Climate catastrophes are still twenty years away

Prince Philip was, among other things, a sceptic about the horrors of climate change, which made him a useful foil to his son, who is a renowned alarmist. The media do not seem to have mentioned the Duke’s attitudes to this supposed modern apocalypse, but Prince Charles is quite often quoted in his warnings to us about how little time we have left. And that contrast between father and son coincided with my coming across a list of 79 predictions, most of which have not come to pass, and I thought it might be useful to look at them, their qualities and their authors. Interestingly, the list was compiled by two scientists who had their work published in an eminent science journal, apparently because they seemed to be stressing that talking about the end of the world is not an effective form of communication.

‘Apocalypse’ is a term commonly used by climate alarmists, and the word comes from the Greek. While its original use was confined to religion (a sudden great and unprecedented event), even then it carried the notion of the final great destruction. So I wandered through the 79 examples to see what I could see. I can’t reproduce the table here, for it is just enormous. But it is a serious piece of work, providing the date of the prediction, the speaker’s name, his or her birth year, the scientific category of the speaker, the time horizon, whether it is too late to act or the end of the world is nigh if we don’t do something, whether the prediction was made in a speech, in writing or in an interview, and the source. That’s a lot of data.

I noted that Prince Charles appeared three times, and so did Tim Flannery, so I looked up their predictions. The heir to the throne did not predict the end of humanity. His predictions were based on the amount of time left if we did not act. Three separate predictions gave a time span of eight years (2017 was the end-date, and that has well and truly passed), 35 years and 1.5 years.  The thirty-five year prediction got us to 2050, and the 1.5 deadline has already passed. Two of the predictions were made in speeches, and the other one in an interview. Alas, the sources don’t help much, because they’re too broad and general. But there’s no doubt that the Prince has spoken often and warningly about our need to act. A Google search provides plenty of data.

Now Tim Flannery is rather like his possibly future king. The three instances for him were all about the need to act quickly. One of the predictions gave us a little more than a month, another fifty years, a third one twenty years. Two of his predictions were in writing, the third in an interview. Again, I went on a search for ‘Tim Flannery on climate change’. There’s lots of stuff, but it’s fair to say that his predictions are usually couched in familiar protective language — if/then, could, might, etc. He gets about as much media time in our country for his predictions as does Prince Charles. And he also gets much more sledging, even from academics, one of them saying, somewhat caustically, ‘I wish I could be as sure of anything as Tim is about everything.’ There was a wonderful denunciation of his ‘dud predictions’, with chapter and verse, in The Australianlast month. Interestingly, the ‘colossal failure’ in the newspaper headline is not his appalling record on predictions, but his failure to have us all follow his leadership on climate change and what we must now do. His hubris is astonishing.

Where does this get us? The headline for the original essay on a sceptical blog went like this: ‘48 Of 79 ‘Catastrophic Climate Change’ Predictions Have Failed…The Other 31 Just Haven’t Expired Yet.’ I think that’s fair. The problem about a forecast apocalypse is that it will be genuinely unprecedented. There hasn’t been one in the past, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. Twenty five of the predictions are actually apocalyptic, one of them a Paul Ehrlich salvo from 1970 where the world would end in 1980. It didn’t of course happen, but he never recants.

On this website there has been running for months, perhaps even years, a dialogue between a few Commenters about climate change. One of them points out that organisation after organisation now appears to accept what ‘the science’ says, and these organisations include governments of all kinds, large corporations, academic bodies and NGOs. Given that, he says, what’s the point of arguing about its reality? His opponents keep pointing out that there is a lot of science that does not support the politically correct doom-saying or the need to de-carbonise the world by 2050. So what? comes the response — the game is over, give it a rest, and so on. The non-PC arguers can’t give up. For them decarbonisation is a massive non-solution to a non-problem. The prediction that we must do this or else is just loony. More, for them the true science is most important, and what is needed is an open debate. I used to think that one would come soon, but I now doubt it. The apocalyptics have won the game of telling their truth to power, and while they hold the reins they will see no point in debating the ‘science’ with anyone, especially not the people whom they term the ‘deniers’. I predict that won’t always be the case, and the  cause will be blackouts, or a lot of cold weather or both. I’m not looking forward to such events, however.

We are faced with a cloudy future, if only because the role of clouds is one of the least studied (and least studiable) elements in the computer models beloved of the alarmists (pun intended). Governments all over the world have signed on to the 2050 target for no greenhouse gas emissions. They can do so with safety, if only because their leaders won’t be alive when 2050 comes around. At the same time they are not, as far as anyone can see, doing anything that would make such a target achievable. Indeed, with the technology we have, it is simply not achievable. To believe that something astonishing will turn up in the next few decades is a massive assumption. The number of nuclear power stations needed to make 2050 a serious target is running at one a day, starting now. They take about ten years to build, always assuming you have the right set of permissions.

I think it is probably right that the failure of past predictions to come true is one of the reasons why there is no great pressure on government to act more forcefully. That there will be no snow, and that the dams will never fill, are predictions that are easily falsified the next time there is decent snow or we have another flood. Then the wiseacres will remember that we’ve always had good snow and bad snow, floods and droughts. The Great Barrier Reef is still there, and apparently the coral is recovering quickly, or was never in real trouble.

As Yogi Berra once said, predictions are a real problem, especially about the future. Mine is that 2050 will not be news in a few years time, and that each of us should get rid of the word ‘climate’ and use weather instead. If we did that we’d all be a lot happier.

Oh yes, apparently the real apocalyptic moment is still on average twenty years away. When it doesn’t happen just push that moment further into the future.

Join the discussion 100 Comments

  • Karabar says:

    Such predictions of impending doom are just science ficiton nonsense, perpetrated by a misuderstanding of the term “climate”, and complete ignorance about something often called “the science”. Science is a process, and is in fact a way of thinking rather than a base of knowledge. The predicitons discussed are for the most part science fiction regarding natural disasters. For such people as Albert Gore and Tim Flannery, the announcement of such catastrophe has been a gold mine.
    There is, however, another sort of predicion that is somewhat mysterious.
    The organisation whose URL is [] for some time has predicted a massive decline in population in many countries by 2025, reltive to 2019. A reduction of 70% for the USA, and about 50% for Australia. Rather strange is that the population of China is forecast to be about 90% of the 2019 figure.
    The organisation is similar to Jane’s in that it contains a global military inventory of the weapons of war. In that it has close association with “military intelligence” it is scarily similar to the “Deep State”. It isn’t just some one person blog by any means.
    These preditions for 2025 have been the subject of some controversey recently, and since last week these gloomy forecasts for 2025 have been taken down.
    It is enough to make the hair stand up on the back on one’s neck.

  • Ian MacCulloch says:

    In this debate because there is no debate. Follow the money. As much as I agree with your sentiments the cause has been well lost. If you look at those institutions regularly involved at the World Economic Forum, they are without exception, pro zero carbon emissions aficionados.

    The drift in the media parallels the above statement. Depressing for sure. Funds are being deployed in increasing mega amounts pursuing solutions for problems that remain insolvable as the forces of nature far outweigh those of mankind.

    Well argued scientific reasoning is being blithely ignored in the funding of the impossible dream – we can alter the world’s climate.

    Even well argued economic reasoning from the likes of Alan Moran and others is also ignored.

    Mass balance calculation on RE deliverability versus the actual capacity point to a forthcoming severe loss of energy capacity in all its forms.

    This drift is taking place mainly among members of the ‘new’ economy.

  • Neville says:

    Don I couldn’t agree with you more, but I still argue that our life today is so much better than 50 years ago and the data supports my claims.
    Ehrlich was completely wrong and his apocalyptic predictions were always ridiculous. See his “Population Bomb” 1968.
    He appeared on ABC Bob Moore’s Monday Conference about 50+ years ago and my Dad told me then that he’d “never heard so much BS in all my life”.
    He also said this bloke “is just another silly ba-tard who should get himself a real job”.
    Dad had read widely and had zero tolerance for religious fanatics and con merchants and I think perhaps more than a little bit of his philosophy has rubbed off on me, SARC.

  • Boxer says:

    I find it interesting how many Believers would rather be right, and prophesies of apocalypse be correct.

    If confronted by the possibility that The New Apocalypse might fail to eventuate (yet again) a look of concern passes over their faces. “What, no End of Days? That can’t be right!!”

    Unfortunately history tells us that societies would rather cause significant harm to themselves for no reason than be proven wrong about an accepted belief. In our family’s experience, we are producing a generation of anxious teenagers, some of whom regard a failure to believe in imminent apocalypse as “negative”. These young people are inclined towards political activism, so they will be seeking powerful and influential roles in the future.

  • Lawrence Wilson says:

    The potential for some effective push back on the OZ and world scene was lost from about a decade ago – those sceptics who collectively easily had the means to mount a concerted public media campaign to influence thinking at the general public level failed to step up and we have now witnessed Western governments of all colours and at all levels, as well as main stream business roll over to join the alarmist ranks either virtue signalling even when they don’t swallow the alarmists’ line, and governments rollover likewise because it’s easier and offers short term political advantage.

    Only the arrival of sustained down cycle of global temperature coupled with sustained periods of power supply unreliability and continued cost escalations will cause the general public to wake up and start questioning our ‘leaders’ and their policies. Based on long cycle patterns of the past several millennia, and shorter term centennial and decadal cycle patterns significant downturn is due. But it will take many decades of downturn and economic prosperity damage for the penny to drop.

    Meantime we and the West generally will continue to waste trillions fighting the non-problem, Australian primary and secondary industry will have been reduced to irrelevance, and non Western nations will dominate world economies and hold strategic power – all the time guffawing almost loud enough for us all to hear at the incredible stupidity of the West, as they charge ahead developing their cheap energy dominance from fossil fuel technology, observing atmospheric CO2 continuing its upward path, with temperature cycling up and down as always without impact from CO2.

    I am leaving records for my grandchildren and their descendants letting them know that I was not party to the stupidity which brought about their poor economic circumstances.

  • Patrick says:

    You are correct Don. What most politicians, journalists and activists ignore is the fact that a falsified prediction disproves the theory on which it is based. If one allows each prediction a 50% chance of being correct (or wrong) then the track record of the doomsayers is equivalent to getting 48 consecutive ‘heads’ on the throw of a coin. i.e. the theory of AGW (or rather, its consequences/manifestations) is falsified. The odds of 2 to the power 48 …? more than

  • Patrick says:

    Another falsified prediction. The computer models of climate used by the UN IPCC predicted a “hot spot” at 10km altitude over the tropical troposphere. Huge volumes of observational data from radiosondes and satellite borne instruments have falsified this prediction. The “hot spot” is non existent.

  • Stu says:

    Interesting to see the usual array of opinions on this subject. Don rubbishes the various predictors of the future. As he says “ ‘48 Of 79 ‘Catastrophic Climate Change’ Predictions Have Failed…The Other 31 Just Haven’t Expired Yet.’ “

    So one must ask who made those “predictions” and on what scientific basis. Regarding the 31, how are they fairing so far. And does the failure of past commenters, whatever their qualifications impact the quality and reliability of current and future projections.

    The fact that someone, who may not have a scientific basis for the prediction, made such prediction, so what. Does the failure of predictions so far signal the reliability of current or future predictions by qualified people.

    He almost concedes that the scientific opinions relate to the future and therefore judging them now is premature.

    From what I have read the serious predictions all relate to future climate if emissions are not limited by 2050. The precautionary principle says we should act cautiously regarding that future. But of course the nay sayers, who will not be here post 2050, say “nothing to worry about, proceed as usual”.

    And those who don’t understand economics rubbish investments in new technologies without understanding that all such economic activity is in fact growth in GDP (which they seem to worry about in the negative). The future is bright, I do in fact have faith in the free market and the deniers will be proved to be no better than the opponents of economic change at every step in the last two hundred years of progress. Bring on EV’s.

    I am confident the debate will go on, but not in serious scientific circles, only places such as this.

    And then again you get this kind of conclusion “ Don I couldn’t agree with you more, but I still argue that our life today is so much better than 50 years ago and the data supports my claims.”. (Neville). What a classic piece of unscientific conclusion drawing from insufficient facts. But no surprise there.

    • Boambee John says:


      Are you de-platforming all the “prophets of doom” who have made failed predictions? Including the UNEP? How very Soviet of you. Will they be airbrushed out of the photos in earlier IPCC reports and COPs? As Stalin did with his purged former comrades?

      Pray tell us which prophets of doom are still respectable, so that we may ignore the false prophets.

      Methinks you doth protest too much.

      As for your simple faith in future developments in technology, you might be correct, but it is singularly unwise to proceed on the assumption that those developments will occur, when they are required to replace closed fossil fuelled power plants.

      And do you still remain adamantly anti-nuclear?

  • Neville says:

    Once again Willis looks at Biden’s so called climate emergency and how he hopes to fight it by 2030 and he uses the best data from the EIA.
    Plenty of graphs and info that proves this is just more fantasy and alas SFA chance of changing anything in the REAL world.
    Starting today and building 2 Nuclear plants a week until 2030 is a SUPER mission impossible but I’m sure the left wing loonies will cheer the Biden donkey and ignore the proper data/evidence.

  • Neville says:

    Last night the Bolter interviewed Dr Lindzen and Dr Happer and they should put our mind at rest and we should forget about wasting trillions more $ on this non problem of their so called emergency
    Instead we should be building more reliable coal fired plants ASAP and ditching the most toxic, dilute energy sources like S&W.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Remember what happened to Tuvalu? Oh, I forgot. It’s still there.

    • Boambee John says:

      Don’t forget the Maldives and the underwater cabinet meeting stunt. Just before they built a bunch of new tourist hotels.

      Gotta have lotsa Other People’s Munnee to fight rising sea levels.

  • Aert Driessen says:

    I’ll be watching the satellite temperature data with interest. The most recent reading (for March?) showed a sharp downturn to a point even below the long term average trend line. If that is repeated, or, better still, continues, someone may well be sufficiently emboldened to shout ‘The emperor has no clothes’.

  • Boambee John says:

    What grade of climate “scientists” are advising John Kerry, Biden’s Climate Envoy?

    “You said twice, getting to net zero is going to be hard, really hard. And just remind everybody that it will depend on whether or not we have breakthrough technologies, some breakthrough inventions, number one,” Kerry stated at the summit. “But even if we get to net zero, we still have to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. So this is a bigger challenge than a lot of people haven’t really grabbed onto yet.”

    Note that that target requires “breakthrough technologies”, which confirms that solar, wind and batteries are not adequate for the task.

    But has Kerry never heard of photosynthesis? Take the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and all the plant life dies, rapidly followed by all the human and animal life.

    Such are the results of fanaticism.

  • spangled drongo says:

    A wonderful article about Steven Koonin, who was chief scientist of the Obama Energy Department and has written a book which is coming out next month titled; Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.

    “Mr. Koonin argues not against current climate science but that what the media and politicians and activists say about climate science has drifted so far out of touch with the actual science as to be absurdly, demonstrably false.”

    On climate models;

    Mr Koonin is a practitioner and fan of computer modelling. “There are situations where models do a wonderful job. Nuclear weapons, when we model them because we don’t test them anymore. And when Boeing builds an airplane, they will model the heck out of it before they bend any metal.”

    “But these are much more controlled, engineered situations,” he adds, “whereas the climate is a natural phenomenon. It’s going to do whatever it’s going to do. And it’s hard to observe. You need long, precise observations to understand its natural variability and how it responds to external influences.”

    “These models supply most of our insight into how the weather might change when emissions raise the atmosphere’s CO2 component from 0.028 per cent in pre-industrial times to 0.056 per cent later in this century. “I’ve been building models and watching others build models for 45 years,” he says. Climate models “are not to the standard you would trust your life to or even your trillions of dollars to.” Younger scientists in particular lose sight of the difference between reality and simulation: “They have grown up with the models. They don’t have the kind of mathematical or physical intuition you get when you have to do things by pencil and paper.”

  • Stu says:

    “ Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate.

    “How much warming we are having today is pretty much right on where models have predicted,” says the study’s lead author, Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.”

    • Boambee John says:


      If “most of them were indeed accurate”, then why does the plot of all of them on the same page show increasing divergence of their “predictions” over time? With the far ends of the predictions showing widely different “predicted” future temperatures. Surely they should have shown a narrow band of possible future temperatures, with little difference well into the future?

      Or does his definition of accuracy mean that any predicted increase is right?

      Years ago, a colleague with some experience of simulations commented that simulation is a bit like m*sturbation. A little bit is OK, but too much and you forget what the real thing is like.

      Too many modellers have been at it for too long. They have lost touch with reality.

  • Neville says:

    Dr Pielke tries to educate us to the BIGGGGGGG problems for the Biden donkey if he wants to be “fossil fuel free” by 2035. Here’s part of his quote and I suppose he’ll just have to SCHOOL this donkey the same way he SCHOOLED silly Obama,Biden and Holdren about the proper droughts data etc. READ his entire comment at the link and look at his graphs.

    Let’s hope our silly donkeys have the time to look at this data and start to wake up to themselves. And Dr Pielke will have regular updates to check out the Biden Donkey’s progress. What a joke and of course no change to the climate or temperature AT ALL.

    “There are 164 months until 2035. That means that more than 11 of the fossil fuel power plants operational in January 2021 will need to be closed every month, on average, starting today until 2035. Tracking progress on the closure (or conversion to carbon-free) of power plants can provide a very useful marker of progress toward achieving the Biden Administration’s overall climate targets. The figure below shows a linear trajectory for power plant closures, necessary to hit the 2035 net-zero”.

    Dr Pielke also tells us where Biden should be by this time next year…….

    “By Earth Day 2022 the US will have needed to close more than 100 power plants that were producing electricity in January, 2021 in order to be close to the trajectory set forth by the new emissions targets. EIA reports these data monthly so a more frequent accounting is possible. A strength of this approach is that it allows for independent verification of reports of progress, and in particular, an assessment of whether methodological changes to GHG equivalencies or land use are used to game the results”.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s an interesting graph and article for the so called progress of the G 20 or wealthiest countries since Paris COP 21.
    Just more problems for their NET ZERO IDIOCY as they head towards Scotland COP 26 in November this year.
    Each country has a graph to show their progress and Aussies about mid range.

  • Neville says:

    Another Earth Day update from Dr Spencer and here are the first couple of paragraphs. He shows why their so called models show at least DOUBLE the warming of the observations. Graphs are provided to check his claims.
    “An Earth Day Reminder: “Global Warming” is Only ~50% of What Models Predict”
    April 22nd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    “The claim by the Biden Administration that climate change has placed us in a moment of “profound crisis” ignores the fact that the energy policy changes being promoted are based upon computer model simulations which have produced average warming rates at least DOUBLE those observed in the last 40+ years.

    Just about every climate claim made by politicians, and even many vocal scientists, has been either an exaggeration or a lie.

    While it is easy for detractors of what I will show to claim I am in the scientific minority (true), or that I am a climate denier (not true; I do not deny some level of human-caused warming), the fact is that the “official” observations in recent decades are in disagreement with the “official” climate models being promoted for the purposes of implementing expensive, economically-damaging, and poverty-worsening energy policies”.

    • Stu says:

      But he does admit that global temperature is rising. He claims deep ocean temperature might be affected by other things but as usual has no explanation. And he makes the usual claim of calamitous waste which totally overlooks the positive effect of new economic activity. His and your approach would have condemned the arrival of the automobile because it would put saddlers out if business and require investment in completely new factories plus requiring an investment in better roads that horses did not need all for the sake of getting there faster, such waste!

      Please explain your “poverty worsening” claim. What do you base that conclusion on?

      Look at the pronouncements by world leaders this week on the job and economic growth stemming from green initiatives. Except of course our embarrassing bloke. He thinks the “how” is more important than the “when”. Did he not listen to the others? They all took account of the how and the opportunities. The Abbott effect still lingers, but no problem the looming schism between the Libs and the Nats will consign them to opposition.

      • Boambee John says:


        I realise that you live in a world of your own, but mechanisation was generally welcomed as horses were replaced by ICE vehicles. This was largely because, particularly in urban areas, animals produced lots of shit and required much care (feeding, grooming, shoeing, care of saddlery). Farmers were well aware of the demands of animal husbandry.

        You have a perverted and self-serving view of the transition from animal power to fuel power. Coach builders went on to make vehicle bodies, saddlers made seats, but the whipmakers had to rely on the BDSM community.

        “Look at the pronouncements by world leaders this week on the job and economic growth stemming from green initiatives”

        All based on modelling (a modern form of m*sturbation, much enjoyed by its practitioners).

        As for “he does admit that global temperature is rising”, I am not aware of any prominent “denier” who rejects any human effect. The argument, as I have said many times, and you have ignored even more times, is whether the human element is significant, and whether the effect will be catastrophic. The alarmists rely on unreliable computer models to make their claims.

  • Neville says:

    Another interesting article from the WSJ and I include the first few paragraphs and the link. BTW if China already consumes over 50% of the world’s coal and India about 11%, we should very easily understand the problems of the Biden donkey’s NET ZERO BS and con trick.

    China + India = perhaps 63% of all coal consumed and then we have to consider all the other “developing countries” and add them to that 63%. Remember that Wiki graph again and our donkeys should definitely wake up.
    By Sha Hua
    in Hong Kong and Phred Dvorak
    in Tokyo
    Updated April 22, 2021 9:44 pm ET

    “China and India, both with huge and growing appetites for energy, will play outsize roles in efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions as the world seeks to come up with more ambitious targets on climate change.

    The two countries are similar in many ways. They have massive populations topping 1.3 billion, and both are heavy users of coal, the worst fossil fuel in terms of carbon emissions. China alone consumed more than half of the world’s coal in 2019, according to the International Energy Agency. India is currently a distant No. 2 with 11% of the global share, but its share is expected to rise to around 14% by 2030.

    Both countries’ leaders, who have signaled they don’t want to be seen as acting at the behest of the U.S., argued at the virtual two-day climate summit hosted by the White House, which began Thursday, that their nations should shoulder different responsibilities than developed nations in the fight against climate change.

    But there are also significant differences in their approaches. While India defines itself as a developing country with a longer timeline for reducing emissions and as a potential recipient of money and technology to help, China increasingly wants to position itself as a climate leader and a provider of technological and financial support.

    “China and India are among the world’s biggest emitters, so without them it will be impossible to achieve the Paris Agreement,” said Byford Tsang, a London-based senior policy adviser at E3G, a think tank that advocates for strategies to reduce carbon emissions”.

    • Boambee John says:


      “China + India = perhaps 63% of all coal consumed and then we have to consider all the other “developing countries.”

      But on the 2050 Targets thread, Stu has said that we

      “overlook the political imperatives and size of the China development juggernaut. They have committed to lift all their people out of poverty and into the 21st century. Something you overlook is that to achieve that goal they effectively are claiming a right to use a share of the global carbon budget that we in the west have consumed over the last 200 years.”

      It seems that the climate “emergency” is not too critical if the biggest CO2 emitter is to be permitted to continue expanding its emissions for decades to come in the name of some perverted form of “equity”. And presumably that indulgence will also be extended to India and Africa for the same reason!

      I suspect that the coming climate catastrophe will continue to be 20 years in the future for decades to come.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a history of the DEMs GND and how the Biden donkey has swallowed so much of it hook, line and sinker.
    If implemented it will further impoverish the USA and particularly the poor and elderly across the country and it will also create problems for other countries who are stupid enough to follow this fra-dulent nonsense.

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova also follows the global blame game about countries’ so called dangerous co2 emissions.
    Jo has some very interesting graphs +data and a lot of food for thought in her article.

  • Neville says:

    Now Kerry says we must get to net zero and then remove all co2 from the atmosphere.
    Boy this joker must be the dumbest thing on two legs and he’s supposed to be the USA expert on climate change mitigation. Garrwwwd help us all.

    • Peter says:

      Hi Neville,

      The point is whether John Kerry understood all carbon dioxide has to be removed or only the man-made CO2, as distinct from the much higher naturally occurring CO2 which is clearly beneficial for the planet. Emotional static terms such as ‘joker’ and ‘dumbest’ don’t clarify the issues.

      In fact, communication around climate change is so critical that much more effort can be directed at the ball rather than the ball-carriers on both sides. Here is a discussion of substantial issues around climate change that is discussed in more objective terms that you may accept or reject.

      The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof
      Definitive answers to the big questions. By Julia Rose, a journalist with a Ph.D. in geology; her research involved studying ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica to understand past climate changes. firewall blockage]

      * How do we know climate change is really happening?
      * How much agreement is there among scientists about climate change?
      * Do we really only have 150 years of climate data? How is that enough to tell us about centuries of change?
      * How do we know climate change is caused by humans?
      * Since greenhouse gases occur naturally, how do we know they’re causing Earth’s temperature to rise?
      * Why should we be worried that the planet has warmed 2°F since the 1800s?
      * Is climate change a part of the planet’s natural warming and cooling cycles?
      * How do we know global warming is not because of the sun or volcanoes?
      * How can winters and certain places be getting colder if the planet is warming?
      * Wildfires and bad weather have always happened. How do we know there’s a connection to climate change?
      * How bad are the effects of climate change going to be?
      * What will it cost to do something about climate change, versus doing nothing?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Peter, I started reading that, thinking it might have some useful info, until I got to the part where she quotes MMann’s Hockey Stick as evidence.

        That’s religion, not science.

        • Peter says:

          Hi spangled drongo,

          The fact that you viewed the article indicates an open-mindedness.

          The section I presume you are referring to is this: “hockey-stick graph, shows how temperatures remained fairly flat for centuries (the shaft of the stick) before turning sharply upward (the blade). It’s based on data from tree rings, ice cores and other natural indicators. And the basic picture, which has withstood decades of scrutiny from climate scientists and contrarians alike, shows that Earth is hotter today than it’s been in at least 1,000 years, and probably much longer.”

          The author states that ‘climate scientists and contrarians’ have reached some measure of agreement. Is there any truth in the expression ‘some measure’? Strictly speaking, she does not use the ‘hockey stick’ analogy as evidence but refers to interpretation of data around tree rings, ice cores and other natural indicators and you find this methodology invalid.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Peter, throughout civilisation the world has often been hotter, sea levels higher etc., with lower levels of CO2 than today. The fact that Mann’s Hockey Stick ignored and invalidated the LIA which is the longest, coldest period of human civilisation shows how selection of paleo data can achieve whatever result you require.

            And that’s what Mann did.

            You can read the facts here:


      • Neville says:

        Peter read the links I’ve provided above from Dr Pielke, Dr Spencer, Dr Lindzen, Dr Happer etc and you might start to wake up.
        Then read the links I’ve provided from the Conversation, Zickfeld et al, The Royal Society + NAS study etc and you’ll start to understand that the mitigation of their so called CAGW is a complete farce as well.
        BTW here’s the latest from the Biden and Kerry donkeys and there will be a mad rush at the trough as they pour in more billions $ to feed the loafers and con merchants who whine about their untold suffering from their so called climate change.

        • Peter says:

          In terms of interpreting links and scientific climate data, I am no match for you, Neville, but with a background in humanities and social sciences I have a keen eye for emotional clap-trap which in my views muddies the waters in any discussion where the issues are so critical and the need to resolve difference so relevant today.

          When you use the term ‘wake up’ you imply that I am some sort of Rip Van Winkle whereas you are alert and on top of everything re climate science.

          Much more importantly, ou dismiss Biden and Kerry as ‘donkeys’ and presumably all their advisers as well – many European leaders, Australian state premiers, many in industry and commerce as well. If you possess such indisputable knowledge and have such superior views, I presume in your professional life you you were an important national figure, a thought-influencer to use the modern jargon, even, dare I say it, a University Vice-Chancellor.

          Does the term ’slander incarnate’ bother you.

          The NY Times article I referred to can be dismissed as religious farce, written by a donkey, scientific nonsense etc. But if some of its claims turn out to be true in the decades ahead, you will have done a terrible disservice. It may be that you are correct, a profound prophetic voice in our midst, but even even some sort of tentative, scientific humility mght be worth considering.

          • Boambee John says:


            “with a background in humanities and social sciences I have a keen eye for emotional clap-trap”

            Yet you seem unable to recognise the emotional clap trap put out by the Gretas and other climate hysterics.

          • Boambee John says:


            You did not mention Great, but you did mention “emotional clap-trap”, which is pretty much her stock in trade. She might be a powerful speaker, but what she says is “emotional clap-trap”.

        • Peter says:

          Hi spangled drongo: Discussion on the article in ‘The NY Times’ has closed with 194 comments, so I wrote to the author asking why she used the expression that the hockey-stick graph has ‘withstood scrutiny’ from those with different perspectives about climate change. If I receive a response I will make a posting.

          • Peter says:

            Boambee John

            I’m just checking your chain of logic: where did I mention Greta? In my view – since you mention her – she is a powerful communicator, especially so for a young person, and she is able to galvanise the support of many people around the world. She is an influencer like Prince Charles, like Donald Trump is now, like Lord Monkton but as for the depth of her scientific thinking, I have no way of telling.

          • Peter says:

            Hi Boambee John

            You suggest I ‘am unable to recognise the emotional clap trap put out by the Gretas and other climate hysterics.’ As mentioned I do not locate Greta, Prince Charles or Lord Monkton in the category of scientist. If you read my first posting above, it was in reference to an article in the NY Times that is to many people informed and balanced.

            However, it does make one think in this modern era, how one can use rhetoric and media to reach millions of people. Hitler did it. Pied piper too! And you would think, Boambee, that she’s luring all of her followers over the cliff!

            If Greta was urging us all to change society for the better and reduce corruption in governments around the world her impact might be different – there is the singer and there is the song.

            And if you have to admit that Greta can really get up the ears of Andrew Bolt in a way that many of his other critics can’t.

        • Peter says:

          spangled drongo

          You state “the world has often been hotter, sea levels higher etc., with lower levels of CO2 than today.”

          As one without any scholarly understanding of science at all, I conjecture: OK, if that is true of the past, are there new variables, increases in population, changed manufacturing conditions, deforestation, ocean dynamics, chemical/physical environmental interactions etc that could mean the geological verities of the past may not hold true of today’s planet? Even as a non-scientist, it seems to me that climate science has to be informed, as it is, by multi-disciplined, complex organisational structures interpreting evolving, data; and this requires large networks and systems thinkers rather than single discipline experts but that may be stating the obvious. The challenge for someone like me is to ascertain reliable sources: I come from a background where the CSIRO, the ABC, the IPCC, NASA etc have some claim to authority whereas individuals such as Prince Charles, Donald Trump, Monkton do not; but I understand that names such as Happer, Curry are not in the same category.

      • Chris Warren says:


        Obviously ” Emotional static terms such as ‘joker’ and ‘dumbest’ don’t clarify the issues.” but when science is against you – the only option you have is slander.

        Neville is slander incarnate.

        • Peter says:

          spangled drongo


          You state “the world has often been hotter, sea levels higher etc., with lower levels of CO2 than today.”

          As one without any scholarly understanding of science at all, I conjecture: OK, if that is true of the past, are there new variables, increases in population, changed manufacturing conditions, deforestation, ocean dynamics, chemical/physical environmental interactions etc that could mean the geological verities of the past may not hold true of today’s planet? Even as a non-scientist, it seems to me that climate science has to be informed, as it is, by multi-disciplined, complex organisational research structures interpreting evolving, data; and this requires large networks and systems thinkers rather than single discipline experts but that may be stating the obvious. The challenge for someone like me is to ascertain reliable sources: I come from a background where the CSIRO, the ABC, the IPCC, NASA etc have some claim to authority whereas individuals such as Prince Charles, Donald Trump, Lord Monkton do not; but I understand that names such as Happer, Curry are in a different category.

          PS RE the ABC -I stand by the comment above even though I have written more than 20 times to different fora criticising their coverage on specific issues and like it, or not heir science coverage – though ideologically distorted at times is far more trustworthy than News Ltd/Murdoch etc.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “The ABC…. is far more trustworthy than News Ltd/Murdoch etc.”

            You could always get a second opinion from George Pell on that.

      • Boambee John says:


        If he didn’understand that simple fact, he is intellectually unsuitable for his job.

        • Peter says:

          Hi spangled drongo

          You write: “You could always get a second opinion from George Pell on that.”

          Christine Foster’s daughters Emma and Katie were raped by Melbourne priest Kevin O’Donnell while they were at primary school in the 1980s. Emma suffered from eating disorders, drug addiction and self harm and in 2008 she overdosed on medication and died, aged 26.

          That is sad beyond measure. Pell lived in Ballarat and supported a confrere who was on charges of sexual abuse of minors; despite all the goings on in the presbytery, all the transfers of priests back and forth in the diocese the penny didn’t click. A case based on admissible evidence was brought against him in the Courts and the process was worked through, with the finding on appeal that he was not guilty as charged. He was not declared innocent. It still puzzles me why a grown man would hang around a swimming pool cavorting naked in front of teenage boys and being told not to come back by a non-Catholic adult. If the Catholic Church in Australia was a company with a board of directors, none of the bishops would have a job because they were asleep at the wheel. Check out ‘Spotlight’ for more information around episcopal negligence. George Pell was an effective leader and was doing good work on Vatican finances but he has never been accused, to my knowledge, of being an excessively pastoral priest. He is defended by the likes of Andrew Bolt who admires powerful male leaders but does not generally identify with the downtrodden, indigenous people, vulnerable women. George Pell’s saviour went before a trial Sanhedrin group without a hired QC ; he pleaded his own case humbly. George P’ell could indeed argue, not as a scapegoat but in a deep Christian sense, that ‘ours [sexual abuse victims] were the suffering he bore.. Some Christians still believe in a sacrificial offering and to his credit George Pell does not seem to have been too personally embittered by his ordeal. But, to be truthful, it was a very light load compared with the Foster family suffering and we have the ABC tthank for championing the outsiders, the vulnerable. So while I have criticised journalists such as Tony Jones, Frank Kelly, Sarah Ferguson many times I have never being in doubt about the value of the ABC nor do I want to live in a world dominated by News Limited/Sky News type thinking.

          And if you, spangled drongo, are attracted to such values, please walk away likes James Murdoch did, recognising the truth. The ABC shines a spotlight where many fear to tread and though they get in wrong at times we are far richer as a society for their scrutiny.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Peter, the ABC is very obviously and ever increasingly an unbalanced, anti-conservative MSM and while we have plenty of these in this country, the ABC is the only one that is publicly funded and the only one that is required by law to be unbiased, balanced and to report news from all aspects and be as honest as possible.

            The fact that it not only doesn’t do this but when constantly reminded, actually refuses, makes any rational person ask; why should it be paid for by this majority of people who it mostly conspires against?

            If you are fortunate enough to be of the minority the ABC supports, I can well understand your approval of their one sided, “enrichening” scrutiny.

            But that isn’t the ABC’s mandate.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Cherry-picking predictions is far too opportunist to be taken seriously. In 1982, EXXON scientists predicted a 1C per 100ppm CO2.

    This is what has transpired.

    Maybe listen to science – it’s “child’s play” …

    • Peter says:

      Hullo spangled drongo

      You argue the ABC is “unbalanced, anti-conservative”.

      I agree, and it is especially hostile in its opposition to IPA values, News Ltd/
      Sky News and a hard right-wing core in the Liberal Party. Our last election
      indicates how closely Australians are polarised – in the US as well. So I seek a
      clash of values and viewpoints, not the sound of Rupert Murdoch’s one
      hand clapping. I believe Australians know the strengths and
      weaknesses of the ABC. I look at Carlson Tucker in the US, Hannity and
      Laura Ingraham and I see a lot of money being paid to hollow media celebrities
      who lack balance and indeed compassion in many instances.

      You argue: The ABC is publicly funded so why should it be paid for by the
      majority of people who it mostly conspires against?

      The ABC claims to be is to be “the independent home of Australian
      conversations, culture and stories.” It presents viewpoints that are not
      often found in commercial media. Just imagine, for instance, for the sake
      of discussion, that climate change is occurring in the way the ABC
      presents it [shock!horror]. And that in forty years time this becomes
      indisputable. People will look back then and say, we had a true voice of
      integrity in our midst and we ignored it. The stakes are so critical at it is
      worth cultivating a range of perspectives, even if it drives you crazy. Sceptics
      deserve a platform. And I’m
      prepared to pay for that – and many others are too. Talk of ‘mandate’ takes
      one too much down the slippery slope of legalism etc; you want it mandatory
      that the ABC presents more conservative perspectives. Why don’t you request
      a mandate for News Ltd to provide some balance and integrity in
      climate change reporting? The reason is that it is privately owned, not a
      drain of public money. If you have money you can traduce commoners.
      My own view is that there are limitations in market-only
      forces and they promote a common life rather than a life in common.
      Look at the obscene inequalities in US incomes – $15 dollars/hour. Go and
      have a look at ‘Nomadland’ and check out the Amazon clips in the film. My
      view is that unfettered capitalism needs its wings clipped.
      The ABC presents unpalatable perspectives if you are conservative and
      believe climate change is a myth. It’s annoying that it does this. In the NY
      Times article I mentioned above, Julia states: “Climate damages are hard
      to quantify. Moody’s Analytics estimates that even 2 degrees Celsius of
      warming will cost the world $69 trillion by 2100, and economists expect
      the toll to keep rising with the temperature.” Such views are covered by
      the ABC – rarely by News Ltd. You might argue that’s because the views are
      false but I think it’s too uncomfortable to even think about for so many
      people, Let’s just live in ‘Nomadland’.

      • spangled drongo says:

        You are in denial of the fact that there are endless very wealthy people who support all aspects of the private MSM.

        As they are quite entitled to do.

        Not to mention the giants of social media which are privately owned and greatly left wing influenced.

        Whereas a publicly owned and financed ABC with a mandate to be balanced, has no legal right to ignore that mandate.

        Yet it does so on a daily basis in every imaginable way.

        Its continuing existence today is completely pointless.

  • Neville says:

    More on the religious fanatic’s predictions of the apocalypse since the 1960s. And some of these same LW loonies have been predicting these events decade after decade.
    Quick fact checks…. WORLD — 1970 population 3.7 bn, life exp 58, 2021 pop 7.8 bn and life exp 72.
    Africa and poorest continent 1970 pop 363 mil, life exp 46 and 2021 1340 mil and life exp 63.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Vile Neville spewing forth as usual.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Why don’t you deal with the message instead of the messenger?

        Or could it be that you simply can’t?

      • Boambee John says:


        Still waiting for you to inform us of your qualifications as a climate scientist.

    • Peter says:

      Hi Spangled drongo

      We completely disagree around the intersection of private/wealthy and public/tax-payer funded media dynamics and ownership.
      The ABC is “the independent home of Australian conversations, culture and stories”.
      Australian culture is important but to Twitter/Facebook/Amazon/Fox etc financial returns are prioritised more highly that any Australian public interest or national identity dimension. Strong journalism requires a large number of investigative reporters. A program like ‘Background Briefing’ on Sunday RN Breakfast illustrates the ABC at its very best and the issues that it explores rarely find light in commercial media.

      If you want quality, you have to pay for it and more Australians than not accept this at the moment despite the IPA, timid Media Ministers and the constant complaints of News Ltd that it faces such ‘lopsided’ competition.

      Some years ago I heard Kate McClymont[SMH] speakimg at the SWF mention that she worked with a team of about four reporters but the equivalent unit at the NY Times employed 50. The NY Times also employs many staff to moderate online forum discussions because they value civil, quality discussion of ideas. ‘’The Guardian’ attends to this e-moderation role too but the ABC has let it slide.

      The ABC is trusted by many Australians; it is a national treasure; and it’s remarkable that a great Australian like Ita is in there at the centre, having a go, after learning the ropes from Packer et al.

      When you write the ABC’s ‘continuing existence today is completely pointless’ you are telling me that you are with Lachlan Murdoch rather than James Murdoch. I notice ,too, that you had little to say about George Pell who used to write for ‘The Daily Telegraph’.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Yes, you and all left wingers do love the ABC with a great passion. The “quality” that you get suits you perfectly. Me, not so much.

        It’s quite understandable in your case.

        And the case of many others who don’t pay a cent of income tax to fund it.

        But please don’t try to justify that as any relationship to the balanced reporting that it is required to produce yet never does.

  • Neville says:

    Gosh I think it’s about time I linked to that WIKI graph AGAIN, just to try and return the fantasists to the real planet earth.
    Can you understand this very simple co2 emissions graph or NOT? Start at 1970 or 1990 , but it doesn’t make any difference. Wake up.

    • Stu says:

      I am not sure what point you are trying to make with that link. But if you want a more relevant (to the subject of underlying morality) link try this one which shows the cumulative emissions by country since 1751.

      You can gain comparable data, for a shorter period from the graphs in the piece you posted. In other words compare China and USA. Until 1970 China was a sleeper rolling along at 1 billion tons per year while the USA was already at 5 billion. Even at current rates China is still a marginal contributor in historical (cumulative) terms. Of course we need them to cut back but it is a bit rich to be super critical when the USA and Europe have lead us to this point and we (Australia) are doing damn all to address the issue.

      As for your population stuff, you show a great ability to draw weird conclusions from unrelated data. Population growth has much more to do with health and nutrition than the climate, for now. The issue of “apocalypse” as you call it us still well in the future, but fundamentally the fix has to START now, certainly by 2050 according to the scientists who I suggest know much more than you.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu, Neville’s link is much more appropriate than yours on accumulated CO2 per country.

        It is only from the 1976 climate shift that any “global warming” has been occurring.

        Prior to that, you catastrophists were bedwetting in equal proportions over global cooling.

        If you had dreamt up your hot climate catastrophe predictions in those days you would have been urging mankind to emit even more.

        Does it never occur to you just how stu-pid you lot come across as?

        • Stu says:

          “ Stu, Neville’s link is much more appropriate than yours on accumulated CO2 per country.”
          Really ! Would you care to explain how? None of those describes cumulative emissions but if you do the fiddling with his graphs you still come up with China a long way behind in historical emissions contribution. Perhaps you are confusing “historical” in the article with “cumulative” I await your explanation.

          And “ It is only from the 1976 climate shift that any “global warming” has been occurring.” Really?

          As usual you are so wonderfully polite and respectful the way you express your disagreement. I think you are losing the plot and as in the past it is time to end this silly circular argument you propagate.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Perhaps you could detail some scientific concern over “global warming” prior to 1976?

          • Boambee John says:


            “China a long way behind in historical emissions contribution”

            Are you really still pushing your perverted “equity” theory of “it’s their turn now”?

            Either there is a CO2 emissions problem or there is not. If, as you claim, there is, then allowing China (and others) to continue to increase their already massive emissions is farcical.

            Make up your mind.

      • Boambee John says:


        “Of course we need them to cut back but it is a bit rich to be super critical when the USA and Europe have lead us to this point and we (Australia) are doing damn all to address the issue.”

        Your definition of “damn all” must be interesting. You regard all those solar panels and wind farms, and the closed power plants as “damn all”?

    • Peter says:

      spangled drongo

      You wrote: “It’s quite understandable in your case. And the case of many others who don’t pay a cent of income tax to fund it.”

      You draw an invalid personal inference in my case. I still pay tax and I am glad to do so because I believe taxes support the public/communal values. As an indicator of what regard as media ‘quality’ I also subscribe to ‘The New York Times’ and last year I donated to the John Menadue site, ‘Pearls and Irritations’.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Read it again. It doesn’t say what you claim it says. It doesn’t say YOU don’t pay income tax.

        But do you pay income tax or just GST?

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that Conversation article and the RS and NAS study tell us the same thing.
    If we stopped ALL Co2 today it would STILL stay at current levels in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Wake up.

    • Peter says:

      Hullo spangled drongo

      While the sentence below relates to the first sentence you wrote, the expression “in your case..followed immediately by “And the case of many others…” creates more than a tenuous slur. Similarly with the term ‘left winger” – surely I can subscribe to left wing views but still, for instance, support views about balanced budgets, closed borders, tightly targeted welfare such as withdrawal of payments for young people offered work but finding it unacceptable. Simplistic terms such as ‘left or right wing’ don’t recognise the complexities in many people’s thinking.

      Answer to your question: both.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the greatest problem for “the cost of co2” fantasists and concerns the so called cost of unmitigated co2 emissions by 2070 and other data like fires etc.

    Lomborg wrote this column for the Australian a month ago and he quoted the data from the UN IPCC. The difference of unmitigated co2 is just an ERROR BAR. WAKE UP and look up the data and stop listening to con merchants.

    “Lomborg: 50 years of unmitigated climate change might leave us only 356% richer instead of 363%”

    “Bjorn Lomborg was going to present some economic pointers to Duke University last week, but even UN approved estimates were too high-risk for Duke . Evidently the students are so poorly trained they couldn’t be trusted around a different point of view. Lomborg might seed all kinds of wicked ideas about them doing their own research. Though, more likely, it had nothing to do with the students. The real problem with Lomborg was that he threatened their branding. What if Duke lost some big lefty donors? (Or the biggest donor of all, Big Government?)

    Lomborg shows how fragile the UN-Wall of Science is

    All he aimed to do was to join together two separate UN economic factoids, but he had to be axed. He even agrees “climate change is a problem”. But agreeing on the science is not enough”.
    “When climate alarmism meets cancel culture

    Bjorn Lomborg, The Australian

    “One of my [axed] presentation points was highlighting the latest full UN Climate Panel report which estimates the total cost of climate change. They found that unmitigated climate change in half a century will reduce general welfare equivalent to lowering each person’s income by between 0.2 and 2 per cent. Given that the UN expects each person on the planet to be much better off – 363 per cent as wealthy as today – climate might cause us to only be 356 per cent as rich by then. That is a problem, but certainly not the end of the world”.

    “Except it’s not a problem, just an error bar. With blind economic models piled on broken climate models, fifty years from now the world might well be cooler, and poorer too.

    “But Lomborg’s point is still potent. The UN are complete hypocrites and troughers.

    “Interestingly activists at Duke apparently used the 2020 Australian fires against him. Apparently, they still think the whole Australian Continent was on fire. Bjorn has some interesting statistics:

    “But we know from satellite measurements, published in Nature, that while the fires near population centres had severe impacts, the total land area burned was 4 per cent – one of the lowest-ever percentages, from an average this century of 6.2 per cent and last century of 10.1 per cent. Four per cent is not “much of the Australian continent”. Such claims are more like rantings from people who have been watching too much alarmist TV”.

    “Total area burned in January 2020 in Australia was 16.9 million hectares. But Australia is 7 million square kilometers. It might have been less than 4%”.

  • Neville says:

    OH and just for our silly donkeys 3.63 times richer less 3.56 times = 0.07. Oh what a disaster and for this we’ll waste endless trillions of $ by 2070???????

  • Neville says:

    Just to confirm the REAL data from our REAL planet while we’re wasting endless trillions $ under the Biden, Kerry + DEMs donkey’s FANTASY and for ZERO MEASURABLE change by 2070 or 2100 or……….
    Dr Christy is at the coal face and knows the data/ evidence better than anyone. NASA still employs Dr Christy + Dr Spencer to provide the satellite data month by month and they were the pioneers of the systems that allowed the satellite temp data to be used today.
    Dr Christy was awarded NASA’s gold medal for his pioneering work on satellite data systems.
    Here’s his talk AGAIN to the GWPF and he puts all their so called CAGW claims to the test.

  • Neville says:

    Just to confirm the truth about Aussies leading the world using TOXIC, DILUTE, RUINABLES energy.
    But I sincerely wish we could’ve saved those billions $ and built more RELIABLE, BASE-LOAD energy like coal and gas.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Jo Nova’s full post on Aussie’s energy use over the last 30+ years etc and the fact we are increasing our population at a phenomenal rate and our energy use per person has dropped by a staggering 46%.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the latest NOAA Mauna Loa co2 trend data updated to April 7th 2021.
    Co2 levels have now increased from March ’20 to March 2021 by 2.9 ppm. THINK about it.

    • Chris Warren says:

      It’s called acceleration – soon the annual increase will be 3 ppm.

      • Boambee John says:

        According to the (unreliable) models as applied to the most far-out IPCC scenario.

        Perhaps try a dose of reality, or doesn’t your qualification (whatever it might be) as a climate scientist allow that possibility?

        • Chris Warren says:

          Ignorant comment – no models exist that produces that.

          You have no idea what you are scribbling about. Please take your graffiti elsewhere.

          • Boambee John says:

            Aw, Chrissy has the sads. Dry your tears, and wrap yourself up in a carbon free security blanket.

            Then explain how the great shutdown for the Kung Flu made no difference to CO2 levels.

            Then tell us how many years of such a shutdown will be necessary to save the world. Don’t forget to factor in Stu’s position that China should be allowed to continue to increase its already very high CO2 emissions for decades to come, because it’s their turn.

  • Neville says:

    Willis is still trying to find their CLIMATE EMERGENCY or Biden’s EXISTENTIAL THREAT, etc.
    He’s extended his list and looks at scores of their scares over many decades and by everything they’ve told us we shouldn’t be here today. What a joke.
    Heaps of data graphs proves his case and of course the reason we live such wonderful, long lives today is the USE of CHEAP RELIABLE energy. Today 80+% of our TOTAL energy comes from fossil fuels and long may it remain so.
    Go Willis and everyone should read his post and stop listening to con merchants and fra-dsters.

    • spangled drongo says:

      There was an interesting comment at your link Neville, re the precautionary principle, that stu has been holding forth on lately.

      He needs to read it:

      • Stu says:

        You quoted inter alia “Over the last 35 years or so, the precautionary principle, “Look before you leap,” has been perverted out of all recognition. It no longer tallies with our common sense ideas of risk. At the instigation of the United Nations and other activist groups, the principle has been re-cast into a strong form, which inverts the burden of proof and has become a tool for tyranny. There has also been a movement to obfuscate the interface between science and policy. These perversions have helped politicians to make environmental policies that have harmed all of us.”

        Oh come on, surely even you doesn’t believe that hyper crap. “A tool for tyranny” , “policies that have harmed us”. Oh please that is such blatant, exaggerated, emotional blackmail type bull shit that if you do agree with you should stop and think again. It is another chapter in the same list of gross lies of the do nothings on a par with the totally misquoted “the world will end in 2050 rubbish”. The scientists have consistently said that we have till then to reverse the negative trend or face dire consequences sometime beyond then, “the precautionary principle”. If you are too self centred and blasé to see that, I find very sad for you and yours.

        • Boambee John says:


          “The scientists have consistently said that we have till then to reverse the negative trend or face dire consequences sometime beyond then,”

          The same scientists having previiusly (and consistently) having several earlier dates, some now long past, by which we had to take action.

          Just because those earkier prognostications have been dropped down the “memory hole”, doesn’t mean that they didn’t occur.

          • Boambee John says:


            PS, one quick example. In 2009, the Australian Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, said that the world (Note: that includes China) had six years to act on climate change. Six years after 2009 is not 2050.

            But you keep changing the terms of the debate, it will help you to sleep at nights.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu, nervous nellies like you who accept any claimed catastrophe without requiring any evidence to back it up, will always exaggerate the precautionary principle beyond rationality.

          But when you also have political and financial motives it is an even more convenient tool.

          There are opportunities to grab and fortunes to be made.

          The most helpful attribute, of course, is being a complete hypocrite.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu thinks that a serious discussion to investigate proposals to squander 100 TRILLION PLUS of taxpayer-responsible funding on an evidence-free “precaution” is “blatant, exaggerated, emotional blackmail type bull shit”.

          You obviously only use the precautionary principle when it suits, hey stu?

          As I said, the most helpful attribute is being a complete hypocrite.

  • Neville says:

    So do we keep listening to their religious cult (minus data) and run the risk of flushing 500,000+ jobs down the drain? And so many of those jobs are in regional Australia.
    I’m not a fan of hydrogen but it would still be a lot more sensible than using fra-dulent, dilute, TOXIC RUINABLES and throwing the TOXIC leftovers into landfills every 20 years FOREVER.
    And we’re now aware that dirty RUINABLES are made in China using slave labor and we shouldn’t support the misery of these minority groups any longer.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a few paragraphs of the WSJ and they mention that NET ZERO would cost the world 115 trillion $.

    Let’s be generous and lower the NZ estimate by 50 % and their cost would then be 2.5 T $ for net zero mitigation of their 0.1% of global emissions.

    I don’t trust the 115 T $ number at all and Lomborg’s expert team has the economic, stats and maths muscle to agree to the original NZ govt estimate. Anyway here’s new numbers if reduced by 50%.
    Don’t forget that eliminating all fossil fuels is ridiculous and in just 30 years is just more BS and fra-d.

    The USA would then be 13.8% = 345 T $.

    China would then be 29.5% = 737 T $

    So far other countries about the same as China and India about 50% of the USA.

    Australia ” ” ‘ be 1.1% = 27.5 T $

    The WORLD “” “” 100% = 2500 T $

    “Countries aiming to sharply reduce their emissions to meet climate goals must be prepared for staggering costs and looming political battles as they seek to overhaul swaths of their economies, climate analysts and economists say.

    The International Renewable Energy Agency, an intergovernmental organization based in Abu Dhabi, said in March that the world would need to invest $115 trillion through 2050 in clean technologies, such as solar power and electric vehicles, to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Such climate goals, made at the 2015 Paris accords, were revived in the Earth Day Climate Summit hosted last week by President Biden.

    Environmentalists and some economists say the changes would translate into innovative technologies and job creation, while saving a million lives annually from lowering air pollution and circumventing higher water levels that would swamp coastal cities. Still, the upfront costs would be a challenge, requiring revamps across many sectors, including steel production, agriculture and cargo shipping.

    Mr. Biden’s target of sharply reducing U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030 would force companies to speed the pace of change and present new expenses. Much of the world’s hopes for reducing carbon emissions, however, rest on China and India, which are heavily dependent on coal—considered the dirtiest fossil fuel—to generate power. China is the No. 1 emitter globally.”

    David Victor, an international-relations professor at the University of California San Diego who focuses on climate policies, said getting to zero requires the difficult task of “eliminating essentially all fossil fuels.”

    • Boambee John says:

      “while saving a million lives annually from lowering air pollution ”

      Since up to 3.8 million people die annually from indoor air pollution from cooking on wiid and animal dung fires, this might be considered to be a poor start.

      Or were they referring only to outdoor air pollution?

  • Neville says:

    Andy May has been asked by Dr Koonin to review his new book “Unsettled” and Andy is very impressed and only recommended a few changes for the final version.
    Over the years I’ve grown to trust Andy’s careful posts at WUWT, Dr Currys etc and look forward to many more reviews of “Unsettled”after the launch date on the 4th of May.
    And the book is already a pre- launch best seller on Amazon as the orders roll in. Hardback and Kindle versions are available.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks Neville.

      I love this quote; “However, even as human influences have increased fivefold since 1950 and the globe has warmed modestly, most severe weather phenomena remain within past variability. Projections of future climate and weather events rely on models demonstrably unfit for the purpose.”

      A pity the nervous nellies wouldn’t use this factual science to calm their wild spending on a non-problem.

  • Neville says:

    Yes SD and I agree with Steve Koonin and that’s why I also trust Willis so much because he’s a real data Man and boy I’d love to have his ability to create those classy graphs etc.
    But he’s been a computer analyst for a very long time, even way back in the 1960s using big room sized clunky machines that were an offshoot of the UKs computer that broke the German Enigma codes.
    Maths genius Alan Turing led the team and that big machine (Post Office ) was purchased by the Yanks post 1945 and helped IBM etc to further computer advancement and make heaps of money until Bill Gates etc hoodwinked a druggie genius and purchased his operating system for a few thousand $.
    They named that operating system Q DOS and joked that it was the “quick and dirty operating system.” Anyway in very quick time they were millionaires and soon worth 100s of millions $ and today Gates is still worth around 50+ billion $ after giving away billions.
    And the maths genius Turing was later charged with committing a homosexual act and he took his own life in the 1950s. Certainly a lousy way for him to finish.

  • Neville says:

    A few days ago Alex Epstein interviewed Dr Koonin and this should be a real game changer for the science behind the so called climate debate.
    Alex is a top interviewer and always seems to get the best out of his guests and Koonin is very careful and reasoned with his responses.

    He also explains one of the curly temp trend problems from one of the IPCC reports and his go to expert was Dr John Christy. I’m not surprised by this but so many people might be, but then again who cares.
    This is an audio file and is about 50 mins and I must say I’m very surprised by Dr Koonin’s very open responses about the worst parts of the UN IPCC reports.
    But like Lomborg and Shellenberger he doesn’t see much chance of an Existential threat or crisis or emergency by 2100.

  • Neville says:

    More stupidity from the clueless EU, still trying to guesstimate how to transfer from fossil fuels to the dilute, toxic S&W idiocy.
    Perhaps when they soon rely more heavily on Russian gas lines, Putin will give them a taste of life without gas for a few months? And in the middle of a cold EU winter this would really test their resolve.

  • Neville says:

    The so called governor of California resorts to more of their BS and fra-d to try and justify the use of the disastrous,DILUTE, TOXIC RUINABLES.
    “The climate crisis is real and we continue to see the signs every day.” What a con merchant and fra-dster.

    Here’s his quote …..

    Mr Newsom said: “The climate crisis is real, and we continue to see the signs every day.

    “As we move to swiftly decarbonise our transportation sector and create a healthier future for our children, I’ve made it clear I don’t see a role for fracking in that future and, similarly, believe that California needs to move beyond oil.”

  • Neville says:

    Now even China admits they won’t stop building new coal plants “in other countries.” What fra-dsters and con tricks and the Biden donkey plus the stu-pid DEMs fall for this every time.

    China doubles down on coal plants abroad despite carbon pledge at homeAFP

    “Beijing, China / Tue, April 27, 2021 / 06:35 pm
    illustration of coal-fired power plant.

    China will press ahead with its multi-billion-dollar financing of coal plants in developing countries, a top climate official said Tuesday, despite Beijing’s stated aim of slashing carbon emissions.

    In 2020, China opened three-quarters of the world’s newly funded coal plants, according to the UK-based monitor CarbonBrief, and accounted for more than 80 percent of newly announced coal power projects.

    At home, however, President Xi Jinping has pledged to wean China off coal with a peak carbon emissions target of 2030 – and achieve carbon neutrality thirty years later.

    Those ambitious targets have been met with international praise.

    But China’s overseas drive shows the complexity of untwining the economic drivers of coal power from environmental concerns.

    “We cannot simply say that we’ll stop supporting coal-fired electricity plants in developing countries,” Li Gao, head of the climate change office at the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, told reporters.

    “Combating climate change is also about letting people in developing countries live good lives.”

    Echoing Xi’s comments at a recent climate summit hosted by US President Joe Biden, Li said poorer nations still need coal to power their economies.

    “This is wholly in response to (foreign countries’) actual needs, and we use very high standards (to build the plants),” he said.

    Li also suggested that these countries were not sufficiently developed to be able to use renewable energy as their main sources of power.

    China is the world’s biggest polluter and emits a third of greenhouse gases globally.

    It has also continued to fund dozens of coal plants abroad, from Zimbabwe to Indonesia, and environmentalists say they are set to produce more emissions than major developed nations.

    China is making the overseas coal play as part of its trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative, a plan to fund infrastructure projects and increase its influence overseas.”

  • Neville says:

    The Bolter is right on the money as usual. This clueless Biden donkey doesn’t even understand the basics.

    “JOE Biden proved two things with last week’s farcical climate summit: He is extremely stupid and his stupidity is a threat to the Western world.”

    “How dare the US President insult the intelligence of 39 other world leaders — including Prime Minister Scott Morrison — by making them listen to the uninformed ravings of mystics, New Age tribal women and even a teenager.

    How dare Biden invite not one climate scientist to speak, choosing instead hysterics wailing nonsense about a “dead planet”, “environmental racism”, “indigenous wisdom” and drowning Pacific islands that — news flash — are growing?

    No wonder China’s dictator Xi Jinping agreed to drop by for a ringside seat at this circus. He could reassure his goons back in Beijing he’s seen the future, and the West is dead. Killed by woke idiocy.”

Leave a Reply