tide gauge materials and foundation. Satellite data does not suffer from this distortion.

    All this has been discussed previously and only drongo was monomaniacial on this. Do you want to act like a drongo?

    You need better sources that partisan websites and Bolt.

    • Boambee John says:


      “Satellite data does not suffer from this distortion.”

      What are the error margins on satellite data?

      • spangled drongo says:


        “What are the error margins on satellite data?”

        Remember Envisat?

        No SLR at all until it was brought into line with the rest of the class.

        But poor fairy-world blith thinks that a satellite that varies in orbits by a kilometre a time and with known faulty reference frames can measure sea levels that vary metres per second, to within 3 mm per year.

        “What are the error margins on satellite data?”

        It doesn’t bear thinking about.

        And our blith as usual insists on living in a fairy fools world.

        And denies the existence of that real world sea level in a stilling pond adjacent to the biggest piece of ocean in the world.

        Which in turn is supported by all the Pacific atolls gaining in size.

        And he has the hubris to say we are deniers. Oh, dear!

  • Neville says:

    Today our local ALP branch wrote a letter to our paper and included all the ludicrous nonsense that the MSM has been spreading for the last 30 years.
    The Coalition should’ve done more to reduce emissions and this would’ve ensured that the drought and fires wouldn’t have been as extreme, blah, blah etc,etc.
    No mention about back burning and reducing fuel loads at all or the IOD or enso or the sam or the recent studies that show droughts were much worse over the last 1,000 years and 500 years with co2 then at 280 ppm.
    I’ve tried to educate these fools but they have no interest in data and evidence at all. Much like our silly fools here who honestly believe we could make a difference if we’d only double our co2 reductions ASAP and engage in more idiocy like S&W.
    They should be embarrassed to even think this nonsense, but these fools actually write letters to the editor proving to every thinking person that they have zero interest in maths and science or the scientific method.
    And boy do these loonies hate Scomo and the Coalition govt and therein lies the source of their delusional outrage. OH and of course no mention of the Andrews Labor govt , who after all are responsible for proper cleanups, back burning and reduction of the extreme fuel loads.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, the kiddy mentality is taking over.

      The coming world has never had to get off their collective backsides and achieve anything, let alone survival.

      Just look at our two marvels here.

      Can’t even be bothered to step outside to see factual evidence contrary to their groupthink, right under their noses.

      Don’t even want to know about the present, let alone history, that’s trying to tell them the real story.

  • Neville says:

    A very good and accurate address by Trump at the world economic forum in Davos.


  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova looks at some of the terrible hailstorms over the last 140 years.
    A big one hit Canberra area a long time ago. But I remember at least one donkey yapping about unprecedented hail on one of the news shows. Gotta love the liars and con merchants as they strive to tell every lie in the book.


  • Neville says:

    No wonder David Packham seemed so annoyed when he talked to Andrew Bolt recently and 2 days ago to Peta Credlin.
    Here’s his 2009 submission ( updated in 2016) to the Vic 2009 Royal Commission into the terrible bush fires and the loss of 173 lives.
    Here we can see how over 138 lives could’ve been saved if Vic had a 15% fuel reduction burn regime carried out over previous years.
    This matches the actual SW of WA results after 45 years of these fuel reduction burns and the Tasmanian modeled data.
    The formula is known as the Byram fire intensity index.
    Part of the puzzle is the forest fire danger index FFDI and measures the intensity in MWs per square metre.
    Plenty of tables to help understand this submission and the graph at the end shows it clearly.
    Of course we have more fuel available for burning today than the Aboriginals tolerated for many thousands of years in the past. They apparently learned by trial and error and in the 21st century we should be using this tried and tested method from 2020 on.


  • Boambee John says:

    LO. Time for Stu, Chris and all the other alarmists to stop calling sceptics “climate deniers” or “climate change deniers”. Bloomberg has spoken! (Via Jo Nova.)

    “Let’s Go Back to Calling It Global Warming
    by Faye Flam, Bloomberg Opinion

    As scientific terms go, “climate change” is lame. It sounds like something created by committee. And it’s hard to understand as a crisis when we also hear scientists talking about ice ages and other natural changes to the climate happening throughout earth’s history. “Global warming” is something people have worried about for years, though. It’s essentially another term for the same thing, but conveys a planet-wide danger.”

    ROFLMAO, “essentially another term for the same thing”.

    Black is white, war is peace, etc!!!

  • Boambee John says:

    The full quote, with attribution:

    “War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.”

    ? George Orwell, 1984

  • Neville says:

    Somebody should tell that Turnbull donkey that Scott Morrison didn’t start the fires and Aussies couldn’t change anything,even if we reduced our co2 emissions to ZERO in 1989. See Dr Finkel, Dr Pitman.
    All SH emissions are sequestered anyway, but if the entire SH stopped all co2 emissions in 1989 the result would still be ZERO return plus incredible pain for ZERO gain.
    The maths and science is incredibly easy to understand but these stupid donkeys HEE-HAWW and plenty more donkeys accept their nonsense as fact.
    The SH emits just 7% of global human co2 emissions and that adds up to just 4.2 ppm of the 60 ppm increase since 1989 and OZ just 0.7 ppm.
    But actually no NET emissions because the SH is a NET (human) co2 SINK, while the NH is the only NET human co2 SOURCE on earth. See CSIRO Cape Grim.
    Since John Howard’s time no PM has done more than Morrison to DIRECTLY help with the fires and even used the Armed forces to evacuate and help people in very dire circumstances.
    Here’s one report about Turnbull’s BBC interview and what a stupid fool he is and a gutless coward and back stabber as well.
    We should thank our lucky stars that we have Morrison in charge and not this delusional lemming.


    • Boambee John says:

      The “miserable ghost” will haunt us for decades to come!

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville and BJ, what a creep that Turnbull is.

      AWA a bumbling nincompoop.

      Abbott and Morrison would play him off a break.

      But don’t the lefty logs luv him.

      Just like they luvved that other failed Lib leader, Hewson.

  • Neville says:

    This is not drought breaking rain, but some parts of OZ have received heavy falls.
    We can only hope that rain continues to fall over the fires and bring some relief for the fire fighters.
    Aussie mateship is known the world over and our fire fighters and their support teams are the best people we have in our country. How fortunate we are to have them.
    Here’s a rainfall update map from the BOM , up to 21/1.


  • spangled drongo says:

    In today’s Australian:

    “We report all the time on what our emissions reductions are but across the country there is not a national system of reporting to track how hazard reduction is progressing,” Mr Morrison said on Tuesday night.

    “These are all responsibilities of the states and I’m not making any argument for the federal ­government to be intervening in any of these areas but it is a very reasonable expectation people have that there are national ­standards, that there is transparency around how this is being achieved.

    “Hazard reduction is as important as emissions reduction and many would argue, I think, even more so because it has an even more direct practical impact on the safety of a person going into a bushfire season.”


    When many states have simply walked away from their responsibilities in this department, this is mainly what any royal commission should be looking at.

  • Neville says:

    The Doomsday clock has been set even closer to midnight, or so said the breathless ABC this morning.
    And of course their CAGW has now joined the doom laden apocalypse to frighten the weak minded fools and the poor kids.
    But I do agree that imbecile led countries like Nth Korea and Iran are of real concern and I wonder how long before Israel steps in and retards Iranian mad mullah adventurism once more?
    If it happens I’m sure that the majority Sunni Muslims will be quietly cheering them on.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Seeing as our blith has no idea of climate science I was going to ask him to put his mum on but maybe she is the problem:


  • Peter S says:

    Another carefully reasoned article Don. Certainly attracted a lot of comments.

    Personally I think there is a much more interesting question than whether or not CO2 emissions are having a small impact on average temperatures (what ever that may mean) and a possible impact on climate. If you look at the mean surface temperature it is incredibly stable over time. Given the energy fluxes from the sun a radiation from the planet there is certainly a very powerful feedback mechanism at play that maintains that stability. Of course, the variation above and below that mean is very large, larger than the mean itself, varying diurnally, seasonally and over decades, and therefore the signal is very noisy. But understanding the question as to what controls the thermostat of the planet I suspect will tell us much more than computer models and observations simulation anomalies.

  • Neville says:

    Angela Merkel tells the Davos meeting that sceptics and believers have to start talking again to find a solution to their CAGW.
    We hope she doesn’t include sensible people and countries following her and Germany’s example?
    Let’s hope somebody points out the 30 wasted years that’s seen an increase of 60 ppm ( since 1989) in global co2 levels and China,India etc plans to build 100s of new coal fired plants into the future.
    Here’s what the wealthy countries should be doing—
    Make sure we have plenty of reliable base-load power and ditch the S&W idiocy.
    Educate everyone to understand where co2 levels are sourced and it’s not the SH, because we emit just 7% of human emissions or about 4.2 ppm since 1989 and OZ about 0.7 ppm of that SH total of 4.2 ppm.
    Obviously the source of the remaining 55.8 ppm is emitted by the NH and since 1989 most if not all has come from developing countries.
    Look up that Wiki data and graph, AGAIN.
    The climate is always changing and we must adapt to cover these changes and not spend money on clueless , unreliable energy sources like Germany and other EU countries have done for decades.
    Aussies must build new dams and step up fuel reduction burning until we have corrected the past decades of neglect.
    We must also educate people to understand how much wealthier and healthier we are today and show the data that proves the point.
    We must also point out that deaths from extreme weather events continue to drop and 95+% fewer people die today compared to 100 years ago.
    Population then was just 1.8 bn and today 7.7 bn and only 10.5% live in the SH or about 0.8 bn people.
    So many people I’ve talked to don’t understand or want to understand any or much of the above and some get very hostile and abusive.
    Here’s the Merkel link.


  • Edward Irvine says:

    Don, you seem to one of the rare commentators who are pointing out that eucalyptus forests are designed by nature to be flammable, so it therefore unwise to have eucalyptus trees and housing in close proximity in bushfire prone areas. My younger colleagues at work – every single one of them – have been astonished to learn this.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s what Jo Nova had to say about a week ago regarding the big drop in Aussie per capita co2 emissions ( drop of 40%) and the reductions per capita of real GDP over the last 30 years. Here’s her quotes.

    “It doesn’t matter what any nation does. The CO2 blame-game is a fashion contest and success is not measured in megatons, but with megaphones.

    Over the last 30 years, the Australian population has grown faster than nearly any other western nation on Earth. At the same time the Australian GDP more than doubled. Despite that and against all the odds of being a large, remote, thinly spread population which makes a living from industrial mining and agriculture and is further on Earth from anywhere, each Australian has reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by 40% each”.

    In a normal world, if environmentalists cared at all about carbon dioxide, Australia would be the star of the Kyoto Agreement. Instead, when nearly all the major nations are failing to meet their Paris agreements, plus the US has left, Indonesia has threatened to, somehow when we are one of the only nations trying to keep up with this game, we are the big evil polluters?”

    Dear Australians, it’s a con, and we are The Mark

    “Our national leaders need to start getting better at negotiating. They undersell our target and our achievements. Isn’t it time to talk “per capita”?


    Over the period from 1989-90 to June 2019, Australia’s population grew strongly 49% ( from 17.0 million to around 25.4 million).
    Australia’s real GDP (chain volume measures) grew 137% expanding from $0.8 trillion in 1989-90 to around $1.9 trillion in the year to June 2019.

    Emissions from the electricity sector are experiencing a long term decline, down 15.0 per cent from the peak recorded in the year to June 2009. Emissions in the NEM for the September quarter 2019 decreased by 1.5 per cent on a seasonally adjusted and weather normalised basis compared with the previous quarter.[3] For the September 2019 quarter, generation from renewables increased 20.3 per cent primarily due to increases in wind generation (21.4 per cent) and solar generation (33.5 per cent)”.

    Here’s the link and see a copy of the graph since 1989 to 2019 from the Fed Govt web site.


  • Neville says:

    Here’s that Fed Govt site that Jo Nova used to quote her data and the emissions graph.
    This is from 1989 to June 2019 and I think this will be updated in March 2020.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Here’s Prof David Karoly who leads the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub in the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program at CSIRO and compares the theory of bushfires being caused by climate change with the theory of gravity.

    “The theory on the human impact on climate change is just as strong, or stronger, than the scientific basis for the theory of gravity,” Prof Karoly told news.com.au.

    It’s hard to believe intelligent people can compare the conclusiveness that dropping a rock on your toe will cause pain with a regular bushfire event that over millennia has been caused by many things, long before human-caused climate change was ever an issue.

    And he doesn’t even mention excess fuel load.

    What chance have we got for a real solution. If it’s not about global warming these doomsters don’t want to know about it:


  • Neville says:

    Here is a 2016 study of global wildfires around the world and seems to be linked to Royal Society publishing. I hope the two Tables are easy to understand.

    But compared to earthquakes and floods human lives lost are very small. This data covers 1901 to 2014 for Table 1 and Oceania is mainly Australia.

    Here’s the link. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/ Oceania

    Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world
    Stefan H. Doerr and Cristina Santín
    Table 1.

    Global comparison of human and economic losses derived from wildfire, earthquakes and flood disasters from 1901 to 2014. (Source: EM-DAT 2015 [83].)
    wildfires earthquakes floods
    no. of events 387 1291 4481
    people killed 3753 2 574 627 6 947 908
    people injured 6812 2 614 875 1 329 923
    people affected (million) 6 190 3604
    risk of death (%)a 0.06 1.4 0.02
    total direct damage (million US$) 54 828 774 771 681 427
    cost per event (million US$) 142 600 152
    cost per person affected (US$) 9138 4078 189
    Table 2.

    Human and economic losses from wildfire ‘disasters’ by global region from 1984 to 2013. Costs are based on the actual value of US$ in a given reporting year. (Source: EM-DAT 2013 [83].)
    no. events people killed total people affected death rate/event economic costs (million US$)
    Africa 25 272 21 672 11 440
    America 118 234 1 229 175 9 25 229
    Asia 50 748 3 188 257 30 11 892
    Europe 89 462 1 295 562 18 12 619
    Oceania 21 224 74 320 9 2121
    total 303 1940 5 808 986 78 52 301

  • Neville says:

    Sorry the above Tables are bloody awful and so are my computer skills, to put it mildly.
    But you can find the easy to read tables at the link.
    BTW Australia’s pop in 1920 was about 5.3 mil people and today about 25.4 mil and that study from the SMH writer claimed that 87% of today’s fires are deliberately or accidentally started by humans is worth considering again.
    Certainly many more people around today to inflict more human misery than 100 years ago.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that SMH article quoting official data. 40% of the fires are deliberately lit and 47% are started by accident.
    So we probably have 5 times as many arsonists today than was the case in 1920.


  • Boambee John says:


    Very interesting article over at Jo Nova, focussing on bushfire intensity.

    “Off the charts: Bushfires may be 20 times more intense than the largest fires humans can control

    Ten times the fuel means 100 times the intensity

    Hardly anyone is talking about these numbers yet they show just how far beyond our control the pyroconvective firestorms are and why we need to be so much smarter at preventing them. They also show how irrelevant temperatures onsite are, compared to fuel load and wind speed.

    Controllable fires are 3MW per meter, but we now have loads of 70MW/m

    Not only are these fires obscenely, catastrophically intense, it doesn’t matter how much fire fighting equipment we buy, how many dams we empty, they are a man-made disaster, and we’ve known for years how to prevent them. (Some would say, thousands of years). The message in here is that cool controllable burns are tiny, less damaging, and far less intense. The pyroconvective monsters are totally different creatures.”

    It is long, but worth your time.

    One of the points it highlights is that once the fuel load passes a certain level, then hazard reduction burns become uncontrollable.

    This might explain the enthusiasm of the retired fire chiefs for “climate change” as an explanation for the current fires. Essentially, if it is not climate change, then they are collectively culpable for allowing the build up of fuel by accepting “environmental” arguments for limiting burns at a time when the fire intensity would have been manageable.

    The response could be to use mechanical means such as bulldozers to break extensive areas into smaller pieces, allowing otherwise dangerous burns. Also, the areas burnt recently now need careful hazard reduction to ensure that the fuel again never again builds up to uncontrollable levels.

    Jo quotes expert fire scientists, and provides lots of references.

    A final point. Perhaps the “Precautionary Principle”, so beloved of radical environmentalists, should be applied to fuel reduction? Do it before it becomes impossible.

    • Neville says:

      BJ it’s good to see Jo Nova take this up and I mentioned this reference to David Packham and Bolt’s interview with him about a week ago.
      I also linked to his work during the 2009 Royal Commission in Vic after the terrible fires and his submission at that time.
      I don’t know how this can be ignored year after year by these morons and they also keep yapping about OZ further reducing co2 emissions as if that would make the slightest difference.
      BTW Bolt had Packham on again tonight for his first return show for 2020 and the poor bloke had to repeat it all again.
      How can we be so bloody stupid and why are our media so clueless when everyone must be able to understand how serious our neglect of cool season burning has been over many decades?

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that link to Jo Nova and the shocking facts about our fires.
    Why are we ignoring these facts and expecting our fire fighters to front up every year to fight fires that are virtually uncontrollable?
    We must put pressure on that Andrews donkey and his Labor govt to start control burns from late autumn to spring until we have brought the fuel loads down to manageable levels.
    If not we should vote these Labor/ Greens idiots out and install a govt who promises to do so.
    And Morrison should pile on the pressure until these Labor fools wake up to themselves. If they don’t make this sensible move he should take this to the next Federal election as a major campaign theme.
    IOW Morrison should treat this as a referendum on whether we should have much more ongoing control burning and I’m sure there would be solid support from voters if they were asked for their support.


  • Neville says:

    Great to see the GWPF take the fight up to the Attenborough extremist, who seems to have lived via some strange fact free fog for far too long.
    When Greta Thunberg was about 9 years old she partly attributes this donkey’s videos for starting her on the path of abandonment of her normal education and developing eating disorders etc.
    But how many more tens of thousands of young kids around the world + ignorant parents have been enticed into this dubious net of half truths, exaggerations and extremist nonsense?
    Their video is very interesting if you can spare 9 minutes.


  • Neville says:

    Dr Roger Pielke jnr exposes the con merchants and fra-dsters in the Insurance Industry and their secret science about so called climate catastrophes.

    These people should be made to answer his questions because all of us are paying higher premiums every time these people are excused for non answers and refusing to hand over their so called data.

    Here’s the link and his article and many more embedded links within as well.

    3,108 viewsJan 25, 2020, 10:12am
    Why You Can’t Trust The Insurance Industry’s Secret Science On Climate Catastrophes.

    “The last decade was the most expensive for natural disasters,” proclaimed Fox News, “over $1 trillion increase.” The Weather Channel announced, “Planet Had 40 Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters in 2019, the Fourth-Most on Record.” However, a close look at the insurance industry report that produced these incredible claims reveals some serious data issues and offers some lessons for when academics and the media should rely on insurance industry data on catastrophes.

    “I have studied the economic costs of disasters and their relationship to changes in climate for more than 25 years. One dataset that I have relied on in my research in recent years has been released by the insurance broker Aon in the form of an annual global catastrophe report, the most recent which was released last week. (Disclosure: I have in the past given several talks at Aon conferences and I co-authored a paper with one of the main authors of the new Aon report).

    The new Aon catastrophe report immediately raised concerns for me because it reported about $3 trillion in catastrophe losses for the most recent decade, 2010 to 2019, whereas Munich Re, which has been tracking global catastrophe losses for many decades, reports only about $2 trillion in total catastrophe losses over the same period.

    Catastrophe loss estimation involves many uncertainties, and Aon explains in their report that they engage in a process of “reanalysis” to confirm past estimates. That makes good sense, but a $1 trillion difference between the estimates of Aon and Munich Re cannot be the result of small differences in loss estimation or a historical reanalysis.
    Today In: Business

    Curious, I explored further, and what I found is extremely troubling, and offers some lessons for all of us who rely on industry data in our work.

    I compared the annual catastrophe loss estimates for 2000 to 2018, as published by Aon one year ago in its look-back at catastrophes of 2018, with estimates for the same years that are included in its new report published last week, looking back at 2019. Much to my surprise the loss estimates for all of these years had changed, and not by just a small amount.

    For weather-related disasters, which comprise the majority of historical losses and understandably are at the focus of discussions of climate change, Aon revised upwards loss estimates in each year. The total increase in reported losses over the past decade from last year’s report to this year’s report was more than $250 billion, after accounting for inflation. That is a huge number — equivalent to three times the total economic losses Aon reports for Superstorm Sandy of 2012.

    Even more troubling, the increases in annual loss estimates are grouped in more recent years, with loss estimates from 2013 to 2018 increased by $133 billion, in just the past 12 months. The figure below shows the changes to Aon’s catastrophe loss estimates from 2000 to 2018 from last year’s report to the one released last week.
    Changing catastrophe estimates

    Change in annual weather-related catastrophe losses in Aon annual catastrophe report from 2019 to … [+]ROGER PIELKE JR.

    There is also a large trend in the size of the changes, which runs counter to expectations of loss estimation techniques, as well as plain old common sense. Catastrophe losses have been increasingly well and more comprehensively reported in recent years than in the past. The notion that more recent data suddenly needs major adjustments, while data from almost two decades ago was largely accurate just doesn’t make sense.

    Via Twitter, I asked one of the lead authors of the new Aon report, Steve Bowen (with whom I had co-authored a paper on hurricanes a few years ago), about these massive year-to-year changes in their data over the past 12 months. He kindly responded right away.

    I asked him to explain the specific reasons why the loss estimates had increased so dramatically in such a short amount of time. He responded in two ways.

    First, he pointed out “loss development” in insurance, as claims come in over an extended amount of time and could result in adjustments to loss totals. That is true, however, of the >$250 billion increase in losses over the past decade that appeared in the new Aon report, only about $20 billion of that increase is in insured losses, or about $2 billion per year. So that doesn’t explain much.

    Second, Bowen cited one event, the 2013 Amur Basin Floods in Russia and China, and suggested that this catastrophe was initially estimated to be a $3 billion loss, which was later revised upwards to “north of $20 billion” based on “government reports.” However, in contrast to Bowen’s claim, an official Russian government study of the economic losses of that flood conducted several years later reported totaled losses of $4.7 billion for the floods, and included some dubious items like economic losses associated with “soil quality.”

    Even further, the entire region in Russia and China where these 2013 floods took place was home to just 170,000 people, which would imply a loss of about $120,000 per person for a total event loss of $20 billion. In comparison, the per capita loss associated with Hurricane Harvey’s massive flooding in Houston (a $130 billion event according to Aon) was less than $20,000.

    You don’t have to be a catastrophe expert to understand that economic losses from flooding in a sparsely populated, poor region along the China-Russia border are not going to be six times greater per person than those in one of the largest metropolitan areas of the United States. I asked Bowen for the Russian government report he was referring to, and he did not respond.

    I explored in more depth the recent changes to the Aon global catastrophe record by comparing the Aon loss estimates to those that Munich Re produces each year, and which I have recently used in research alongside the Aon loss estimates. The loss estimates of Munich Re are the most widely used in research and assessment reports, and one reason for this is that Munich Re makes their complete dataset available to researchers.

    The comparison of Aon loss estimates and those of Munich Re is remarkable, and can be seen in the figure below.
    Differences in reported annual catastrophe losses.

    Difference between reported annual catastrophe losses as reported by Aon and Munich Re, 2000 to … [+]ROGER PIELKE JR.

    The differences in reported global catastrophe losses between the two companies are much larger in recent years, exceeding $100 billion in four years of the past decade. In total, over the period 2000 to 2019, Aon reports about $860 billion more in weather-related catastrophe losses than does Munich Re.

    The idea that one of the world’s oldest and largest reinsurance companies would have failed to notice more than $850 billion in weather-related catastrophe losses is simply implausible.

    To get a better sense of what might be behind these significant data quality issues, I contacted Aon with some specific questions requesting some details on the reasons behind the large changes in their dataset over the past 12 months. Their response ignored my specific question, and responding in mostly corporate speak.

    An Aon spokesperson commented, “Aon is committed to analysing global natural disaster events to identify trends, manage volatility and enhance resilience. Our robust methodology includes extensive research that captures publicly available data via numerous public and private sector organizations. A global team of researchers identifies regional losses and collectively aggregates these to ensure an accurate view of loss costs. We have further enhanced our approach through our ongoing multi-year reanalysis project to fill in historical data gaps from previously under-reported regions and perils. The discovery of new events or an update of previously-identified events – plus the standard practice of loss development following large scale disasters – can, and will, result in annual variability in loss statistics. This brings greater accuracy, lowers uncertainty and delivers more insightful trends.”

    I asked Aon specifically for the data that would explain the changing loss values from 2019 to 2020, and which would unambiguously resolve questions about why the numbers changed so dramatically over just one year.

    Aon refused to provide that data: “While our underlying data is proprietary and the firm’s intellectual property, we are dedicated to sharing in-depth numbers and analysis (including some 80 exhibits in this year’s annual report) to help reduce vulnerabilities and build resilience from natural catastrophes for communities, governments and business around the world.”

    Whatever is going on here, it is clear that the Aon catastrophe dataset is not suitable for analysis of trends in losses, much less for academic research. Going forward, I will drop Aon data from my research and suggest that other researchers and the media exercise extreme caution in using it. I will continue to rely on Munich Re, which follows more robust practices for data transparency and sharing, most notably, making their data available to researchers.

    Such practices of course don’t guarantee that the Munich Re data is without errors or flaws. But what it does mean is that when we have questions about the data, we have the ability to obtain the information needed to answer them”.
    Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website.
    Roger Pielke

  • Neville says:

    Another billion $ PONZI fraud. This time involving DC Solar and how they conned Banks, the IRS and investors out of one billion $ and this is the biggest PONZI scheme ever busted in eastern California.
    But then again isn’t S&W just a giant global PONZI scheme that can never, ever change the temp or climate?
    Just look up the increase in global co2 levels since 1989 of 60 ppm. Globally the cost is endless trillions of $ for ZERO gain and yet nobody has the nerve to call out this obvious MEGA PONZI scheme that dwarfs all previous fra-dulent schemes combined.
    Just unbelievable but true.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Great article from Quadrant on the way bushfires used to be prevented, controlled and fought. This is just logical application to the problem. The way it used to be from my own personal experience but which the new green philosophy has so easily destroyed:


  • Boambee John says:

    Stu silent since January 21, Chris since January 24.

    Have our persistent protagonists left the field? Or has reality dawned?

    • stu says:

      No, just bored with your repetitious arguments. But it is interesting that slowly you have been shifting ground and now subtly seem to admit climate change is real, overall the earth is warming and even that the increase in CO2 is relevant and is man made. But you remain a prophet of doom in saying nothing we can do will have any effect. You keep arguing that trillions have been wasted on S&W while overlooking that most of it has been used to replace aged fossil fueled sources, the renewal of which would have cost “trillions” also, and cost much more to operate. The only reason coal powered electricity remains cheaper is that the aged plant has been written off already. And remember that continuing with current emissions will yield rising CO2ppm while reducing emissions will yield stable CO2 and negative emissions would lower it.
      But in any event this current thread is supposed to be about fires, get back on track.

  • Stu says:

    No, just bored with your repetitious arguments. But it is interesting that slowly you have been shifting ground and now subtly seem to admit climate change is real, overall the earth is warming and even that the increase in CO2 is relevant and is man made. But you remain a prophet of doom in saying nothing we can do will have any effect. You keep arguing that trillions have been wasted on S&W while overlooking that most of it has been used to replace aged fossil fueled sources, the renewal of which would have cost “trillions” also, and cost much more to operate. The only reason coal powered electricity remains cheaper is that the aged plant has been written off already. And remember that continuing with current emissions will yield rising CO2ppm while reducing emissions will yield stable CO2 and negative emissions would lower it.
    But in any event this current thread is supposed to be about fires, get back on track.

    • Boambee John says:


      It is indicative of the limited attention that you pay to what I post here that you say that I “have been shifting ground and now subtly seem to admit climate change is real, overall the earth is warming”. Actually, I have several times said outright, not subtly, that I think that the earth is warming (not unexpectedly, as it is coming out of the Little Ice Age), and that there is a degree of human influence.

      Where I differ with you, and not in the least bit subtly, is on the scale of human influence, and whether the change is, overall, damaging. Since I have yet to be convinced that the change is damaging, then of course I see the money spent on renewables as a waste. You continue to misunderstand what I post, either deliberately or through your narrow minded approach to the issue.

      You again rehearse your repetitive points about fossil vs ruinable power, and continue to ignore the problem of providing continuous, reliable, baseload power while renewables are in their current state of development. Please don’t wave your hands around and say that technology will provide the answer. Work on renewables has been ongoing for decades, and the results simply do not cut the mustard.

      Finally, you tell me “this current thread is supposed to be about fires, get back on track.” Again you display your lack of reading comprehension skills. Prior to wondering what you and Chris are up to, my most recent post, at 2054 yesterday, was about bushfire intensity. Stay silent, thus leaving some doubt about your competence, rather than post silly comments and remove all doubt.

  • Stu says:

    “…….while renewables are in their current state of development. ”. The answer lies in your own words – “current state”. No one is proposing to revamp our systems tomorrow, that is classic scare mongering. Oh and we are not still coming out of the LIA, we were back on track with the long term cooling, until we buggered things up.

    • Boambee John says:


      “No one is proposing to revamp our systems tomorrow, that is classic scare mongering.”

      But plenty of people are proposing a rapid end to coal, which would destroy tge current systems with no vaible replacement.

      Your claim is classic dishonest political obscurantism.

      • Stu says:

        But it won’t be rapid unless the required developments are in place to make it feasible. Meantime however it would actually help if the government had a coherent and stable energy policy. But that still seems to be someway off while the organisations of influence continue to be the power behind the throne of the LNP.

        • Boambee John says:


          You are quite correct about the LNP. As long as the Turnbulls, Photios, Keans and thelr ilk hold sway in the LNP, there is little hope of a “coherent and stable energy policy”. Rather we will continue to pursue the fantasy of reliable continuous, electric power based on solar, wind and batteries.

          But you keep dreaming of that technical breakthrough. Aaaaany daaay now!!

  • spangled drongo says:

    A woman from Sydney who was a tree hugging ‘greenie’,

    a vegetarian and an anti-hunter purchased a piece of

    native bush land in northern N.S.W.

    There was a large gum tree on one of the highest points of her property.

    She wanted a good view of the natural splendour of her land,

    so she climbed the big gum tree.

    As she neared the top, she encountered a koala that attacked her.

    In her haste to escape, the woman slid down the tree trunk to the

    ground below and got many splinters in her crotch.

    In considerable pain, she hurried to a local ER to see a doctor.

    She told him she was an environmentalist, vegetarian, and an

    anti-hunter and how she came to get all of the splinters.

    The doctor listened to her story with great patience and then told her

    to go wait in the examining room and he would see if he could help her.

    She sat and waited three hours before the doctor re-appeared.

    The angry woman demanded, “What took you so long?”

    He smiled and then gently explained to her,

    “Well, I had to get permits from the Environmental Protection Agency,

    Native Vegetation , Parks and Wildlife service , and the

    Bureau of Land Management before I could remove any

    old-growth timber from a ‘recreational area’ so close to a

    Waste Treatment Facility.

    And I’m sorry,……………………………………………… they turned you down.”

  • Don Aitkin says:

    There is an excellent set of academic papers suggesting that the current/recent bushfires are not the worst ever and have little if any connection with enhanced CO2.


  • Chris Warren says:

    Oh no! not another denialist predicting cooling?

    Afraid so – here is Maurice Newman…


Leave a Reply