Climate change: has anything actually changed?

For some time now my only exposure to the world has been through five minutes of radio news on Classic FM, plus some TV news at 6 pm (how much I get is affected by our dinner time at this nursing home). But, bit by bit, I’ve been hearing and seeing more. The coming elections in Australia and NSW have rather passed me by, though I have become more impressed than I once was by the Prime Minister’s capacity to speak cogently and apparently without notes.

The issue that has grabbed me most, especially in the last few weeks, has been heat/weather/climate, mostly because it has been a staple element in both kinds of news. And two elements have stood out — extremes, and consequences for the electricity grid. Ole Humlum’s monthly survey of all kinds of weather data from the official sources won’t be out for a few days. But already we know that January was, in global terms, an extremely hot month. What is more, nearly all of it came from one continent — ours. Our hot January pushed North America’s very cold January out of consideration, though North America might score more powerfully for February.

The ABC devoted a lot of time to voiced alarm about our hot weather, and also to the contemporaneous freeze in the USA and Canada, but seemed unable to draw any conclusions about ‘climate change’. Perhaps its news editors felt that drawing conclusions was for the listener/viewer, and there’s something to that. But the ABC gave plenty of time to scary warnings from the self-appointed Climate Council. Listening to the dire alarm made me feel, not for the first time, that those of us who might reasonably style ourselves as ‘climate realists’ need an opposing self-appointed voice pointing out, again and again, that much of the scary stuff is inadequately based on good science. No, I am not proposing to form such a body; I’m too old and too frail. But it needs a leader and a sponsor or two, perhaps through crowd-funding and not via large donations from coal miners or their counterparts.

Throughout the past few weeks we have been urged to do the right thing and not put a strain on the grid — turn things off, make your house warmer, not cooler, and so on. We have so far escaped real blackouts, though it was apparently a close-run thing in Victoria. If you will forgive the mangled metaphor, we are skating on thin ice in terms of hot and cold weather. If we have an unusually cold, still and cloudy winter the same appeals will occur again, and cold weather, really cold weather, is much more costly in terms of human life than is hot weather.

It is well to remember that 85 per cent of our Eastern Grid electricity comes from the burning of fossil fuels, with hydro making up most of the difference. Solar and wind contribute very little, and it is hard to see them ever doing much more  in terms of ‘dispatchable’, reliable, cheap electricity. More and more houses are being equipped with solar panels, and that is fine for domestic users, if they have the money and don’t live in an apartment. But the system as a whole absolutely relies on coal, and to a much smaller extent on natural gas and portable fuels like petrol and distillate. So when you hear someone expatiate on how the electric vehicle will help to save the environment, you might quietly suggest that its fuel comes, 85 per cent of it, from fossils.

And I didn’t hear any of this being argued out in what might well be one of the longest election campaigns I can remember. It’s all about how each side will act to reduce the cost of our electricity bills. Mr Shorten says he is going to ramp up the installation of renewables, though how that will make a difference is not clear to me. If any journalist asked him that question, the grab and the reply did not appear in the telecasts I saw. It’s just not do-able. It has to be true that he and the other senior people on the Labor side know this — the arithmetic is simple. If we want to have really reliable, dispatchable electric power then we need to ramp up coal-fired generating power stations. But no-one is proposing this.

Why? And again the arithmetic is pretty simple. Both sides have become trapped in a dilemma, in which a passionate minority outweighs a relatively indifferent majority. I’ve written about this before, so here is a quick summary. Around the world, including the USA and Australia, the proportion of respondents who tell the interviewer that ‘climate change’ is important to them runs at about 7 per cent. That is without any prompting from the interviewer. If you feed the respondent a question about the importance of climate change then you will get much higher numbers saying ‘Oh yes, it’s pretty important’. You would get the same sort of responses about any issue of media consequence, like domestic violence, child abuse or dead fish in the Murray/Darling system.

But those 7 per cent make up most of The Greens, who are well organised and hold some legislative sway. They are supported by well-funded NGOs like the WWF, international agencies that have links to the United Nations, not to mention Australian government departments and agencies for which ‘climate change’ is their reason for existence. Yes, I would like the Prime Minister and his ministers to say a few things straightforwardly, that the Paris Accord is rubbish, that more new coal-fired generators are essential, that fracking is the way to make us more petroleum-resilient, and so on. There would be a tremendous fuss if they did, because that would to go against the orthodoxy, and the electorate has not been prepared for such a contest. The other 93 per cent who aren’t passionate alarmists don’t care enough about the issue to go into battle for the Government. They are interested in jobs, transport, education and their kids’ futures. Not only that, to repeat, they don’t know much about climate change, and think it’s all too hard for them. It isn’t, and our governments have let the electorate down by not setting out, clearly and accessibly, that there are many sides to this issue, and governments have to tread carefully.

Bill Shorten won’t do any more than talk about the issue and the importance of renewables. It’s not a Federal matter, for the most part, anyway. But he will pounce on the Coalition if there is any move to become rational about the electricity problem, dragging all the local, national and international alarmists to his side. So we’ll muddle on, paying more for our power and getting nowhere. If our population goes on increasing as it has done in the last decade — roughly another million people every three years — the strain on the Eastern Grid will produce system failures and blackouts before very long. And then each side will blame the other. We ought to be able to do better than this, but there is no sign that doing better will happen, from either side. Winning in May is what it is all about, and who cares what happens then? Whatever it takeswas the title of former Labor Minister Richardson’s account of his political life. It applies to both of our party groups at the moment.

Add in the many examples of unethical behaviour by our elected representatives, and you can see that the election campaign will not be about some central issues, but another smokes-and-mirrors fest. It is really disheartening. And I haven’t even mentioned the ACT Government’s quite dishonest claim that the ACT is close to, or will arrive at, being one hundred per cent renewable. Ecchh! Remember, when you press the light switch in the ACT, 85 per cent of the electricity comes from fossil fuels…







Join the discussion 437 Comments

  • Neville says:

    Great to have you back at the keyboard Don and as always you make a lot of sense.
    Here’s Dr Roy Spencer’s opinion of our so called hot Jan and he concludes that it is mostly weather and not climate change.
    Note the cooler SW WA and NE Qld, which proves that their pixie dust driver can make fools of anyone silly enough to try and make a case for their CAGW.
    The Nth Mallee where I live has so far experienced a very mild Feb and will do so until Sun 18th if the forecast is accurate. The next 2 nights at Mildura will drop to just 9 c according to the BOM.

    • Stu says:

      Oh, so the hot weather is just weather but the cold disproves global warming, neat truck.

      • Don Aitkin says:

        It’s usually the other way round: the hot weather demonstrates global warming, while freezes are just weather.

        • Philip West says:

          Don, earth has a 23.5 degree tilt from the vertical. Thus the northern hemisphere has their winter when the southern hemisphere has its summer: Anthropogenic Global Warming aka climate change, does not negate seasons or weather. You are correct about climate being the average of at least 30 years of weather.
          In addition, the northern hemisphere, because of the arrangements of the continents as well as the imbalance of technology, has the most emissions of Greenhouse Gases, chiefly CO2. While human emissions are only about 3% of the total, they have adversely affected earth’s climate. If you fix a flow into a 44gallon drum so that the drainage equals the in-flow, the surface of the fluid remains steady. If you increase the flow by 3%, the fluid level rises. Simple, isn’t it?

  • Neville says:

    More homogenised temp adjustments from the BOM, leading to higher temps across Australia.
    Just like the HAD Crut 4, they’ve changed temps over a very recent period of time to find a warmer trend.

  • Stuart Manley says:

    The really big question for your side of the argument is how has it been possible to pull off such a huge global scam, involving the UN, most governments and every national science body across the world, including fudging the data. It would have to be the most amazing feat to keep the collusion secret and so succesful.

    On the other hand consider this quote from the current court case in California against the oil companies. “In addition to providing funding to scientists to promote invalid theories, Defendants funded industry front groups that aggressively denied and sought to discredit climate science. From 1998 through 2017, ExxonMobil alone spent $36 million funding 69 organizations that misrepresented and persistently sought to discredit the scientific consensus that Defendants’ fossil fuel products were causing climate change.”

    It is a gutsy call to make that claim in a legal theatre without strong backing of facts. If you read the full document, based on internal docs of Exxon, Shell etc, you will see that they knew about the consequences of CO2 from their own research in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s before changing course.

    That case will develop over the coming months, it will be fascinating.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      As I have said many times, I don’t subscribe to the ‘scam’ notion at all. There is no need to invent one. When governments have whole departments and other agencies with titles that invoke ‘climate change’ as a problem, the money will flow, and scientific agencies will support the flow. That is, in part, their job.

  • Grahame McCulloch says:


    Glad to see you able to get back to the keyboard, and that you remain articulate and challenging as always.

    We have rather different views these days – which was not so much the case when we were both active in national university affairs and policy in the 80s and 90s in particular. I think the issues of dispatchable power and the balance between the costs and benefits of fossil fuels and renewable energy are not as unambiguous as you suggest. And I think you should have higher expectations of our Prime Ministers, no matter what their political colour. Surely we should expect anyone holding this office to be able to speak intelligently and clearly without notes, and I am not sure the incumbent meets this test, unless cliches are now seen as meeting this test! Is he really an exemplar?

    Be that as it may, please accept my best wishes. And keep writing – do not go easily into the night!

    Grahame McCulloch

    • Don Aitkin says:


      Glad to hear from you. Tell me why you think that the balance is not as unambiguous as I think, and I’ll argue with you.

      As for the PM, I have known all PMs since and including Harold Holt, but not Abbott or Morrison or Turnbull. I was not impressed with McMahon as a speaker, or John Gorton. Very impressed with Paul K, who gave an impromptu one-hour speech on mining to the AMIC, thought MT was just talk, and saw nothing remarkable about Morrison until quite recently. That’s all.

  • Stuart Manley says:

    I posted this earlier (twice) but it seems to have vanished into the ether, so here we go again.

    The big question for your side of the argument has to be, how did the researchers of the world pull off such a huge scam. It involves every major science organisation around the world, every government practically bar the USA, and every meteorological body. Pretty impressive really, you have to admit.

    And on the other side we have a court case going on in California where the oil companies are being sued. One of the filed documents accuses Exxon of funding denial while knowing (from their own research) that CO2 would do harm to the world.

    “In addition to providing funding to scientists to promote invalid theories, Defendants funded industry front groups that aggressively denied and sought to discredit climate science. From 1998 through 2017, ExxonMobil alone spent $36 million funding 69 organizations that misrepresented and persistently sought to discredit the scientific consensus that Defendants’ fossil fuel products were causing climate change.”

    Pretty gutsy to file that in court with back up. Go and checkout the court documents, interesting reading.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      I see the your post went into a pending file, from which I rescued it an hour or so ago. I don’t know why that one went there, and am sure for the inconvenience it caused. I’ll keep a closer eye on my WordPress system.

  • Stuart Manley says:

    Here is the link to the case submission referred to in my as yet unpublished comment on this matter. Daming stuff for climate case laggards.


    • Don Aitkin says:

      ‘Damning’, I think you meant. But these are briefs, not evidence. Their weight has to be tested in court.

      • Chris Warren says:


        “…Their weight has to be tested in court.”

        Precisely so (subject to any appeal), and may even result in a 6+ yr gaol sentance.

        I am amazed and the number of people who are denying this principle and think they know better.

        • Chr says:

          and => at

        • spangled drongo says:

          “I am amazed and the number of people who are denying this principle and think they know better”

          When you are the greatest denier of climate nat var [and this is all these regular, tiny variations in SL are] you must amaze yourself regularly.

  • Chris Warren says:


    Your comment;

    “And I haven’t even mentioned the ACT Government’s quite dishonest claim that the ACT is close to, or will arrive at, being one hundred per cent renewable. Ecchh! Remember, when you press the light switch in the ACT, 85 per cent of the electricity comes from fossil fuels…”

    was ungracious and opportunist.

    It is well established that businesses are carbon neutral if they address their local emissions by funding or purchasing offsets somewhere else.

    This is the case for the ACT’s electricity sector. The actual power consumption comes with CO2 emissions but these are offset through ACT purchasing offsets from contracts with wind farms and solar sources outside the ACT.

    This is all explained here:

    Carbon emissions that are properly offset do not represent any problem and are “renewable” provided the offset is “renewable”. This appears to be the case with the sources in the ACT document.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      The ACT Government does not say, ever, that what it is trying to do is to invest in renewables both in the ACT and elsewhere to the point where the electricity thereby generated is equivalent to the amount consumed by ACT residents. That would be the honest description, but no Minister ever says anything like this, and the reader/viewer is left with the impression that in some magical way the ACT is powered exclusively by renewables. The amount is in any case a tiny proportion of the Eastern Grid, and most of it is generated in other jurisdictions, to their profit. Seems nutty to me, but then that’s what religion-like beliefs can do to some people..

      • Chris Warren says:


        What are you suggesting by saying “The ACT Government does not say, ever, that what it is trying to do is to invest in renewables:

        ” to the point where the electricity thereby generated is equivalent to the amount consumed by ACT residents. ”

        But this is the for the ACT purchasing out-of-territory renewable energy to the point where it offsets entirely the carbon emissions of ACT actual usage. How else can the contracts with the various solar and wind farms be interpreted????

        Surely the renewable electricity purchased has to equal the amount consumed by ACT residents.

        It may be a bit of a bureaucratic trick, but I see their point even though technically the actual flows of electricity come from the National Grid which still contains carbon emissions. This is NOT magical.

        If the grid emitted a megatonne of carbon, but the grid owners also created an offset of a megatonne elsewhere then, as I see it, there is no net increase of CO2 into the atmosphere.

        Maybe this arrangement needs to be verified by a formal Performance Audit or Carbon footprint analysis of some sort.

      • JimboR says:

        “and the reader/viewer is left with the impression that in some magical way the ACT is powered exclusively by renewables”

        Assuming they achieve their goals then that is the net effect, although it’s not magical except maybe to those who don’t understand it. If you’re a Canberra resident concerned about CO2 emissions and considering buying an electric car, you know you can recharge your car every night in the ACT and your annual motoring will contribute nothing to the atmospheric CO2 levels.

        A Qld motorist with similar concerns would only have the same peace of mind if they ticked the “100% renewable” box on their agreement. Effectively, the ACT govt. is ticking that box for all of you – and that’s a bit cheeky since there’s usually an end-user price premium associated with that box.

    • Tezza says:

      Welcome back to the keyboard, Don.
      When as an ACT resident and an ex-Catholic I read the statement: “It is well established that businesses are carbon neutral if they address their local emissions by funding or purchasing offsets somewhere else”, I immediately think of the pre-reformation sale of indulgences.
      In both cases, my confidence in the accounting is zero, and is not increased by the assertion that “it is well established”.

  • Good to hear your voice again, Don! Weather v. climate aside, I’m sitting at my desk staring at – ohh, maybe 50 cm of snow and a temperature of minus 1.5 C. Even as I write, the snow keeps pounding down. This is unusual for the normally temperate winters on the mainland of Canada’s West Coast.

    However, I clearly remember the winter of 1949 when the snow in this area was well above my knees … Admittedly, my knees were lower, then. I also clearly remember the winter of 1978 when the snow in the same area was at least as deep as now.

    Canadians’ median age is 40: Many of us won’t remember those and other big snowfalls. Instead, we rely on meteorologists to look up historic dates and numbers. Those numbers say that what we’re experiencing is unusual.

    I’ve been following the numbers around Australia, and think it fair to say your meteorologists also say they’re unusual. Weather? Climate change? Other than to say far, far more than 7% of North Americans are thinking and talking about this, I’m not qualified to comment.

    As the song goes: “Nowhere to run to … Nowhere to hide …”

    • Don Aitkin says:


      My evidence for the 7 per cent is Pew Research. What is yours?

      • My evidence is not research-based, but rather comments I’ve stumbled across in social media, in the shops, in news stories … I’ve said “I’ve stumbled across …” because I haven’t prompted such comments or taken special note them to support my “bias.” I know you as a wily pollster, Don, so I also know answers depend on how questions are phrased.

        I’ve just asked Google: “percentage of Canadian adults concerned about climate change?” Up popped the 1986 Ipsos result that “Two-thirds (63%) Feel “Desperately Concerned That If Drastic Action Not Taken Right Now World May Not Last Much Longer Than Another Couple Of Generations.”

        That was the first hit to come up; not wanting to cherry-pick or bias the result, I decided to go with first hits only. Because of the parameters I’d set myself, I didn’t search for something more current.

        I then asked Google the same question about Americans. The first hit came from a February, 2018 journal of the American Psychological Association, which stated: “71% of Americans … think global warming is happening, according to a Yale Program on Climate Change Communication survey, while 47 percent say they are “very” or “extremely” sure of it, 13 percent do not believe it is happening; the rest are unsure.”

        Then I asked the question about Australians: The first story to come up was a summary of a Lowy Institute Poll headed: “Australians’ support for climate action at its highest level in a decade.” (June, 2018) The poll’s summary states: “59% of respondents agreed with the statement: “climate change is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs … This represents an increase of 5 percentage points from 2017, and a consistent increase in support for this statement over the past six years. It suggests that support for climate action in Australia is bouncing back towards its high point of 68% in the first set of Lowy Polls in 2006.”

        Breaking with my “first hit” methodology, I ran through the Google headers in response to my question about Australians’ perspective. Story after story after story said much the same.

        Don’t tell me polls are for dogs. At what point does “weather” become “climate change”? This once happened over eons. It’s now been happening over – what? The past 30 years? The past 50? The past 100? … I don’t know, but what I can see and feel in our increasingly hotter summers and increasingly colder winters over the past decade, is that whatever’s happening, is doing so faster than most of us anticipated. Our windstorms have also increased in frequency and strength; have your cyclones done the same? When I lived in Australia in 1998, they’d been doing so for several years.

        I fear we may have passed the point of no return. Tell your grandchildren you love them. Hug tightly them tightly. And hope for the best.

        • Don Aitkin says:


          As you recognise, it all depends on the way the question is asked. Pew asks respondents what the major issues affecting them are. One in fourteen say global warming or climate change or something of the kind. When does weather become climate? The conventional wisdom is thirty years, but that doesn’t mean much. The truth is that we have little good data about global temperature before1979. There are five main datasets even now and they don’t really agree with each other. Which is right? How would you tell?

          • JimboR says:

            “Pew asks respondents what the major issues affecting them are. One in fourteen say global warming or climate change or something of the kind. ”

            I’m surprised it’s as high as that. I don’t think I could say it’s affecting me. If we wait until a large proportion of the population claim to be affected by it, it may well be way too late to do anything about it.

          • JimboR says:

            I wonder how many of the 1 in 14 work on the land. Farmers are true believers, and it’s one of the reasons they’re abandoning the National Party.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Farmers are true believers,” jimb sez.

            Is that right, jimb?

            I think you’ll find that people like farmers who work outside and have done so for most of their lives are quite aware that this country is one of extreme droughts, flooding rains, hot days, cold days and everything in between.

            When you have experienced everything nature can throw at you and survived, have your hands in the 4 billion year old earth daily and are aware of the extremes that brought it to where it is today you aren’t likely to be a nervous bed-wetter about ever-changing climate.

            I’m a farmer and my 150 acres that overlooks the city of Brisbane was 7c cooler today.

            Was that down to the extra CO2 emissions there, do you think?

          • Serge Wright says:

            A one degree warming of the climate over a 100 year period is not really going to be detectable or concerning to individauls, considering we all experience around 10 degrees of warming / cooling each day and around 40 degrees of maximum temperature variation each year in most of our cities.

            Therefore, when you ask the question of “what issues are affecting you today”, the fraction of the one degree of warming an individual has experienced over their lifetime will not be evident in their daily struggles.

            What is evident in our daily struggles are impacts from CC policy, which have driven up prices and reduced reliability of supply. Energy poverty is a genuine issue today and no doubt it will increase further as both sides of politics appear to be locked into a policy that will donate at least $70 billion dollars from the public purse to wealthy multinational energy companies to import and build the renewable technology (which we know is not renewable). These companies then cash in a second time by taking advantage of the fluctuating nature of the weather driven energy system that becomes their roulette wheel-of-fortune as soon as the wind stops and the spot price surges, allowing them to make even larger profits at the expense of all consumers.

      • Chris Warren says:

        It may be possible to get 7% if you merely asked people what issues concern them with no context.

        In door-to-door surveys I have done in Canberra the results are heavily biassed towards – shopping centre closures, glass on bike paths, hoons at night, housing affordability, and jobs for their kids. Issues such as free trade, nuclear power, and climate change rarely came up except for people already active in political movements.

        What is the evidence for Pew finding 7%??? What was the specific survey instrument?

  • Stu says:

    The big question for your side of the argument has to be, how did the researchers of the world pull off such a huge scam. It involves every major science organisation around the world, every government practically bar the USA, and every meteorological body. Pretty impressive really, you have to admit.

    And on the other side we have a court case going on in California where the oil companies are being sued. One of the filed documents accuses Exxon of funding denial while knowing (from their own research) that CO2 would do harm to the world.

    “In addition to providing funding to scientists to promote invalid theories, Defendants funded industry front groups that aggressively denied and sought to discredit climate science. From 1998 through 2017, ExxonMobil alone spent $36 million funding 69 organizations that misrepresented and persistently sought to discredit the scientific consensus that Defendants’ fossil fuel products were causing climate change.”

    Pretty gutsy to file that in court with back up. Go and checkout the court documents, interesting reading.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      No, it is you you raised the notion of a scam. I don’t think it is one at all. There is a lot of government policy and government departments which fund research into climate change. Why wouldn’t the academies support the orthodoxy when there is so much money available. It is plainly what has happened here.

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova has a look at the new adjusted BOM data and provides a very good account of the ongoing linked history at the end of the post.
    We know that the IPCC’s preferred data-base (HAD Crut 4) was adjusted up after the 2010 BBC Dr Jones interview on top of their Climategate emails scandal, but they always adjust down the earlier trends as well.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, BoM suddenly “finding” that 51c at Carnarvon in 1953 is very interesting. We had 50c at Planet Downs, near Haddon Corner in Sturt’s Stony Desert in 1957 that was recorded on a verandah that was built on the principle of a Coolgardie Safe and would have been a lot cooler than any Stevenson Screen.

      Those sort of temperatures were not uncommon particularly in the 19th century but BoM don’t want to know about them and have deleted them.

      If this doesn’t prove that they need auditing, what will it take?

  • Neville says:

    Bob Tisdale looks at the 30 year global warming trend 1916 to 1945 and finds that their climate models are hopeless at finding any AGW in this earlier part of the record. He uses GISS data.

    Interesting that the HAD Crut 4 trend ( 1916 to 1945) is 0.167 c/ decade and Berkeley is even higher at 0.171 c/ decade.

    And we know that co2 levels were much lower at that time and temp trends for Greenland were higher then than in recent decades of the late 20th century. See Vinther et al that I’ve linked to months ago.

    Bob finishes his post with his assessment of their models.


    “In the following, I’ve initially repeated the closing comments from the earlier post in this series.

    For the early 20th Century 30-year warming period of 1916-1945, climate models are consistently horrible and consistently inconsistent at simulating the primary metric of human-induced climate change, which is global mean surface temperature.

    And, surprisingly, based on those horrendous excuses for climate models, we’re supposed to believe their crystal-ball like prognostications of future global mean surface temperatures and other climate metrics!!?? Fat chance of that happening with anyone who has a spark of common sense. If only more persons understood how poorly climate models simulated global mean surface temperatures—the primary metric of human-induced climate change—the human-induced global warming scare might just disappear into the past like the Y2K scare. Then again, the global warming/climate change scare has nothing to do with science; it is simply global politics at its worst, masquerading as science.

    The IPCC couldn’t be a scientific entity. No scientific entity would set its foundation on models that perform as badly as this. The climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive should be presented as examples of failed attempts to simulate Earth’s climate, not used for government policy”.

  • Neville says:

    Dr Curry looks at some recent studies on SLR. And these new studies seem to return to more sane projections for future SLR.

  • Chris Warren says:



    are well known denialists. Your obsession with them is not healthy.

    Try using the
    – Australian Academy of Science
    – CSIRO
    – UK Royal Society
    – NOAA
    – Smithsonian
    – BOM
    – ANU
    – your local library

    • Don Aitkin says:


      You would be more persuasive if you dropped the ad hominem. Dr Curry is highly credentialled as a scientist. What you mean is that she takes a different point of view to you. But then she has so much more standing in this domain than you do. To sledge her in this way just demeans you. As for the others, you really need to show where they are wrong, not just call them ‘denialists’. And if you know anything about what has gone inside the learned academies in Australia you would have some justified criticisms of the position taken by the AAS, which I have written about in the past.

      • stu says:

        How is calling her a “denialist” an ad hominem attack. It is simply a factual statement. She is known for denying the propriety of generally accepted science fact, which is why she resigned from her university post. And on the other hand you have not pulled up Neville for referring to “CAGW fanatacists”.

        • Don says:

          It is an ad hominem attack, and rests on the unfounded assumption that she is wrong in what she has written about. Do you any evidence that she resigned from her university post for the reason you give? It is not what she said.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            She retired at the age of 65, which you ca see from her website. Sounds normal to me.

          • Stu says:

            Actually this is what she wrote about her “retirement”
            JC in transition
            Posted on January 3, 2017 | 239 Comments
            by Judith Curry

            Effective January 1, I have resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech.

            Before reflecting on a range of things, let me start by answering a question that may have popped into your head: I have no plans to join the Trump administration (ha ha).

            Technically, my resignation is a retirement event, since I am on the Georgia State Teachers Retirement System, and I need to retire from Georgia Tech to get my pension (although I am a few years shy of 65). I have requested Emeritus status.

            So, I have retired from Georgia Tech, and I have no intention of seeking another academic or administrative position in a university or government agency. However, I most certainly am not retiring from professional life.

            Why did I resign my tenured faculty position?

            I’m ‘cashing out’ with 186 published journal articles and two books. The superficial reason is that I want to do other things, and no longer need my university salary. This opens up an opportunity for Georgia Tech to make a new hire (see advert).

            The deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.

  • Neville says:

    Let’s try and make it easy for the CAGW fantasists. The endless adjustments have found about 0.194 c/decade over the last 30 years for HAD Crut 4 and less for GISS and higher for BEST. Using York uni tool.
    The HAD Crut 4 for 1916 to 1945 trend is 0.167 c/decade, so the difference is 0.027 c/decade or about 0.27c / 100 years. IOW they’ve tried endless adjustments to beef up the latest trend but the difference is just noise or about 3 hundredths of 1 degree C a century.
    And does anyone really have confidence in the HAD Crut 4 adjustments since the BBC Jones interview in 2010?
    Of course that tiny difference could be because of more/less shading by clouds, ocean oscillations, more solar radiation, AO, AMO, PDO changes etc, etc. Who knows?
    Certainly plenty of man made warming adjustments to produce the small increase in the latest 30 year trend.

  • Neville says:

    Sorry the above should read “about 3 tenths of 1 c per century”, in the above.

  • Neville says:

    Lomborg updates the latest data from the EU based IEA. Solar and Wind still supply less than 1% of TOTAL world energy and may generate 4% by 2040.
    What a waste of time and money and S&W will not make a scrap of measurable difference to global temp reduction by 2040 or 2100.
    But who cares as long as Labor and the Greens continue their fabrication about OZ’s so called mitigation of their CAGW fantasy?
    Certainly they are prepared to waste endless billions $ on their fantasy for a guaranteed ZERO return and no measurable change to temp at all.

  • Neville says:

    A number of new studies of the Greenland ice sheet shows the latest trends are higher than other periods during the earlier Holocene.
    And we don’t have to rely on Glacier Girl to support our more optimistic point of view.

  • alan moran says:

    “It’s all about how each side will act to reduce the cost of our electricity bills. Mr Shorten says he is going to ramp up the installation of renewables, though how that will make a difference is not clear to me. If any journalist asked him that question, the grab and the reply did not appear in the telecasts I saw.”

    Ah that’s because the answer is so simple – as it has been for the past five years and more. Renewable energy, as all the experts at the universities and the CSIRO tell us, is now the cheapest form of electricity. And the subsidies to renewables will mean more are constructed and will bid for business at their marginal cost thus driving down all prices. The fact that prices have doubled and supply become more uncertain is a mere aberation, besides most outages are caused by local distribution line failures. QED and don’t be too sure that the Government has a markedly different view!

  • Neville says:

    Bill Gates is a true believer in the CAGW cult but even he knows that S&W are not the answer. Here he is in a recent interview making some good points about the stupidity of renewables.

    Like the father of their CAGW Dr Hansen he knows that S&W are fairy tales just like the Easter Bunny and the Tooth fairy. Hansen was right when he called Paris COP 21 just BS and fra-d and he is a strong supporter of Nuclear energy.

    But Labor and the Greens and the donkeys who vote for them think that OZ can change the climate back to much lower rainfall like we experienced throughout OZ from 1895 to 1970 and at the cost of endless billions $. But very simple kindy maths shows us it will have no measurable impact at all by 2040 or 2100 and beyond.

    Yet many pollies, journos and MSM continue to lie to the Aussie voters and the people who tell the truth are treated with hatred and contempt by the fra-dsters. Unbelievable but true.
    “Cheap renewables won’t stop global warming, says Bill Gates”

    “The interview by Arun Majumdar, co-director of Stanford Energy’s Precourt Institute for Energy, which organized the conference, can be watched here.

    When financial analysts proposed rating companies on their CO2 output to drive down emissions, Gates was appalled by the idea that the climate and energy problem would be easy to solve. He asked them: “Do you guys on Wall Street have something in your desks that makes steel? Where is fertilizer, cement, plastic going to come from? Do planes fly through the sky because of some number you put in a spreadsheet?”

    “The idea that we have the current tools and it’s just because these utility people are evil people and if we could just beat on them and put (solar panels) on our rooftop—that is more of a block than climate denial,” Gates said. “The ‘climate is easy to solve’ group is our biggest problem.”

    If he only looked at the numbers in the climate science debate…

  • Neville says:

    Here AGAIN is Aust rainfall from the BOM, 1900 to 2018. Note this is an anomaly graph with above and below the average rainfall line and I’ve used an 8 year moving average line to make it easier to understand.
    1895 to 1970 was a period of much lower rainfall than we enjoy today, although OZ will always be a land of droughts and flooding rains. But most people are ignorant of this OZ rainfall record and some get VERY hostile when you try to explain it to them. Why is it so?

  • Neville says:

    Ken Stewart has completed his check of the new WA Acorn 2 temp data. Just 7 years ago the messy Acorn 1 data was claimed to be “world’s best practice”, but now Acorn 2 has increased the maxima by 29% and minima by 17% in WA.

    Here is his conclusion of the data changes in WA. Next is the NT.


    Comparison of Acorn2 versus Acorn 1 data for Western Australia does not encourage confidence in the Bureau’s methods:-

    There are no additional stations, so the network is still extremely sparse.

    There is a very small amount of additional digitized data.

    The average trend in maxima for WA has been increased by 29%, and in minima by 17%.

    Differences between Acorn 1 and Acorn 2 daily data can be up to nearly 11 degrees Celsius.

    New record maximum temperatures have been set.

    Diurnal Temperature Range (an important indicator of greenhouse warming) has not been significantly changed on average, but there is an enormous variation between individual sites.

    The issue of instances of minima being higher than maxima caused by too vigorous adjustments has been “fixed” by further vigorous adjustments.

    The “square wave” pattern in adjustments in Perth has been largely rectified. The square wave is now in the difference between Acorn 1 and Acorn 2.

    It beggars belief that a dataset that was proudly described as “world’s best practice” just seven years ago has needed to be adjusted by so much. Has “best practice” changed so much? How was Acorn 1 so wrong? How can we be sure that the new version is better, and will itself not be changed again in a few years?

    There are now four versions of WA temperature: Raw; High Quality (no longer available); Acorn 1; and Acorn 2. All are different.

    The record for Western Australia reveals a state, not of excitement, but of confusion.

    Next: the Northern Territory.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Yes indeed, Don, what has actually changed?

    Sea levels certainly are not rising locally. Well, not for the last 70-odd years, anyway.

    I have been away birding for the last couple of days in the heatwave and have seen some wonderful birds. Rose-crowned Fruit Doves, Mistletoebirds, Riflebirds, Peregrine Falcons, Alberts Lyrebirds, even Spangled Drongos and they are all surviving amazingly well.

    But that’s the trouble with us denialists, we just don’t know when we should be bleating.

    Rational scepticism is a terrible affliction.

  • Neville says:

    Here is the Vinther et al 2006 long instrumental record of Greenland. This is a very long study over 200 years and co-authors are prominent alarmist UK scientists Dr Jones and Dr Briffa.

    Looking at temps over this long period we find that much earlier decades are warmer than the last few decades and they even hold up well against some of the decades over one hundred years ago, back in the 1800s. See TABLE 8.

    So what will be their excuse when the AMO changes to the cool phase, perhaps sometime in the 2020s? Or has it started already? Who knows? See TABLE 8 from the study comparing decades.

  • beththeserf says:

    So good to get another sane, (rational) review of the climate controversy from you, Don. The data is what it is, regardless of homogenizations, ACORN 1 and 2 revisionism . Neville has linked to this … Carnarvon BOM addjustments make the 1953 raw data 3.3 degrees hotter.

    Climate change not a science but a religion where ‘noble’ lies are necessary and excusable.

  • Stu says:

    Did anybody read this. SMH Ross Gittins 14/2/19

    In the dim distant past, politicians got themselves elected by showing us a Vision of Australia’s future that was brighter and more alluring than their opponent’s.

    These days the pollies prefer a more negative approach, pointing to the daunting problems we face and warning that, in such uncertain times, switching to the other guy would be far too risky.

    Illustration: Simon Letch
    Illustration: Simon LetchCREDIT:
    We’ve gone from “I’m much better than him” to “if you think I’m bad, he’d be worse”. Maybe they simply lack any vision of the future beyond advancing their own careers.

    Management-types tell us we should conduct “SWOT analysis” – considering our strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats. But we’ve become mesmerised by the threats and incapable of seeing the opportunities. Such a pessimistic mindset is crippling us when we could be going from strength to strength.

    Take climate change. It, of course, is a threat – to our climate, and hence to our comfort and our economy – but think a bit more about it and you realise that, for a country like ours, it’s also a new gravy train we could be climbing aboard.

    Illustration: Andrew Dyson
    Illustration: Andrew DysonCREDIT:
    The stumbling block is that responding to climate change requires change – and no one likes change, especially those who earn their living from the present way of doing things.

    So, what more natural reaction than to resist change? Economists are always warning politicians not to try “picking winners”. In reality, they’re far more likely to resist change by spending lots of money trying to prop up losers.

    Start by denying that change is necessary. Global warming isn’t happening, it’s just a conspiracy by scientists angling for more research funds.

    EnergyAustralia would provide free rooftop solar panels and batteries to charities to help them slash power bills.
    EnergyAustralia to turn charities into mini-power plants
    Add to shortlist
    Nothing new about heatwaves, droughts, floods and cyclones – they’ve always existed. They’re becoming bigger and more frequent? Just your imagination.

    What you’re not imagining is the ever-higher cost of electricity. But that’s just because those ideologues imposed a carbon tax and are making us subsidise renewable energy. Get rid of the taxes and subsidies and the cost falls back to what it was.

    And those terrible wind turbines. They’re unnatural and unsightly, they kill rare birds and their noise endangers farmers’ health.

    Renewable energy is unreliable because it depends on the wind blowing or the sun shining. You need coal for steady supply. With the greater reliance on renewable, where do you think the blackouts are coming from?

    Merkel just decided to close all of Germany’s coal power plants. All of them.
    Coal bites the dust in Germany, Europe’s greenest nation
    Add to shortlist
    And renewable energy is so expensive. Coal-fired electricity is much cheaper. Plus, we’ve got all our chips stacked on coal. We’re world experts at open-cut coal mining. Our coal is much higher quality than most other countries.

    Coal provides jobs for 30,000 workers. There are towns desperate for jobs who’d just love another coal mine. And, of course, we’ve still got huge reserves of the stuff that’s of no value if it stays in the ground.

    Some of these claims have always been untrue, some are no longer true and some are less true than they were.

    Just this week, for instance, a report from the independent Grattan Institute has debunked the claim that “outages” are being caused by renewables, saying more than 97 per cent of outage hours can be traced to problems with the local poles and wires that transport power to businesses and homes.

    While it’s true that power from existing coal-fired generators is dirt cheap, many of these are old and close to the end of their useful lives. They’re not being replaced by new coal generators because there’s too much risk that the demand for coal-fired power will dry up before the generators have returned the money invested in them.

    The latest report from the CSIRO says the lowest-cost power from a newly built facility is now produced by solar and wind.

    The cost of solar, battery storage and, to a lesser extent, wind power, has fallen dramatically over this decade, partly because of advances in technology but mainly because of economies of scale as China and many other countries jump on the bandwagon. These falls are likely to continue.

    This has gone so far that the old arguments about the need for a price on carbon and subsidies for renewables are being overtaken by events.

    Installation of renewable generation is proceeding apace, with all renewables’ share of generation in the national electricity market jumping from 16 per cent to 21 per cent, just over the year to December, according to Green Energy Markets.

    So, as the economist Frank Jotzo, of the Australian National University, has said, coal is on the way out. The only question is how soon it happens.

    According to our present way of looking at it, this is disastrous news. But not if we see it as more an opportunity than a threat.

    Professor Ross Garnaut, of the University of Melbourne, has said that “nowhere in the developed world are solar and wind resources together so abundant as in the west-facing coasts and peninsulas of southern Australia.

    “Play our cards right, and Australia’s exceptionally rich endowment per person in renewable energy resources makes us a low-cost location for energy supply in a low-carbon world economy.

    “That would make us the economically rational location within the developed world of a high proportion of energy-intensive processing and manufacturing activity.”

  • Chris Warren says:

    Don and Neville


    We know denialism exists already from scientists peddling nicotine. Curry does not merely take a different view to “me” – she denys the view emanating from :

    – Australian Academy of Science
    – CSIRO
    – UK Royal Society
    – NOAA
    – Smithsonian
    – BOM
    – ANU

    As a typical tactic – Judith Curry simply makes up ‘straw men’ to then ramp-up her project. For example she writes:


    The alarm over sea level rise
    The public discourse on the threat of sea level rise is typified by these dire statements from climate scientists:
    “That’s the big thing – sea-level rise – the planet could become ungovernable.” – Dr. James Hansen, former Director, NASA GISS
    “We’re talking about literally giving up on our coastal cities of the world and moving inland.” – Dr. Michael Mann, Penn State 
    [see: ]


    All this is FALSE

    Hansen never said: ““That’s the big thing – sea-level rise – the planet could become ungovernable.”

    Mann never said ““We’re talking about literally giving up on our coastal cities of the world and moving inland” in the context of sea-level.

    Hansen’s comment was:

    “It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization.”

    Mann’s comment was only in the context of hurricanes hitting coastal cities.

    Mann’s words were actually reported as:

    “If we continue down the road we’re on and make no adjustments to climate change, Mann says, then these sorts of events could eventually become two-year or three-year events. “In other words,” he said, “we get a Harvey-like event impacting the Gulf Coast, or a Sandy-like event impacting the New Jersey and New York City coast once every few years … Imagine having to deal with something like that every few years.” At that point, Mann says, “we’re talking about the retreat from our coast lines. We’re talking about literally giving up on the major coastal cities of the world and moving inland.”

    Judith Curry has merely cherrypicked some words to falsify a Hansen quote and then to fabricate disruption, she cherry-picked Mann’s comments in one context (hurricanes crossing the coast), to serve another, namely one more suited to her private denialist agenda.

    In short, she lacks credibility. Too much falsification and cherry-picking.

    • Neville says:

      Chris stop talking nonsense, the quotes are correct. Unless of course you really think we can change the climate back to the LIA?
      I thought you’d moved past your religious posturing about magically changing the climate, but apparently not.
      Dr Curry uses proper data and evidence not the silly nonsense we hear from upside down Mann etc. He is a joke.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Chris, You accuse Dr Curry of making things up, and state , apparently authoritatively, that neither Hansen nor Mann actually said these things. Well, if you go to her paper on sea-level you can see the references. To save you trouble, here they are:

      I couldn’t open the first one, but the second I could, and Mann actually used those words. Yep. Those words that she quoted are right there in the article.

      Now, how did you come to deny the attribution? It wasn’t by going to the references, was it. No. You searched for the words a different way, couldn’t find them, so concluded that she made them up.

      Oh dear. In court you would be done like a dinner. Defamation. And quite wrong substantively. Fortunately for you, Dr Curry is not interested, and described your assault on her as ‘pathetic’, which indeed it is.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Has anything actually changed?

    Well, if we use data from CSIRO and NASA then sea level rise has accelerated.

    From 1880 to 1980 rise was 1.50 mm per year [see: ]

    It has now doubled to over 3 mm per year [see: ]

    If you ran a properly designed poll today – I am sure you would get more than 7% saying that ‘climate change’ is important to them.

    This also is a change.

    • Neville says:

      Gosh it looks like we have to ask Chris AGAIN to explain how we return to his perfect LIA climate. Here’s a few problems for you Chris.

      China, India + the non OECD don’t care and have increasing emissions of co2, into the foreseeable future, while the OECD countries have virtually flat-lined for decades. The USA now have about the same emissions as they had in 1990.
      The RS and NAS have explained in their ques 20 Q&A that we wouldn’t see a change in temp for 1,000 years EVEN IF we STOPPED all human co2 emissions today.
      And co2 levels wouldn’t change for thousands of years after that time. Of course this is not every scientists POV but it does include most of the alarmist brigade, who helped them calculate the data.
      And OZ emits just 1.2% of co2 emissions and Dr Finkel also admitted we can’t make a difference. Even if we stopped all our emissions today. Very simple maths that anyone can do, so stop wasting our time with your silly nonsense.

      • Chris Warren says:


        You are producing confused, unreferenced garbage. It is just some sort of strange stream of dogma that lacks both sense and order.

        Does LIA stand for Little Ice Age or Lazy Incoherent Argument?
        Does RS stand for Royal Society or Rat Shit argument?
        Does NAS stand for National Academy of Sciences or Neville’s Awful Spew?

        Vain references to august institutions are meaningless unless you provide a specific reference. You are just puffing-up your posts with references that lead nowhere.

        You assert Curry quotes are correct – but provide no evidence. This is pure-bred denialism.

        You are now trying to deflect attention onto other issues – a favoured tactic of denialists.

        • Neville says:

          I’ve provided all the links to you before many times and you’ve proven you know those links and understand them.
          I won’t respond to you now because you can’t even remember that you agreed that mitigation won’t work. You’re not worth the time of day and I’m far too busy to bother with your religious beliefs.

        • Don Aitkin says:


          I am not able to quickly show that Dr Curry’s quotes were correct, but I will write to her and ask for the references.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            I still cannot open the first URL, but your reference seems to be it. If it is, then the longer body of writing goes like this:

            ‘Because we have such a large fraction of people on coastlines — more than half of the large cities in the world are on coastlines. The economic implications of that, and the migrations and the social effects of migrations — the planet could become practically ungovernable, it seems to me.’

            Dr Curry thought that was ‘dire’. I think so too. Yes, there are ‘ifs’ and ‘could’ in all the Hansen writes. But it is still a dire forecast of an imagined future.

            You think it’s taken out of context. What context do you think it has?

  • Neville says:

    More data and evidence about recent SLR and some of the coastline sink rates from Jim Steele. Interesting data that most lay people don’t understand and certainly haven’t taken into account.
    Anyway the idea that we can slow or modify SLR ( or not) on human timescales is just more pixie dust science.
    Of course we know that SLs were much higher around OZ just 4,000 years as a result of a much warmer Holocene climate optimum.
    Many places all over the world had SLs up to 2 metres higher due to those earlier warmer conditions. Oh and boreal forests then grew up to the Arctic coastline where today there is just Tundra and ice. I’ve linked to this about 12 months ago.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Hey, blith and stu!

    Instead of breathlessly believing mega-angels dancing on pinheads have you yet put your heads outside and checked sea levels for yourselves?

    Like I’ve been urging you to do for years now?

    Where you will discover that there is no SLR based on construction of sea walls built to king tide datum.

    Where you will discover that our ocean beaches are in better condition than they have been for decades.


    Oh, dear!

    Belief, bed-wetting and blithering never beats personal observation.

    But then you would have to agree with Don that nothing much has changed.

    Instead of preferring to believe in the alarmist science that 500,000 drowned cattle can’t be wrong.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Nevertheless, blithnstu, don’t feel lonely. You have plenty of mates. Here’s an article like so many you offer that thinks it proves CAGW but actually proves the reverse.

    Research shows during this time period, known as the Eemian, scorching ocean temperatures caused a catastrophic global ice melt. As a result, sea levels were six to nine metres higher than they are today.

    And yet it all happened as part of natural climate variability, because the fun part is that during the Eemian, the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million, way lower than it is today (over 400ppm). So it should have been pretty icy during the Eemian according to blithnstu theory. But, as they tell us below, it was hotter:


    High time you both did something about your enuresis.

  • Neville says:

    Good study SD, but you don’t change silly religious fanatics in a hurry. I’ve tried it with the Mormons and JWs and it’s a very sorry task.

    Here a new Lin et al 2018 Taiwanese study shows that cold temps are more dangerous to humans than a warmer environment. This supports the Lancet worldwide study a couple of years ago.

  • spangled drongo says:

    In spite of the lengths of stupidity that true believers like blithnstu extend to, even a greenie like Mike Shellenberger has enough brains to reject the Green New Deal of Ocasio-Cortez:

    • Stu says:

      Ha, ha, such a funny man – NOT. The only “believers” are those in the deniersphere. The rest just accept solid science and physics trumps bullshit every time.

      And did you see this week that even the Republicans on the US House Science committee are now on board with the science. Get used to it, your little base is shrinking.

      “The Science Committee hosted its first climate hearing of 2019 on Wednesday, after two other House committees had already held theirs. In sharp contrast to recent past Science Committee climate hearings, there was bipartisan agreement that climate change is real, human-caused, and harmful. The hearing brought up a number of possible policies to help America reduce and prepare for global warming, and participants aired their differences regarding the best way forward.”

      And that is a refreshing change.

  • Neville says:

    Unusually cold and dry winters in OZ are the cause of much higher death rates. This is the same all around the world, so a little more warming can’t be such a bad thing.
    Here’s the Huang et al 2015 study and those increased winter deaths are very easy find on the graph.

  • Neville says:

    This Axford et al study finds that Greenland temp was much higher in the earlier Holocene and the LIA was the coldest period for the last 10,000 years.
    Certainly there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about Greenland temps today and our slight recent warming ( since 1995) could just be the result of a warm phase of the AMO.

    • Stu says:

      Oh yes, the CO2 Science crowd again. Here is a published review of the credibility or should I say lack of for the organisation.

      “More for the annals of climate misinformation

      19 Aug 2008 | 11:10 BST | Posted by Olive Heffernan | Category: Alicia Newton, Attribution, Climate Science, Communicating Climate Change

      I’m all for a website that distills climate science papers into something easily understood by the general public, especially if it avoids the hype and hysteria all too often employed by headline news.

      Such is the claim of CO2 Science, a weekly newsletter published by the not for profit Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, with issues that include editorials, book and media reviews, and mini-reviews of the recent peer-reviewed literature.

      But rather than its promise of “separating reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change”, on the contrary CO2 Science twists the most recent science, ever so subtly, to suggest that there is no link between carbon dioxide levels and climate change.

      For a case in point, check out the feature entitled “Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week”. This showcases records of temperature or environmental changes during the Medieval Warm Period (aka the Medieval Climate Anomaly). The conclusion is that if the MWP was warmer than present – still debated – obviously CO2 isn’t driving current warming. There is even a list of 576 scientists who have found evidence for the MWP – the thinly veiled conclusion being that they agree that an increase in CO2 isn’t behind the recent climate change.

      FYI scientists – if you’ve ever compiled a climate record for the past 2,000 years, your name is probably there. These folks are thorough.

      However, the most insidious feature of the website are the mini-reviews, where the editors (presumably the board) kindly reinterpret your results for you (beware of this in the MWP tracker as well). Here is their recent description of a 2007 Science paper by Stott et al:

      Stott et al. conclude that the cause of the deglacial deep-water warming ‘does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present be attributed to CO2 forcing.’ And since the rate of deep-water warming after the start of the increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration did not increase (if anything, it declined), there is no compelling reason to believe that the deglacial increase in the air’s CO2 content had anything at all to do with any of the warming that led to the ultimate development of the current interglacial.

      Hmmm…I don’t seem to recall Stott et al. reaching any such conclusion (beyond that directly quoted) in their paper. And technically the above paragraph doesn’t say that they do. But the casual reader would definitely come away with that conclusion. I’m usually willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, but there is no way that I can possibly conclude that the writer wasn’t trying to imply that a well respected scientist said that atmospheric CO2 has nothing to do with interglacial warmth.

      Although the mini-reviews do tend to highlight papers that show that plants like CO2, and can thrive under elevated CO2 conditions, I can’t imagine that an interpretive review of a palaeoclimate like the one above is an isolated incident. This goes way beyond any healthy skepticism and into the realm of active disinformation.

      What’s especially frustrating is the way they veil their agenda in peer-reviewed science, liberally using the names of well respected scientists who probably have no idea this site even exists. The site – which, according to the information page is run by three PhD-level scientists and an additional eight board members –preys upon the casual reader, and exploits the scientific illiteracy of the general public all under the guise of a registered charity that accepts completely confidential donations.”

    • Chris Warren says:


      As you know, when temperatures were high in the past, CO2 was under 300 ppm. The cause of high temperatures was not CO2.

      Today CO2 is over 400 and this is a new human-occasioned cause of unexpected global warming.

      You cannot deny today’s deaths by motor vehicles by arguing that more deaths occurred in the past due to other causes.

      You cannot link past non-CO2 warming with today’s CO2 warming.

      The task for denialists is to show, scientifically, that increased CO2 does not heat the lower atmosphere and does not block heat reaching the upper stratosphere as in the past.

  • Neville says:

    Another recent study ( Liu et al 2017) shows little correlation between co2 increases and temperature. The correlation exists in cities and heavily populated areas because of the Urban heat island effect, but in some remote areas around the world there is no correlation and temps show no trend. Certainly Antarctica seems to show little evidence of AGW since 1950 , even using the much debated PAGES 2 K study.

    Even the Mauna Loa area has no trend according to the study. The UHIE has been referenced by other scientists over the years and ignored by most journos, pollies and MSM.

    Here is the abstract of the study and note the lack of R 2 correlation in the remote non urban sites including Mauna Loa.

    CO2 and temperature records at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and other observation stations show that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not significant. These stations are located away from big cities, and in various latitudes and hemispheres. But the correlation is significant in global mean data. Over the last five decades, CO2 has grown at an accelerating rate with no corresponding rise in temperature in the stations. This discrepancy indicates that CO2 probably is not the driving force of temperature change globally but only locally (mainly in big cities). We suggest that the Earth’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 is too low to drive global temperature change. Our empirical perception of the global warming record is due to the urban heat island effect: temperature rises in areas with rising population density and rising industrial activity. This effect mainly occurs in the areas with high population and intense human activities, and is not representative of global warming. Regions far from cities, such as the Mauna Loa highland, show no evident warming trend. The global monthly mean temperature calculated by record data, widely used by academic researchers, shows R2=0.765, a high degree of correlation with CO2. However, the R2 shows much less significance (mean R2=0.024) if calculated by each record for 188 selected stations over the world. This test suggests that the inflated high correlation between CO2 and temperature (mean R2=0.765-0.024=0.741) used in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was very likely produced during data correction and processing. This untrue global monthly mean temperature has created a picture: human emission drives global warming.

  • Neville says:

    Another great post from Bob Tisdale showing zero warming in Greenland from 1925 to 2012. This is using Berkeley data and this actually shows a very slight cooling trend.
    Note the climate models are as hopeless in Greenland as they are for most of the world. Yet they still believe we can predict the future in 2040, 2100 and beyond. What a hoot.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “You cannot deny today’s deaths by motor vehicles by arguing that more deaths occurred in the past due to other causes.

    You cannot link past non-CO2 warming with today’s CO2 warming.”

    Poor ol’ blithnstu.

    Their reasoning is absolutely childish.

    Their minds lack functionality.

    It’s called EVIDENCE!!!!!

    When the evidence is observed by all and sundry, we don’t need enuresistic “scientists” to tell us what’s happening.

    When the evidence can only be hypothesised through fake modelling, adjusting and assuming, only the true believer alarmists embrace it.

    As Malcolm Roberts said, try producing some empirical EVIDENCE!!!

  • Stu says:

    You wrote “And while you are at it please supply evidence of your “known causes”.

    Try looking up Milankovich cycles to start with. And note that why they explain the past they dont explain the present. What is your cause of current change? Oh, hang on you are in denial of that also, so dont bother.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Unfortunately responding to a Drongo could be mistaken for the first sign of madness???

      Maybe it is better to use the “reply” link so the thread can be blocked.

  • Neville says:

    More evidence that the models are hopeless in this 2012 post from Bob Tisdale. Well worth the time to understand the graphs and the net forcings of the early and recent warming trends.

  • Neville says:

    The UAH V 6 sat January data shows the NP at minus -0.18 c and the SP at minus -0.05 c. While we know that the SP has not warmed over the last 40 years for this data-set, the NP may be changing as well. Who knows, only time will tell.
    But the trend over the last 40 years is 0.25c/ decade for the NP and that’s the highest trend for the globe.

    But why hasn’t the SP not warmed over the last 40 years?

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Try looking up Milankovich cycles to start with.”

    You just don’t get it do you stu? Please don’t you start blithering too.

    Milankovich cycles account for global temp variations of more than 10c. Even the kiddies know about them.

    We are talking variations that are about half the Nat Var per century for the last 80 centuries.

    The next scientist to supply measurable evidence for these causes will be the first.

    This is why cli-sci has to indulge in fakery at the bakery as our BoM is doing today with Acorn 2.

    But if you already know the reason for these causes, please don’t feel shy.

    • Stu says:

      Not shy. I will just rest safe in the knowledge that as you well know my position is supported by virtually all of published and peer reviewed science (go read it for yourself) while you cling to fringe ideas put about by a coterie of mostly unrespected promoters of dodgy research. In fact most of them, like the Idso crowd at CO2 etc just cherry pick, misquote and regurgitate the stuff that is your lifeblood.

      And besides events will overtake the argument before too long. Just one example you have not addressed is the current state of arctic ice, the thermostat for the northern hemisphere if not the world. If you have not noticed there is a distinct lack of multi year ice and the coverage mass and area have shrunk alarmingly. While you talk of temperature in tenths of degrees the situation in the arctic is in the multiple degree anomaly space. The methane plumes are rising, maybe they are your missing element.

      As I posted earlier, even the republicans in the house science Committee in USA are now on board. Post the May election and a decimated LNP we may have a similar situation here. Shuffle the deck chairs my complacent non hero. The old guard are dying off, literally, and being replaced each year by the new young voters who have more at stake in the discussion. But it is ok, your complacency is well recorded for posterity.

      • spangled drongo says:

        I said don’t feel shy if you could supply a reason. Consensual groupthink is not a reason, stu.

        I’ve been reading your published and peer reviewed “science” for years and apart from being all based on assumption-fed GCMs, and other endless modelling providing predictions that have been consistently wrong, the real world is no different to natural climate variability.

        If there is no sea level rise there is no global warming, and no net ice melt.

        For you to be certain rather than sceptical that this consensual groupthink represents the facts, highlights the fact that your reasoning is considerably lacking.

        It doesn’t matter how many people can be brainwashed into believing anything, the fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Climate change is the religion of people who think they’re too smart for religion.

        “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered, than answers that can’t be questioned.” — Feynman

        “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire

        Hang sceptical, stu.

  • Neville says:

    Willis Eschenbach looks at the Vinther et al Greenland study of our Holocene. He checked the data and found that over the last 7,000 years temps on Greenland have declined while co2 levels have strongly increased over the same period.
    Fair dinkum you couldn’t make this stuff up, but don’t worry the barking mad believers won’t even notice.
    Some interesting graphs and particularly showing the steep co2 trend while temps declined over that long period of time.

  • Stu says:

    Oh drongass

    “It doesn’t matter how many people can be brainwashed into believing anything, the fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Climate change is the religion of people who think they’re too smart for religion.”

    So please tell me how you are not describing your tribe here. The big difference is weight if numbers and oh I nearly forgot, PHYSICS.

    And tell me please do you believe in evolution? Is the worlds fate in the hand of god so no need to worry. If so we can end the dialogue here.

    • spangled drongo says:

      You finally got it, stu-pid.


      But your trouble is that your newfound religion doesn’t apply them and doesn’t have any idea how they apply.

      So they cook the books.

      But maybe you do, hey stu?

      We are all still waiting for your physics.

      But seeing as you admit to embracing consensual groupthink, I won’t hold my breath.

      BTW, physics is not something you vote for.

      Now, give us your physics.

      • Neville says:

        SD,Stu and others here are not interested in the physics that apply to the real planet earth, rather they are only interested in their fantasy planet.
        Dr Rosling, Lomborg, Goklany and others have tried to get them to concentrate on real data and evidence, but it’s a waste of time. Best to leave them to their fantasies and witchcraft and find more recent PR studies that prove them wrong. They won’t listen or understand but at least we’re learning something new every day.

  • JimboR says:

    Don your logic here is flawed.

    First you state: “the proportion of respondents who tell the interviewer that ‘climate change’ is important to them runs at about 7 per cent.” Several of us question it could be that low and even provide evidence from Pew that it is in fact much higher. Next you reveal that in fact “Pew asks respondents what the major issues affecting them are. One in fourteen say global warming or climate change or something of the kind. ”

    You, and you alone (nobody from Pew) changed ‘affecting me’ to ‘important to me’. I can think of countless issues that are important to me but don’t affect me: domestic violence, elder abuse in nursing homes, education standards, youth employment rates, climate change, debt passed on to future generations, environment passed on to future generations.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Jimbo, carelessness on my part. Mea culpa. But I don’t think it makes much difference. I’ll try and find a UN report, global, which came to the same rough figure.

  • JimboR says:

    Indeed, given the question you now cite as your reference, a more accurate statement for your essay would have been “as many as 7 percent claim to be affected by climate change already” instead we get “the proportion of respondents who tell the interviewer that ‘climate change’ is important to them runs at about 7 per cent.” Fake news.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Another change.

    According to Ole Humlum sea level rise is accelerating.

    He calculates sea level rise from 2003 as 3.16 mm yr. Then calculates sea level rise from 2005 as 3.81 mm yr.

    His chart then shows sea level rise at over 4mm yr.

    So it has gone from around a foot per century to a foot and a quarter per century.

    This is a relatively rapid change in rate-of-rise over around 25%.

    As the increase in temp is mainly linear – this change must be due to increased melt of land ice.

    This is corroborated by NASA’s vital signs website.

    Antarctica loosing 127 Gtonne ice pr yr. Greenland loosing 286 GTonne ice per yr.

  • Neville says:

    Another 80 recent studies on SLs that show much higher levels than today.

    • Chris Warren says:


      This is irrelevant – the associated warmer was cause by different Earth’s orbit with respect to the sun and the rise emerged over a long period.

      Today’s catastrophic sea level rise is not caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit.

      Ole Humlum has proven global warming at least for all honest skeptics. Only nicotine denialists are left.

      Which camp are you in?

  • Neville says:

    Dr Humlum has this to say about satellite SL data. IOW it is perhaps a low of 1.7mm/year or a GIA etc ADJUSTED 3+ mm /year.

    Sea-level from satellite altimetry

    Satellite altimetry is a new and valuable type of measurement, providing unique insight into the detailed surface topography of the oceans, and changes of this. However, it is not a precise tool for estimating changes in global sea level due to a number of assumptions made when interpreting the original satellite data.

    One of the assumptions made during the interpretation of satellite altimetry data is the amount of correction made locally and regionally for Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). GIA relate to large-scale, long-term mass transfer from the oceans to the land, in the form of rytmic waxing and waning of the large Quaternary ice sheets in North America and North Europe. This enormous mass transfer causes rytmic changes in surface load, resulting in viscoelastic mantle flow and elastic effects in the upper crust. No single technique or observational network are able to give enough information on all aspects and consequences of GIA, wherefore the assumptions adopted for the interpretation of satellite altiometry data are difficult to verify. The GIA correction introduced in the interpretation of data from satellite altimetry depends upon the type of deglaciation model (for the last glaciation) and upon the type of crust-mantle model that is asumed. As a consequence of this (and additional factors), interpretations on modern global sea level change based on satellite altimetry vary from about 1.7 mm/yr to about 3.2 mm/yr.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Very true, Neville.

      Remember Envisat?

      It was showing nothing happening until it had its wrist smacked and then had to be “corrected”:

    • Serge Wright says:

      “Today’s catastrophic sea level rise is not caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit.”

      Here is a link to the global tide gauge network. The longest record is from Brest in France which extends to 200 years. There are many other records over 100 years. None show any statistically significant changes on trends.

      Bottom line is that there is no detectable change in SLR rates. The only catastrophic association is the false reporting.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Unfortunately ground-based tidal guages are not as reliable as global warming is heating the land as well.

      Due to the different specific-heat capacities of land vs water, if both are hit by the same heat – the relative level of water will fall as it expands less than land.

      There is another factor. Sea water circulates, sending heat down into greater depths leaving the top layers with less expansion than otherwise.

      You cannot use tide gauges to address sea-level rise due to temperature unless you adjust for both land movements AND land thermal expansion.

      Satellites give a more accurate picture.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Due to the different specific-heat capacities of land vs water, if both are hit by the same heat – the relative level of water will fall as it expands less than land.”

        What absolute blither, blith!

        Try digging in the ground and see how far down that “warming” goes.

        Go and have a look at Fort Denison where the SLs have risen 65mm in the last century but now they find that most of that is due to settlement of the rock.

        So there is nothing happening there, either.

        Don’t forget the full moon and the king tides on Tuesday and Wednesday!

        Pay attention.

        I’ll be asking questions.

        Your big chance to cure your enuresis.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “According to Ole Humlum sea level rise is accelerating.”

    You mean according to satellite altimetry.

    Which is as flawed as GRACIE’S gravy meter. And for the same reason.

    “Today’s catastrophic sea level rise is not caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit.”

    What a CAGW worshipping bed-wetter you are, blith.

    Instead of standing on street corners wearing your sandwich boards and screaming your religion at all and sundry simply go and check old sea walls that were built to king tide datum of 70+ years ago and check where the king tides come to today.

    There is a beautiful king tide coming up in 2 days time and a slightly higher one the next day.

    Don’t miss it if you want to experience the evidence with your own lyin’ eyes.

    I’ll lay anyone good odds that our blithnstu will quietly avoid this magnificent proof of what is really happening with their climate change religion.

    It will be all too embarrassing for them.

  • Neville says:

    More from Dr Humlum comparing the tide gauge and satellite data. So average increase at tide gauges is about 4 inches to 6 inches per century or 2 inches LESS than 20th century SLR of about 8 inches and the adjusted sat data shows about 12 +inches/ century.
    I’m happy with the lower trend shown by the tide gauge data. That’s at least 2 inches less than 20th century SLR.
    Here’s his summary.

    “Data from tide-gauges suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1-1.5 mm/yr, while the satellite-derived record suggest a rise of more than 3 mm/yr. The rather marked difference between the two data sets has still no broadly accepted explanation, but some of the difference is likely due to administrative changes introduced into the raw data obtained by satellites. Se the paragraph below on temporal stability of the satellite-derived data.

    Another factor that may explain some of the difference between tide-gauge and satellite data is probably that while any temperature-driven volumen expansion is recorded by the satellites, this change is not affecting tide-gauges at coastal locations, as the water depth here decreases towards zero”.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Good one, Neville, and just shows to go the results of this propaganda with people who are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

      Such as our own blithnstu.

      Describes them to a “T”.

      Let’s hope they observe and absorb.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Meanwhile, the only change with Arctic sea ice is that it continues to improve:

    • Stu says:

      That is strange. Here is a quote from the Demark Ocean Institute (the same crowd that realclimatescience crowd above claim to quote.

      “ The Frozen Sea
      Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.

      Sea ice is an important element in the understanding of the global climate system. The changes in sea ice extent is closely monitored and analysed by various climate centers around the world.”

      Go figure.

      • Stu says:

        And add to that the fact that the figures claimed in the post are derived from a model. I thought you were totally opposed to models!

      • Don Aitkin says:

        We know that the Arctic was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s, so a comparison from the 1970s doesn’t really inform us.

  • Neville says:

    Labor’s lead starts to sink as their boat deal encouraging the vile people smugglers starts to bite. But surely there’s another few percent who understands what a clueless deal they’re offering voters on their CAGW delusion?

  • Chris Warren says:


    You appear to have misunderstood Curry’s tactic.

    I never said she misquoted Mann, so your comment is irrelevant.

    If you go back you, will see that Curry created a falsification by taking Mann’s comment out of his context of hurricanes hitting the coast and implying it was a comment about sea level rise. Mann was talking about a Hervey-like event or a Sandy-like event.

    Of course Hansen never said: ““That’s the big thing – sea-level rise – the planet could become ungovernable.” This was Curry’s construction.

    Hansen certainly said “the planet could become ungovernable” in a different sentence about population shifts and economic implications. He never presented the comment as manufactured by Curry.

    You can see Curry’s “evidence” here:

    I know there are plenty of others who swoon at the outpourings of denialist bloggists in preference to science, so I am sure if Hansen said as Curry claims, someone will come up with the evidence.

    Curry should simply retract or correct her supposed quotations and stop creating fake straw men to wax her own views.

    Here is another example of another denialist outfit peddling the same fake news.

    One denialist – the echo chamber of another.

    Are they allergic to serious science?

  • Stu says:

    Here is a nasty looking trend line from the same Danish crowd.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Are they allergic to serious science?”

    You wouldn’t know serious science if it bit you, blith.

    If you are really serious about the science of SLR, do as I suggest and check out king tide levels against old, long established, sound sea walls that were built in the past to king tide datum.

    There are many of these sea walls all around the coastline and you can easily find them and see how current king tides compare with those of the past.

    That shouldn’t be too hard even for you and there is no sea level science as accurate as this for the average person to personally observe.

    You can then let us all know what you have seen with your own eyes and whether it confirms your worst suspicions about climate change or otherwise.

    If you check it out and you can show that CAGW is really happening, your cred will improve no end, but if, otoh, you see nothing to worry about, it will still be to your advantage as well as everyone else’s.

    What have you got to lose?

    The full moon is almost upon us and the king tides are tomorrow, Wednesday and even Thursday.

  • Stu says:

    Here is very well structured piece on the state of play by Thomas Musselman on the Quora site. Note that Quora is a proper science oriented site not like many others out there in the ether.

    “Science advances in fits and starts. Climate change is no simple matter, so there is always going to be 2 of 1000 indicators saying it isn’t occurring. But like other sciences a consensus has emerged. A consensus does not require 100% of every scientist on the planet. This is the hottest year on record; last year was the hottest before this one. The southern ocean is warming. The world’s glaciers are melting, as is the ice cover of Greenland and the sea ice north of Canada. The CO2 concentrations have soared in the last 150 years to FAR higher than in the last 600,000 years. There are no frauds or lies, just exaggerations by the deniers. Exxon, which financed climate change denial for decades, sat on its own scientists’ reports that the climate was warming and caused by burning of fossil fuels, keeping them secret. The climate change denier who the Kochs financed from their climate-deniying Heartland Institute hid the source of his funding; that was dishonest. There has been no dishonesty among the science community who have concluded that the climate is warming. You have been reading too many right-wing propaganda sites and sources. Think about it: the only people opposed to the climate change consensus are right-wing politicians, oil company magnates, right-wing conspiracy websites like zerohedge, right-wing editorials in the Wall St. Journal….you get the picture. [And the bulk of folk here on the DA site] The opposition is not about science, but about right wing politics, which doesn’t like any collective solution to any problem, and which want to continue the oil and gas industry subsidies that we have been paying out since the early 1900s. The Koch Brothers themselves have rec’d more than $190 million since the 1990s, so of course they want to keep feeding at the trough and oppose any effort for us to use solar and wind power instead of oil, coal and gas.

    In short, there is nothing wrong with carefully examining claims made in any one piece of research. But EVERY single one of the claims of the deniers has been carefully dissected and rejected by the community of world scientists including the Royal Society, the National Academy of Science, and the science bodies of every country that has one, none of which are in countrys where it is in the countries’ interests to stop burning oil, coal, and gas (the US is the world’s #1 oil producer; it is very inconvenient that we need to use renewable sources of energy).“

    And as mentioned previously Exxon is now being exposed in the Californian courts for deception, hiding internal science results and promoting denialist organisations. The NSW Rocky Hill coal mine decision is going to reverberate and probably be amplified in the near future. Wonderful eh!

    • Chris Warren says:


      That is how things stand. “But EVERY single one of the claims of the deniers has been carefully dissected and rejected by the community of world scientists including the Royal Society, the National Academy of Science, and the science bodies of every country that has one”.

      Unfortunately it may take a page of explanation to debunk just a short sentence from a denier and expose their tricks.

      • Stu says:

        How true and how sad really that people can be so entrenched in such illogical thought processes. Can you imagine these guys in any mainstream science blog. People would be falling about in derisory laughter at some of the stuff they post. And of course one after the other we get the standard denier claims, “no empirical evidence, climate is always changing, plants like carbon, it was hotter before with less CO2, it is the sun, 1.5 degree change is trivial, they do it for the money, it is a fraudulent conspiracy, the sea was higher in the past, etc, etc. tiresome in the extreme.
        My approach with deniers I know is to get them to commit in writing or video that climate change is a furphy and not human related. For the guys here it is simply a case of archiving the posts. Soon it will be accounting day. Not the end of days churchy kind but the “told you so” realisation of fact. Their descendants will be horrified. On the other hand, if we are wrong, it will be high fives, drinks all round and what great news. You cant say the same for the other guys and anyow the weight of evidence is stacked so high against them it is no contest.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          Please archive the Bureau of Meteorology Pacific Sea Level monitoring Project:
, that shows no significant sea level rise for any Pacific Island nation (except Samoa), since the early 1900s. If you all believe in the BOM’s temperature data, why do you refuse to acknowledge their sea level data? Because it doesn’t fit your narrative?

          Don, nice to see you back, and in such fine (intellectual) form. May it continue.

          • JimboR says:

            Bryan, your link didn’t work for me, but I did find:


            “shows no significant sea level rise for any Pacific Island nation (except Samoa)”

            What do you consider “significant”? The orthodox view is that SLR is currently running at about 3mm / year. I drew a line through the green (mean) plot for Tuvalu and came up with 4mm / year.

            Are you disputing that Tuvalu is seeing that much rise, or are you saying that much rise is not significant?

      • Don Aitkin says:

        ‘Every single one’, eh? Can you show me ANY such claim that has been ‘carefully dissected and rejected’ by the Australian Academy of Science? My reading shows only broad-brush dismissal, nothing carefully argued.

        • Chris Warren says:


          This work seems to be done by others as here:

          Anyway that is where the quote came from.

          Is there any core claim from a denier that has not been debunked ????

        • spangled drongo says:

          From blith’s pathetic link:

          “… attacks on Al Gore and ClimateGate are outstanding examples of misdirection.”

          Whereas the “scientists” from UEA [climategate] awa Al Gore were shown to be not only wrong but deliberately fabricating the narrative [no misdirection there] his link provided the usual lack of any evidence to support his claim.

  • Boambee John says:

    I see the battle of the peer reviewed papers continues. Yawn.

    The real battle should be about the practicality, or even the value, of the proposed remedies. Let’s have a discussion on what has been achieved with the billions spent on wind and solar.

    What percent of nominal output do they deliver over a year? What is the additional cost of “poles and wires” to deliver energy from widely dispersed renewable generators to users?

    Is there any realistic possibility of running hospitals, shopping centres or even traffic lights solely on renewables, much less any form of industry? If we go fully electric on transport, can renewables provide the energy to distribute food around the nation?

    And, if it is as serious a situation as claimed, why are we not ibstalling nuclear power stations?

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Note that Quora is a proper science oriented site not like many others out there in the ether.”

    Yes, stu, we noticed:

    Their generosity is overwhelming:

    “Climate change is no simple matter, so there is always going to be 2 of 1000 indicators saying it isn’t occurring.”

    Just take your mate blith and go and check the king tides and learn that the real indicators may not be on your side at all.

    But that’s only if you want to know about true facts.

    • Stu says:

      But then again Sitejabber is not universally acclamed. In fact I found this quote, pretty strong stuff libellous if not backed by some facts I would think.

      “Most of the user believe that the result that these reviews sites shows are original, but the platforms like Sitejabber take advantage of this user persona and try to harm others business by posting fake reviews on their site (Sitejabber) and after that they demand a huge amount to the business owners to remove those fake reviews.

      I’m familiar with sitejabber cheap business modal because they try to harm two of my clients business by posting fake negative reviews. So, never trust on sitejabber.

      Sitejabber Business Modal

      Post fake negative review for any individual business website
      Demand money to remove negative reviews
      After getting money from the website delete those negative reviews” – Patrick Austin April 2018

      • spangled drongo says:

        And when Quora says; “so there is always going to be 2 of 1000 indicators saying it isn’t occurring”, you really can’t see that they lack balance?

        When sea levels alone negate your whole alarmist theory?

        And your whole alarmist theory is based on warming of about half the rate of Nat Var?

        Oh dear!

        The very fact that the two of you have expressed no interest whatsoever in assessing coming king tide levels relative to historic ones proves what a frail grip of reality you both have.

        And that the real world is the last thing you want to engage with.

  • Neville says:

    SD they couldn’t care less about data or evidence, but rather live for their crazy cult.
    Here’s Willis’s recent study focusing on Church& White’s study where they combine the sat and tide gauge data to deliver an increased trend to further muddy the waters.
    These BS merchants will try anything to try and fool us and sadly the cultists just lap it up every time.
    He calls his post “Inside the ACCELERATION factory”, just unbelievable but true. These characters have no shame at all.

    • Stu says:

      Please explain your obsession with tide data . If you actually were involved with tides as I am every week you would not crap on about it. Many things influence the daily tide. Assessing SLR is another thing and quite complex. Your King Tide rant is just smokescreen. There is much more at stake,here at least, than the sea level in the immediate future. It is just one of the indicators.

      How about moving on to some of the many dozens of other climate indicators, that specialist scientists have been researching , but you seem to dismiss outright.

      As said before, this field is extremely complex and from what I discern, no-one in this blog is competent to seriously critique. All we can do is quote others. And a few of us here rely on the respected mainstream publishing climate scientists rather than a grab bag of hangers on that appear to have multiple ulterior motives, (read money), and a lack of credibility.

      Your arguments have no cred except in this somewhat jaundiced echo chamber of denial.

      But keep it up, I am having fun.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Please explain your obsession with tide data . If you actually were involved with tides as I am every week you would not crap on about it.”

        Ah, so you actually know what tides are then, stu?

        Or maybe you don’t.

        The Highest Astronomical Tide of the year is the best and possibly only indicator of whether SLR is going to affect us.

        Floods, storm surge etc are always variables.

        King tides are the only way the average person gets to observe for themselves whether there is any global warming.

        Global temperatures are virtually unknowable and existing data that has been highly adjusted, is, for so many obvious reasons, very doubtful.

        King tides are the only indicator that we have to confirm the blither that we are being fed.

        Now, stu, if you are as involved with tides as you claim, it is not hard to find old sea walls built to king tide datum and simply see for yourself what the latest HAT is, in relation to those old walls.

        Based on normal barometric pressure my latest comparisons are;

        40 year old walls, currently about similar.

        50 year old walls, currently lower by up to 300mm.

        70 year old walls, currently lower by up to 250mm.

        There are naturally variations due to changes in hydrology in local areas but if you use walls in deep areas of bays and harbours closest to the ocean, you will get the best results. I have been doing this for the last 6 – 8 years and it gives me the best indicator of real sea levels that are available.

        You can start with the king tides that are happening for the next three days.

        And report back.

  • Neville says:

    Less than 10 years ago NASA said that the Sun + clouds, particles etc were the primary driver of CC, but that page has now disappeared and the main culprit is now human co2 emissions.
    Thanks to the wayback machine that page can be retrieved , so everyone can see how they chop and change to suit the ongoing narrative.
    Access denied indeed.

    • Chris Warren says:


      You denialists do not have the ability to probe these issues.

      The sun + clouds etc are the primary NATURAL drivers of the Earth’s climate and natural climate change. So what. As the Nova troll highlighted: According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.

      This is entirely correct.

      Nova then jumped over the NASA paragraph starting with the word “However…..” which then looked at HUMAN drivers.

      Guess what she skipped; Here it is;

      However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface..

      Now when CO2 levels were higher by about 30 percent above pre-industrial levels, it was reasonable to consider whether:

      “clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.”

      But thankfully scientists have now found that increases beyond 30% do not suggest that the Earth has any chance of cooling. In fact every measurement indicates the EXACT OPPOSITE.

      When things become clearer – it is entirely APPROPRIATE for changes to be made to websites.

      The only legitimate reason to howl and cry about it, is if you believe that:

      Each of clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.

      OR you (and Nova) think this should be NASA’s view because you are such pure geniuses and know so much more than all the world’s scientists.

      Any sane person will retract statements suggesting that the world will cool as CO2 climbs to and through 30%. We are now heading to 420 ppm which is 45% high and if present trends continue the next generation will suffer near 600 ppm.

      Will we still have Neville-Nova-nutters claiming that clouds etc are cooling the planet?????

      • Neville says:

        Geeezzzz and this from the bloke who still thinks that upside down Mann is a credible source ?
        You’ve got to be joking?

  • Neville says:

    Dr Judith Curry now makes her living in the private sector working for private clients and companies.
    These people want to know what the future weather /climate will be like. She also provides the best data for these clients on the paleo history of climate over many thousands of years.
    Today she starts her post about storms, hurricanes etc. Since the 1970s/80s we have the sat record to help with tracking these hurricanes and before that time many non land occurring hurricanes were missed other than in the regular shipping lanes.
    Certainly there were many worse periods over the last 1500 years and many thousands of years BP. The BOM shows that cyclones have decreased since then for our east coast since 1970.
    Here’s her summary and link.

    3.4 Conclusions

    “Analyses of both global and regional variability and trends of hurricane activity provide the basis for detecting changes and understanding their causes.

    The relatively short historical record of hurricane activity, and the even shorter record from the satellite era, is not sufficient to assess whether recent hurricane activity is unusual for during the current interglacial period. Results from paleotempestology analyses in the North Atlantic at a limited number of locations indicate that the current heightened activity is not unusual, with a ‘hyperactive period’ apparently occurring from 3400 to 1000 years before present.

    Global hurricane activity since 1970 shows no significant trends in overall frequency, although there is some evidence of increasing numbers of major hurricanes and of an increase in the percentage of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes.

    In the North Atlantic, all measures of hurricane activity have increased since 1970, although comparably high levels of activities also occurred during the 1950’s and 1960’s”.

  • Chris Warren says:


    There is no point crying about Church& White’s study. You just copy-pasted it without reading.

    Tide gauges need careful assessment and adjustment for land movement and the balance between thermal expansion of land and water.

    Limestone and granite expand only at a rate of 4% compared to the expansion of water but iron rich minerals will have different expansions.

    Satellite measurements cancel out any such problems.

    In any case even Ole Humlum has found that sea level has accelerated and is now over 4mm.

    Is Humlum part of your acceleration factory?????

    • Neville says:

      I’ve shown you the relevant Dr Humlum quotes and if you can’t understand it don’t blame me.

    • Boambee John says:


      I’m sure it is because you are so busy posting links that you have not yet responded to my questions from yesterday.

      Here they are again

      “I see the battle of the peer reviewed papers continues. Yawn.

      The real battle should be about the practicality, or even the value, of the proposed remedies. Let’s have a discussion on what has been achieved with the billions spent on wind and solar.

      What percent of nominal output do they deliver over a year? What is the additional cost of “poles and wires” to deliver energy from widely dispersed renewable generators to users?

      Is there any realistic possibility of running hospitals, shopping centres or even traffic lights solely on renewables, much less any form of industry? If we go fully electric on transport, can renewables provide the energy to distribute food around the nation?

      And, if it is as serious a situation as claimed, why are we not installing nuclear power stations?”

      Waiting, waiting …

  • Neville says:

    Here is the BOM data for trop cyclones in OZ region since 1970, showing a decreasing trend for about 50 years.
    And Dr Nott’s paleo studies show that the last super cyclone hit the NE coast over 200 years ago. Let’s hope it stays that way.
    Also we don’t get the cyclones/storms as far south in NSW as were observed in the earlier 20 th century.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks, Neville. Yes, we have never had it so good cyclone-wise, for the last 50 years.

      Ocean front houses in Hedges Ave on the Gold Coast that I spent many nights sandbagging [I had a job to go to in the daytime] 50 years ago were being washed out to sea yet today have huge beaches in front of them and change hands for tens of millions.

      When a storm occurs today you hear people on TV news say, “I’ve lived here 20 years and never seen anything like it.”

      “It’s unprecedented!!!”


      Who does it remind you of?

      So now, blithnstu, try not to be so ignorant and use these king tides to educate yourselves and give us all a break.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Please look up the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project. If, as is claimed, sea level in this area has been rising at 4mm/year, over the 25 years of its operation, sea level should have risen by 10cm. As the graphs clearly show, it has not. You can believe the claims, or you can believe the data.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Bryan Roberts

      If you checked Ole Humlum’s chart you will see no claim that sea level has been rising at 4mm/year over 25 years.

      This is your straw man falsification.

      Who else has claimed 4mm/yr over 25 years ?????????????

    • JimboR says:

      That’s what I see in the green (mean) plot of this graph:

      Now I haven’t tested that it’s linear growth, but certainly the average growth over the interval is 4mm/year and yes Bryan the graph does actually show it’s gone up by 10cm over the interval.

      Keep in mind 10cm is just 0.3% of the dynamic range of that y-axis, and only 2% of the dynamic range of just one grid. You’ll struggle to spot it at that scale, but re-plot it on a y-axis of say 1.6m to 2.3m and it sticks out like dog’s balls… even with all the high frequency chatter trying to obscure it.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Satellite measurements cancel out any such problems.”

    What absolute blither!

    Satellite measurements can show any result the operator requires as evidenced by ENVISAT, until it was consensually brought into line.

    Please try disregarding all the fake evidence cooked up by people with known motives and try putting your head out the window.

    Now is your big chance but if you do not take it we can only assume you prefer enuresis to facts.

    Prove us wrong!

  • Ian MacCulloch says:

    Good to know you are with this world in more ways than one, Don .

    Since 150,000 years BP there have been two peaks above the current sea level. The highest of these was 15 metres and the next was at 6,000 years BP where the peak was 6 metres. I did spend some of my youth drilling both onshore and offshore beach sands for heavy mineral deposits. There is ample evidence of rapid advance and retreat of sea levels. Far greater rates per annum have been in operation than what we see to day and of course completely unrelated to atmospheric CO2 behaviour patterns. So if you are doing any sort of coastal planning then 6 metres should be high on the list as the benchmark for consideration. Of course, there are some alleged correlations with glacier movements but these occurred over a fairly small area of the planet and certainly none in the last cycle appeared on the Australian continent. So universal isostasy to explain huge sea level movements is just not a viable explanation. However, there is enough active warping and plate movement to create a dynamic environment that can create variable rates of sea level changes. It is only 500 million years before NZ docks at Bondi – it should be worth the wait. So the discussion on current sea level changes by all parties is rather nonsensical because the short term influences that every one is trying to measure today are greatly outweighed by the far more vigorous activities that have occurred globally from as recently 13,000 years ago.

    As always a lively debate amongst the protagonists. Great stuff indeed.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks, Ian. This is what is known as natural climate variability which has been happening for the history of the earth and puts current “climate change” in its proper perspective.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Please see this link including my discussion with Neil White of Church and White re sea levels:

  • Stu says:

    Next you will tell me that the king tide height is the same every time. KT height can give an indication of what happens as SSL rises but is not itself used as the base line for measurement of SSL

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Next you will tell me that the king tide height is the same every time.”

      Only a stu-pid could come up with a conclusion like that.

      Highest astronomical tides are the highest the sea level gets and they vary slightly from year to year for all sorts of reasons.

      As I said above, one thing they have to be corrected for is barometric pressure which is currently below normal here and causing extra height, and with today’s king tide there is a large swell being generated by an off-shore cyclone which also has a rising effect.

      Why don’t you go and check it out for yourself instead of blithering?

    • JimboR says:

      Stu: “KT height can give an indication of what happens as SSL rises but is not itself used as the base line for measurement of SSL”

      Exactly right! Let me guess… Drongo has been banging on about a mark he made on a rock at Wellington Point when he was a little tacker? The nice thing about Drongo’s posts are you can be pretty sure what they say without having to take the time to read them.

      A good case study of your point above is Bundaberg. The tide station at Burnett Heads has good data going back to 1966:

      If you study the mean data (green trace) you’ll see an average rise for the entire interval of about 1.8 mm/year. If you further refine that to just the last 30 years, it’s about 4 mm/year … just like at Bryan’s Pacific island nations.

      Then turn your attention to the max data (red trace) and you’ll see records are totally dominated by some big weather events: TC Oswald in Jan 2013 and TC Fiona in Feb 1971. If Drongo were a Bundaberg resident he’d be sitting on his front porch the last couple of days and saying… it was higher in Feb ’71, so SLR isn’t happening.

      Drongo’s test for the existence of SLR is an embarrassment, had he stayed on and finished high school he’d know why. He’s likely to go to his grave safe in the knowledge that SLR isn’t happening because his blunt instrument is very unlikely to detect anything.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Jimb, you just love those tide gauges that are calibrated by the half metre, hey?

        They’re about as accurate as your Wellington Point statement.

        When you have been building waterfront infrastructure for over 70 years to AHD 100 datum you might have a clue what sea levels really are.

        Have you been out this morning to observe the HAT and corrected it for normal BP?


        I thought not.

        If you had you may have noticed [if you had been paying attention, that is] that it is LOWER than those of 40, 50, and 70 years ago.

        And that is in spite of TC Oma in the Coral Sea firing sea surge at our east coast and threatening to close the beaches.

        Never mind, jimb, I’m sure you will get all your kicks from your dancing angels rather than any measurable and observable evidence.

        There are none so blind as those that will not look.

      • JimboR says:

        Drongo, the reason your instrument is blunt is not because of lack of precision, it’s because you’re looking at the wrong data. You’re never going to find evidence of SLR by comparing a this year’s high tide with one 30 years ago no matter how precisely you measure them both.

        The reason we all ignore your invitations to go out and look at the high tide is because we all know it’s irrelevant to assessing the rate of SLR. Had you completed high school, you would too.

        • spangled drongo says:

          What you don’t get, jimb, is that king tide obs are like global warming temps but the average person will never get a personal view of global temperature whereas good weather, BP corrected, king tides give us a picture of the maximum level of the world’s ocean levels as a local picture and if they are not rising over a many year period then how can sea levels be rising and how can the world be warming?

          Tide gauges also involve low and medium tide levels which, for all sorts of reasons, can alter the net change, not to mention the actual movement of the gauge itself, and have their limits.

          You might even remember an alarmist group called “Witness King Tides” which was supposed to demonstrate how king tides were going to show us all in no uncertain terms how we were all gonna drown!

          Except that it came to nothing because they aren’t increasing as they presumed and had the reverse effect in dismissing alarmist BS.

          And that’s why you can’t handle them.

          But at least they realised what a genuine indicator of global warming good weather king tides are, unlike you.

      • JimboR says:

        And it doesn’t matter how far out the calibration of Burnett Heads tidal gauge is, so long as it’s stable. It could be out by 100m and it would make no difference to the SLR calculation.

  • spangled drongo says:

    In 1974 we had a cyclone coinciding with a king tide and that king tide was 1.5 METRES above normal BP, fine weather king tide height.

    The storm surge washed right through a Gold Coast tourist theme park.

    Just imagine the screams of climate change alarmism if that happened today.

    • dlb says:

      Yep, the Polar Bears washed out would be strolling down Cavill Avenue looking for tourists to snack on. See global warming must be BS if Polar Bears can live in the subtropics.

      As it turns out they may well be planning an escape this weekend when the “Extreme Weather” (TM) arrives.

  • Boambee John says:

    From stu on 13 February

    How is calling her a “denialist” an ad hominem attack. It is simply a factual statement. She is known for denying the propriety of generally accepted science fact, which is why she resigned from her university post.”

    Does this make Galileo an orbital “denialist”? The scientist who discovered the link between a bacterium and stomach ulcers a “stress denialist”?

    The term “denialist” is childish rubbish, indicating a lack of logical arguments.

    • Stu says:

      Ok then let us settle for the title “people who hold an extreme minority view against the evidence and prevailing view”. And FFS don’t try and equate Currey with Galileo. After all he was not challenging science so much as the dogma of a stone age cult being dragged into the era of enlightenment. Malcolm Roberts tried that with his (now appatently defunct) Galileo Movement. He did not found it but was Project Leader. Somewhat akin to the reactionaries in the LNP calling themselves the Menzies group.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Like Malcolm, we are also still waiting for your empirical evidence, stu.

        When you can’t provide it and you insult the requester rather than apologise, do you possibly think that is telling you something?

        • Stu says:

          There you go on the circular argument. Anything I post on”empirical evidence” will be dismissed by you as wrong or irrelevant, so what is the point. And by the way, what is your expertise in this complex area of science? I happily admit I have very little in the arena of climate science but I don’t profess to know it all. I simply rely on the evidence and published work of the experts.

          If you are serious you can find the information out there all over the place. You dont need me to regurgitate it. Oh and by the way we now have a legal decision quoting the CO2 climate change issue in killing the Gloucster coal mine. Maybe you write to the judge and/or read the evidence and decision.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Anything I post on”empirical evidence” will be dismissed by you as wrong or irrelevant, so what is the point.”

            Nothing circular at all. The point is, is that it would be the first time anyone has ever posted any empirical evidence of CAGW based on CO2 emissions.

            It would be ground-breaking stuff.

            And the reason you can’t post it is because it doesn’t exist, yet it doesn’t stop you from calling sceptics “deniers” simply because you have never come up with the goods other than by assumption, modelling and nonsensical claims that the science is settled.

            Whereas sceptics can easily show that any current warming is well within the bounds of natural climate variability.

            And that the earth has many, many times been warmer than now with lower CO2.

            And that warming produces CO2, not the reverse.

            One person with empirical evidence can prove the rest of the world wrong.

            But the catch is, you gotta supply it.

      • Boambee John says:

        And the “consensus science” on ulcers? Another stone age cult of doctors dragged into the enlightenment?

        Using “denier” was always a sleazy attempt to link with Holocaust denial. Utterly cowardly.

        • Stu says:


        • Stu says:

          Indeed, and what happened? the establishment reviewed the research and the outcomes and accepted the shift in thinking. That is science at work mate. I dont see the same thIng happening with your claims in regard to clmate science. That is how the peer review process works. Currently the “it’s all natural variation” group does not seem to be getting much support in that space. Show me the evidence to the contrary.

        • Stu says:

          I think that is called science at work. The prior consensus view looked at the evidence and the results and accepted the science.

          That is what is currently missing in the AGW sphere. There is a general rejection by the publishing scientists of the alternative views, but of course there is quite a lack of scholarly papers published in reputable journals from that argument so it remains a somewhat one sided argument in real science circles. Of course as stated previously if someone has a really good case for “natural cycles only” they would be in line for a Nobel prize. A bit like Trumo really, do you know someone to nominate.

          As for the link of “denial” and holocaust I think we can make the counter argument. You are using a tragic and well proven story for perfidious ends. Shame on you.

          • Boambee John says:


            “As for the link of “denial” and holocaust I think we can make the counter argument. You are using a tragic and well proven story for perfidious ends. Shame on you.”

            Classic diversionary tactic.
            There is no doubt the term “denier” was introduced by some CAGW proponents as a crude smear on sceptics. If not, they could have used sceptics, a term with an honourable history in scientific debate.

            You are the one who should be ashamed for taking up the slur so enthusiastically.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Boambee John, alarmist true believers specialise in poor specifics.

          As evidenced by their “evidence”.

          “Denier” is just an extension of their level of science.

          • Stu says:

            So just to sum things up. You “believe” that every national meteorological body, every national science academy, NASA, NOAA, the best researchers in all mainstream universities, almost all respected science journals are all wrong and your little group of galileans (as you think of yourselves) are somehow correct. The fact you concentrate on a few narrow areas of discussion like SSL and past dodgy temerature assesments, and ignore the totality of the extraordinarily wide elements that lead to the consensus agreement proves you grasp at straws.
            Nuff said really, cheers

          • spangled drongo says:

            Enough of your endless blither, stu, and simply show us any empirical evidence that your prophets have produced.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Boambee John

    You are pretending you do not know what a denialist is.

    Galileo was the exact opposite.

    He never denied orbits.

    The findings about helicobacter pylori did not involve denial of stress.

    Such nonsense is only in your head.

    You are a troll.

    • Boambee John says:


      I know exactly what the use of the term “denialist” by CACW advocates is. As stated already, it is a crude attempt to shut down debate by linking scepticism about CAGW to Holocaust denial. It is a clear indication that the user is not willing to engage in open debate.

      For example, a user of that term might be unwilling to respond to simple questions about what should be done in response to the perceived threat.

      Questions like:

      What percent of nominal output do solar and wind deliver over a year? What is the additional cost of “poles and wires” to deliver energy from widely dispersed renewable generators to users?

      Is there any realistic possibility of running hospitals, shopping centres or even traffic lights solely on renewables, much less any form of industry? If we go fully electric on transport, can renewables provide the energy to distribute food around the nation?

      And, if it is as serious a situation as claimed, why are we not installing nuclear power stations?

      These seem to be reasonable questions that a serious and concerned advocate of CAGW would be very keen to address.

      Someone just pursuing an unhealthy obsession about the subject perhaps less so?

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee John

        “… linking scepticism about CAGW to Holocaust denial.”

        Ludicrous, incompetent, falsification.

        It is all in your head.

        The link (if there is one) is to nicotine denialism.

    • Boambee John says:


      You don’t really understand sarcasm, do you?

  • Neville says:

    These people are either entirely stupid or forget what they’ve said in the past.
    The Bolter rode silly Flannery to ground about 10 years ago and he finally admitted there was nothing we could do to reduce temps for at least a thousand years.
    Just like the RS and NAS Q&A are claiming today.
    Since then nobody dared to answer Bolt, even Gillard just laughed off his question when she was PM after she and bozzo Brown gave us their co2 tax.
    Chris admitted that mitigation couldn’t work by introducing COP 21 and yet he still goes on with his silly nonsense day after day.
    Dr Hansen said Paris was just BS and fra-d and S&W was a fairy tale. The Concordia Uni study tells us that OZ is responsible for about 0.006 c of their so called CAGW since the start of the Ind Rev, so obviously we can’t change anything.
    Yet Shorten and the Greens are telling the OZ voters that we must fight their CAGW. What a mob of morons they are just like the Dems in the US and silly Pelosi, Sanders and silly kindy pollies and their new green deal idiocy.
    Barking mad the lot of them and there is plenty of evidence that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about the weather or climate since 1950 at all.
    Meanwhile China and India etc are laughing all the way to their banks.

  • Boambee John says:

    PS, while it is interesting to follow all the arguments here, with hypotheses countered with models and those countered with links to multiple sources, this is not really the main game.

    Someone, I think it was either stu or Jimbo, made, possibly inadvertently, a very sensible statement. We will not know for years, possibly decades, which side is correct. Surely then, we should be looking at “no regrets” policies that will do no damage in the meantime.

    Perhaps stu or Jimbo or Chris would like to address that issue rather than continue to exchange barbed comments that are essentially unprovable with the sceptics here. I would also be interested in what the sceptics here propose.

    I have put some questions above. How about some serious responses, rather than repeating the same arguments about angels dancing on the heads of pins, or is that too much to ask for?

    • Neville says:

      Boambee John here is the IEA data for the world showing GEO plus S&W only generate 1.5% of TOTAL global energy. S&W less than 1%.
      That’s in 2015 and S&W are not much different today and by 2040 the IEA are now showing that may increase to 4%, so no measurable difference at all.
      And according to RS & NAS Q&A no change in temp for 1,000 years plus no change in co2 levels for many thousands of years EVEN IF ALL COUNTRIES STOPPED ALL Co2 EMISSIONS TODAY.
      Could they be more clear than that? Many of the alarmist scientists helped to write that report. I can find their names if I have to as I’ve linked to in the past. IOW the entire mitigation idea on human time scales is just BS and fra-d.

      • Stu says:

        That chart is based on 2015 data which is a little dated. A more comprehensive view of the whole energy mix for the world going forward is covered in the IEA document –

        It is lengthy and heavy going but very informative and worth a read.

        Meantime there has been a subtle (and overdue) shift in the discourse here. It now seems there is a grudging acceptance that climate change is real and probably a threat and questions about what to do. The answers there of course range from the “nothing to worry about”, “nothing we can do about it”, “we can do stuff but it will take too long to have an effect”.

        Then there is the way emotion is generated with claims that we have to wipe out our cattle, stop flying etc. Not even the much maligned (by a few here) Green New Deal in the USA proposes such a radical shift. If you actually read their stuff it is intended as an aspirational guide for policy and development for the next few decades.

        Similarly there is the oft quoted “wasted billions”. The reality is that renewable power is now proving more cost effective than new coal plants. Admittedly the legacy power stations which have been depreciated to nothing provide cheap power, but they are ageing fast and need replacement by something. The example in Alice Springs is not good, where the Territory government just subsidised the installation of new gas turbines with $75m with little discussion of costs and alternatives.

        Nuclear will have a role, but not it seems here, partly due to the cost, security and lead times involved.

        As for the “renewables cant handle the total load”, clearly we wont be anywhere near that point for a long time. But some places like South Australia are getting large scale renewable inputs. And show me a weather map where the wind is not blowing somewhere and where the entire country is clouded out. In fact as a user of solar power I know that even on cloudy days you get current, just not the max.

        And then there is the question of pollution. No, not CO2, but all the other bits emanating from using coal, oil and gas that are not adequately filtered out and which are proven to be detrimental to human health. Where I live we get more fine particle deposits from the air than we should. They emanate from the coal production trail and power stations. And the stuff we cant see is probably worse. So that alone is a good reason to find 21st century solutions to our power needs.

        Finally I would be deleriously happy if all this would go away and AGW was shown to be a mistake or even a fraud. The figures indicate this however is not a likely outcome.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “In fact as a user of solar power I know that even on cloudy days you get current, just not the max.”

          As an indulger in middle class welfare, our stu is actually aware that it is not always working 100%?

          What perspicacity?

          When you are using max power in the cloud-free evenings, stu, how much does it supply then?

          When you are using near max power in the cloud-free mornings, how much does it supply then?

          But it does keep your beer cold on a hot sunny day, hey?

          It must be comforting to know that the poor people are paying ever-increasing subsidies via their power bills of around 2 billion a year so you can indulge in your solar power wankery.

          • Stu says:

            You said “It must be comforting to know that the poor people are paying ever-increasing subsidies via their power bills of around 2 billion a year so you can indulge in your solar power wankery.”

            That is one of the myths that keeps being perpetuated. Energy prices started going up with the selling of the state owned assets. It partly related to the networks finally investing in renewal (of the ageing network) after years of governments on both sides milking the system to prop revenues. It as called “gold plating” by the knockers, but where I live it means we no longer get the previously frequent blackouts.

            The subsidies for rooftop panels are from government payout ie consolidated revenue. The latest cost efficient industrial scale solar and wind farms are not subsidised. Meantime the coal system continues to be subsidised not least by the crap they pump out being ignored. It is more than a social cost. The feed in tariffs appear to be phasing out.

            One of the biggest shifts in performance has been large scale wind. In ten years we have gone from 1Mw units to 10 for little increase in cost. The resultant efficiency of the group grid to inter connect a fleet of towers has improved enormously. Such a system is planned for the Gippsland coast. There should be no aussie wind turbine disease problems out in the sea!

            As for your max demand theorem, who says we should go 100% renewable tomorrow? No one. Of course we still need base load power. We will have big thermal generators running for years. Problem is, look at Victoria recently, the system failed because multiple thermal units went down at the same time and there were some network failures. Without the renewables and storage, the problem would have been worse. Thermal units may be the base load but they are not fail safe.

            As for my beer. Yes it does stay cold even on a cloudy day, thanks to a thing called a battery. But multiple days of cloud are an issue and then I resort to the generator. I am of course referring to my boat but the priciples are the same.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Myth, hey stu? Get up to date:


            It is middle class welfare, pure and simple.

            The US is littered with the carcasses of dead windfarms going back nearly 50 years and I have been using them, off grid, for 70 years on farms, remote buildings and ocean racing and cruising yachts so I know their limits. Solar panels likewise but not for as long.

            Check how well the off grid Windorah solar system works:

            At the cost of around $100,000 per house, the Qld Govt built an off grid solar system to replace their diesel generator that was consuming around 100,000 litres of fuel per year but wisely kept the diesel gen as standby/backup.

            Guess how much fuel that diesel generator now uses?

            That’s right! Around 100,000 litres a year!!!

            In other words, with no support, backup or crippling storage, it is virtually useless.

            Nothing busts your myth better than that.

            Go off grid yourself with your solar rooftop and get back to me.

        • Boambee John says:

          “And show me a weather map where the wind is not blowing somewhere and where the entire country is clouded out. ”

          An interesting point, it raises the issue of poles and wires to connect a distributed generation system to users. There is also the matter of transmission losses.

          That said, I have no objections to your general idea, as long as the extra costs of poles and wires are booked towards renewables, though that might have an impact on their relative costs.

          Your statement that renewables are now more cost effective than coal suggests that the various subsidies they receive, some paid by coal plants, should be terminated. Do you agree?

        • Boambee John says:


          “Meantime there has been a subtle (and overdue) shift in the discourse here. It now seems there is a grudging acceptance that climate change is real and probably a threat and questions about what to do.”

          If you are referring to my comment above about “the main game”, you are incorrect. I am just bored with you, Chris et al perpetually posting links that purportedly “prove” that CAGW is real, and wondered if you had any practical near term solutions to what you consider to be an imminent threat.

          Reading the various responses, it seems that you accept that renewables need back up, be it fossil fuelled large generators of small scale diesel, but also believe that large generators must go soon. You think that solar and wind can be brought where needed from all over the nation, but expect poles and wires to achieve that to somehow not affect the price. Transmission losses seem to be ignored. You have said nothing about the demands for power to charge electric vehicles, and seem largely to take the Micawber position that “something will turn up”.

          As I suspected, you seem not to have thought the issue through beyond trying to convince everyone that CAGW is real and imminent.

          We need real solutions, not wishful thinking. So far, you have not offered any.

    • dlb says:

      A bit over it BJ.

      The consensus for most of our legislators is that AGW is real. Only a hard rump of conservatives think any different, but they really don’t count as they are on the nose with the general public.
      Despite being a luke warmer on this, I can’t see the AGW view changing much in the next 20 years. Too much momentum, too many true believers. One would have to see 10 years of declining temperatures for the scientists to start questioning their models.
      In the mean time governments will spend billions on what they think is the right thing. My feeling is better to waste billions on the possible AGW problem than wars in far flung places. At least taking action on AGW makes people feel good, wars just lead to broken bodies, minds and families.

      • Neville says:

        So dlb their evidence and data doesn’t count and you’re happy to waste endless billions $ for a guaranteed ZERO return?
        I’ve provided the data from THEIR side of the ledger and you still don’t understand?
        What about adaptation to any future problems or Nuclear energy that Dr James Hansen now prefers? He’s told the world that S&W is just BS and fra-d and he has the IEA data to support him.
        Just what is it you don’t understand about any of this?

        • Stu says:

          I think you are misquoting Hansen. He is a strong proponent of S&W but admits that at the current pace and policy stagnation they have little chance of fixing the problem. His issue with the Paris accord is that it is too politically watered down and knowingly relies on as yet undiscovered technical means for scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Yes he is very disappointed with where we are and is concerned about the well being if his descendents. And yes he does see a role for Nuclear but keep in mind the USA is already well down that track.

        • dlb says:

          You may be right Nev, but no one of any consequence is listening. Just the other day a judge ruled against a coal mine in the Hunter Valley partly citing climate change. Today we have the Glencore company capping coal production, again citing climate change. So now we have the judiciary and corporations joining with academia, the bulk of politicians and much of the MSM in the fight to save the world. You, and the conservative drys won’t get a look in. This zeitgeist has a long way to run and much money to spend.

          The only way things will change if we get a run of 10 years of declining temperatures. Otherwise, every other bit of weather will somehow be attributed to AGW.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Sounds like you’re copping out, dlb.

        What makes you think that becoming a socialist world based of Green New Deal BS that we will end up with any less casualties?

        Hang tough.

        Don’t let stupidity go to waste.

        • dlb says:

          I’m a climate realist and a political realist SD. I think it is preferable to be freaked out by plant food than imaginary reds under the bed.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s more delusional CAGW garbage from the Macron donkey and some of his dopey ministers. Will these left wing fools ever wake up?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Only our SJWs could be in denial of this. The real world is so uncomfortable:

    “Labor’s 45 per cent emissions-­reduction target would push electricity prices 50 per cent higher, cost workers up to $9000 a year in lower wages and wipe $472 billion from the economy over the next decade, according to the first independent modelling of the energy policies of both the government and opposition.”

    “The research, which is currently under peer review in the US, has been authored by Brian Fisher, the former head of the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics, who served under the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments as a chief adviser on climate policy.”

  • Stu says:

    SD and your whacky JoNova article. The day of the big jump in whoelsale price on the grid in Vic and SA was the day they had multiple failures of thermal units. Even if Hazelwood had not closed there would have been a massive spike in short term wholesale or do you think the coal guys are so generous rhey would not have taken advantage. That is the nature of the market.

    • spangled drongo says:

      That’s right stu, it was the remaining few CFUs being worked to death wot done it.

      “All 48 coal fired Units are running all the time now, delivering power. The only ones not doing so are down for maintenance.”

      It’s all their fault.

      Oh, dear!

      Are you off grid yet?

  • spangled drongo says:

    The king tides of the last 3 days all came to very similar heights each day at my varying benchmarks in spite of the varying tide predictions and storm surge effects.

    After correcting for barometric pressure the results were all lower than previously, measured against sea walls of at least the following age:

    40 year benchmarks 50mm lower.

    50 “” “” “” 200mm lower.

    70 “” “” “” 250mm lower.

    This might be a blunt instrument compared with jimb’s razor sharp statistical dancing angels but because fine weather king tides are the highest observable indicator of sea levels, if they aren’t going up after 70 years, there is not much happening in total global warming.

    It’s what’s known as empirical evidence.

    Actual observable, measurable stuff.

    How do they compare with your own observations?

    What was that again?

  • Stu says:

    Spangled Drongo,
    There is an interesting article quoting research from MIT, about the propagation of climate denial. Here is a quote from the story by Mat Hope -Desmogblog February 19.

    “Fossil fuel companies have a long history of adopting public relations strategies straight from the tobacco industry’s playbook. But a new analysis shows the two industries’ relationship goes much deeper — right down to funding the same organisations to do their dirty work.

    MIT Associate Professor David Hsu analyzed organisations in DeSmog’s disinformation database and the Guardian’s tobacco database and found 35 thinktanks based in the US, UK, Australia, and New Zealand that promote both the tobacco and fossil fuel industries’ interests.

    Of these organisations, DeSmog can reveal that 32 have taken direct donations from the tobacco industry, 29 have taken donations from the fossil fuel industry, and 28 have received money from both. Two key networks, based around the Koch brothers and Atlas Network, are involved in coordinating or funding many of the thinktanks.

    While reviewing the Guardian’s database, Hsu recognized many of the names among those fighting tobacco regulations were the same as “those working to foment climate science denial”.

    “This is a well-funded movement,” he says. “The strategies used in the tobacco debate are definitely strategies being used in the climate debate.”

    There exists an ever-growing network of self-described ‘free market’ organisations that create reports, make media appearances, and disseminate information that the industry then uses to lobby policymakers. This analysis shows that many of these organisations also take donations from the industries they research and report on.

    As a Guardian investigation by Jessica Glenza, with additional reporting by Sharon Kelly, recently revealed, these organisations provided “a powerful voice of support to cigarette manufacturers in battles against tougher regulations”. And as DeSmog has previously shown, the same organisations have a long history of promoting climate science denial to discourage policymakers from implementing carbon pollution regulations.

    It matters where the money for the thinktanks’ activities comes from, Hsu says:

    “There’s a lot of good research that shows that regardless of what people think of how money affects what they do, people that receive large donations are responsive to those donor interests.”

    “The fossil fuel industry and the tobacco industry are funding disinformation campaigns so societies and countries can’t take action in ways that would generally benefit everyone except the fossil fuel and tobacco industries.”

    This is an interesting but not unexpected finding,” Robert Brulle, a sociology professor at Drexel University, tells DeSmog.

    “Several conservative thinktanks were involved early on in the development and dissemination of misinformation regarding the tobacco and health linkage. The techniques of spreading doubt about scientific findings were developed in the tobacco campaign.”

    “When the climate change issue emerged, the conservative thinktanks were well equipped and capable of applying their developed skills to bolster another anti-regulatory campaign.”

    From Marginal and Isolated to Mainstream and Trans-Atlantic

    The thinktanks responded to questions from the Guardian saying “they are fiercely independent, unswayed by any donations, and they argue pro-business, low regulation and taxation positions as part of a broader free market philosophy.”

    But these organisations are having their voices and influence amplified due to political upheaval on both sides of the Atlantic, bringing what were once marginal ideas into the mainstream.

    The election of Donald Trump in the US has seen the appointment of multiple officials with ties to these free market organisations. They have been placed in positions of power to shape federal energy and climate policy.”

    Begs the question, have you taken money from any of these interests or are you merely proof that their activities are working?

    • JimboR says:

      I think if anyone were paying Drongo for his efforts, they’d be wanting their money back after they saw his primary school level of SLR testing.

      • spangled drongo says:

        And jimb is so away with the fairies he can’t see that if king tides are lower now than they were over 70 years ago, sea levels are nothing to bed wet about.

        Or that waterfront properties aren’t changing hands for tens of millions for no reason.

        Or that waterfront dwellers like Al Gore and Tim Flannery might be trying to tell him something.

        Takes a while, hey jimb?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Your denial leaves mine for dead, stu. Only blith beats you.

    • Stu says:

      Sounds like I won that round eh, SD.!

      • spangled drongo says:

        You win all the mindless cut’n’paste comps, stu.

        Just not the ones requiring observable [empirical] evidence.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Fossil fuel corporations need their useful idiots.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Sometimes you just have to laugh – it is after all the best medicine.

    Here is Roy Spencer with his make believe story as to what caused the massive heatwave that seared into New South Wales in February.

    He reckons it was caused by rain precipitating out of the air.

    And then the hot air came a tumbling down to send our instruments to new records.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Poor, silly blith. Where have you been all your life? Whenever there is a big storm system offshore it causes exceptional heat and dryness on the mainland. And there was nothing record breaking.

    Well, not since 2017 anyway.

    Do try to refute good scientists like Spencer with some facts and evidence, not just blither.

    • Neville says:

      Yes, you certainly are a fruitcake, but Dr Spencer is correct about JANUARY’s hot month. Have a look at cooler ocean temps compared to central heat corridor in his last map.
      It will be interesting to see how hot FEB is for OZ. Mildura where I live has been mild and this area was chosen by the Chaffeys in the 1880s for the long hot summers and low rainfall.
      Since the late 1940s this area has received more rainfall and earlier temps were higher if you allowed the use of the 1889 to 1946 records. Trust me not many people would like to go back to that lower rainfall of early Mildura.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “So according to you – the hot sky is falling????”

    I thought that was your story, blith.

    Especially when it is loaded with ACO2.

  • Stu says:

    This conversation has become way too heavy. Time for some levity. Have a look at this video of Seth Myers, if you dare.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Give us a break, stu.

    Even your desperate attempt at climate change humour is based on evidence-free groupthink.

    You can’t help yourself.

    Look up “logical fallacies”

    • Stu says:

      But it features your mate Trumpy. Did you actually watch the clip? Quite funny I thought, especially the Fake Moos ending.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Experts claim power bills could surge by 50% under Labor’s carbon emissions plan that would see workers lose $9,000 a year.

    Authored by former Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics head Brian Fisher, the BAEconomics report released on Thursday states Australian climate policy is at a cross-road”:

  • spangled drongo says:

    It never ends.

    More fakery at the bakery with our BoM:

  • Neville says:

    Thanks SD, just posted this at Jennifer’s blog.
    I’m more convinced than ever that there is something very fishy happening at the BOM. Just more religious dogma posing as science.
    Acorn 1 was supposed to be”world’s best practice” in 2012 but now this has changed in just a few years? Welcome to the ADJUSTOCENE and that means that it will never end.
    IOW it’s a never ending story and OZ wastes endless billions $ for a guaranteed ZERO return while China, India etc laugh all the way to their banks. Unbelievable but true.

  • Neville says:

    Gosh even the US far left don’t support the delusional, upside down Mann donkey. What a hoot, watching them abandon this religious clown.

    • Stu says:

      If you actually check you will find this case is all about freedom of the press and not climate change as such. Mann sued for defamation. The defendents are appealing. The other organisations you refer to have filed an amicus brief, big deal. It will be resolved around US First Amendment issues. Don’t expect head in the sand climate change contrarianism to be given a leg up.

  • Stu says:

    This is what BOM says about the Darwin site:

    “Earlier observations were made at the Post Office (014016), in the central city area. This is on a peninsula in Darwin Harbour which means that the prevailing dry-season southeasterlies have a trajectory over Darwin Harbour (whereas at the airport they are over land). The site deteriorated progressively from the mid-1930s, becoming overshadowed by trees, especially after 1937. The site (along with the remainder of the Post Office) was destroyed in the Japanese air raids of February 1942 and never rebuilt.
    The airport site (014015) has been operating since February 1941. An automatic weather station was installed on 1 October 1990 and became the primary instrument on 1 November 1996. The site moved about 900 m east (along the southern edge of the airport) on 7 August 2001, with observations at the original site continuing under the station number 014040 until June 2007.”

    Seems reasonable.

    This is what BOM wrote about the review of ACORN.

    “In 2011, the Bureau initiated an independent and detailed peer review of the ACORN-SAT dataset to investigate the robustness of its observing practices, station selection, data homogenisation, calculation of trends and overall public confidence in ACORN-SAT.
    The independent peer review expressed overall confidence in the Bureau’s practices and noted that its practices are among the best in the world. The peer review made 31 recommendations
    to further increase public confidence levels and ensure the highest levels of transparency are maintained. As of July 2017, 21 of these recommendations are complete and 10 are in the process of being addressed. One of the recommendations was to establish a Technical Advisory Forum to review and advise the Bureau on the ongoing development and operation of ACORN-SAT.”

    It seems they are still recognised as following worlds best practice.

    I am not a metorologist or statistician, are you? Is Marohasy?

    It is one of those cases where the experts in the field can be presumed to be more knowledgable and rigorous in their specialty than the rest of us.

    By the way have you asked JM how well she predicted the two metres of rain in Townsville last week? Her organisation apparently claims the ability to forecast accurate rainfall amounts up to a year in advance using “historical data and genetic algorithms embedded into sophisticated probabilistic neural networks.”

  • Neville says:

    Interesting to compare rainfall of OZ, Tassie and NZ since 1960. NZ seems to have very consistent rainfall over the last 59 years, while OZ rainfall is increasing and Tassie rainfall has decreased over that period.
    Tassie is about the same latitude as NZ south island, so can anyone believe the co2 climate driver causing droughts anymore when the different trend for Tas/NZ is so obvious?
    Co2 levels would be the same, yet NZ has no trend and Tassie has a lower trend. So how does that fit their CAGW religion?

  • spangled drongo says:

    “It seems they are still recognised as following worlds best practice.”

    Don’t you mean, world’s GATEKEEPERS best practice?

    When the world’s gatekeepers do nothing but eliminate raw data and make the past cooler.

    And then select their own peer reviewers to give themselves a pass.

    It all helps to ” hide the decline” hey, stu?

    You’re not aware enough to get that it is all one-way traffic?

    You don’t think it’s high time to spend a little money on audits before we go further down the fakery path and send ourselves broke?

    Or do you true believers feel that this fakery is essential in order to fabricate the ideal society?

  • Stu says:

    That last sentence says it all. Let’s deconstruct it.

    First “true believers”. Only people like you are believers, in poor science, and conspiracy theories. Everyone else is just rational and “accepts” the conventional science process, no “belief” needed.

    Second “fakery”. Grasping at straws. If anyone could prove all the curent climate science wrong they would be in line for a Nobel prize and they would not need to ask for it like Trump has or like Monkton has falsely claimed.

    Third “fabricate the ideal society”. Oh dear, down the well with bullshit like Agenda 21 and other conspiracy theories. That is the part that does most damage to your argument. How are you going with Chem Trails and the moon landing?

    Meantime the court cases in California and New York are uncovering troves of material that proves Exxon and others knew decades ago what increasing CO2 would lead to. But they chose profit over decency and buried the information. Here is where the real fakery and conspiracy lies. The close links and common strategies uncovered between the tobacco lobby and fossil fuels proves the real con. Sadly there are enough gullible people out there that the strategy has worked to slow action. But the blinkers are off and positive moves are happening even in USA. That is why Trump is telling folk the “socialists” are coming for their cows, cars and aeroplanes. A bit like rapists and drug dealers that is also in the poltical playbook.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Poor ol’ evidence-free stu advocates the exact stuff he “denies”.

    Such as the climate scientists who said that while AGW may not be correct they must run with it for the good of the world.

    And Maurice Strong who created the IPCC so he could control the agenda.

    And when these “experts” are still yet to produce a scrap of measurable evidence, stu has the hubris to claim the high moral and sci ground.

    Just stop ranting and either produce your evidence or admit you don’t have any.

  • Neville says:

    More evidence that SLR hasn’t changed much since the 20th century tide gauge rise of about 8 inches or 200mm.
    The CSIRO tide gauge data shows about 240 mm rise over the last 134 years or about 1.79mm/year of their data 1880 to 2014.
    That’s about 179mm or about 7.2 inches in 100 years. Don’t forget this is for the world SLR, not OZ.

  • Neville says:

    The EU commission makes another underestimate about the subsidies paid to the clueless renewables industry. What a mob of con merchants.

  • Stu says:

    Here are two scenarios for the near future for you to consider.

    10 years from now the climate is cooling, the ice in the Arctic is thickening, plants are flourishing with all the CO2 at their disposal. People are laughing at the deluded idiots who thought AGW was a real thing and wasted heaps on crazy renewable energy sources which are now so cheap they are taxed so that coal and oil industries can keep working. But hey, those people meant well didn’t they so no problem really.

    Or option 2, also ten years out. AGW has proved to be very real and very disruptive. Government and industry are deeply invested in overcoming the problems. The voters are outraged because they realise that action taken ten years earlier to forestall clmate change would have been way cheaper and less disruptive. Climate change antagonists are social pariahs. Rage is real.

    So you have to question the motives of the most vocal climate change critics. Note that I have not used that “bad” word that you have cleverly inoculated yourselves against. But the rest of us know the adjective that describes your position. People who are professional pundits like Nova, Marohasy, Plimer, Ridd etc, and may or may not represent vested interests in the status quo can be excused for just making a living. But why do ordinary folk get on board with this stuff. One of the curious stats is the age profile of people on each side of the debate. Could it be that one group has much more skin in the game in terms of years left to run.

    And then, seeing how there is a strong correlation with conspiracy theories, is it possible that some of the names here represent the first flash of foreign cyber warfare through social media. It is happening in the US so maybe here also.

    Are the drongo and Nev etc real people or bots? And what is their allegiance?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Our stu wants Maurice Strong’s job.

    “Just stop ranting and either produce your evidence or admit you don’t have any.”

    And take your fingers out of you ears.

    • Neville says:

      Talk about the blind leading the blind, Stu and Chris certainly take the cake.
      There’s no easy way to explain their problem but I’ll try again, Geeeezzzz.
      Your side of the ledger tells us there is nothing we can do to reduce temp in 1,000 years and co2 levels for many more thousands of years.
      EVEN IF WE STOP ALL HUMAN co2 EMISSIONS TODAY. So silly Stu and Chris’s examples are delusional hogwash.
      Dr Nic Lewis estimates that temps would probably start to come down a few centuries earlier than the RS & NAS report, but he does agree that co2 levels would take thousands of years after that to start to fall.
      But guess what, we’re not going to STOP all co2 emissions for a very long time so it isn’t even a rational argument, just more make believe .
      Just ask China, India and the non OECD countries who will build hundreds of new Coal Fired stns over the next few decades. Lucky them.
      If you really believe your delusional nonsense you should hop on a plane and protest in China and India ASAP.
      Trust me, they just love silly religious fanatics, so best of luck with your urgent task. Gaarrwwd help us.

      • Chris Warren says:


        “Gaarrwwd help us.”

        Yes – you certainly need help from someone.

        For myself – the key issue is that global warming is increasing and for sure, the current proposals on a global scale will not have any impact on either reducing this trend or reducing CO2 concentrations.

        This means for our younger population that their parents are deliberately boosting their own living standards by causing abject poverty and even deaths for their future grandchildren.

        The Australian government needs to do more on the international stage and in order to do this needs to have its own house in order. This applies to other developed economies as well.

        Of course I know you will not understand this – but so what.

        In fact, the global fossil fuel industry is the problem not each specific mine or bore, but the global industry is the sum of its parts.

        Of course I know you will not understand this – but so what.

        A global catastrophe obviously awaits humanity as long as the concentrations of CO2 and water vapour increase. Judging by the change in New Zealands melt rate for land ice @ 1997, it seems we may have passed a point of no return unless a new political consciousness sweeps across the globe.

        So prepare well your grave.

  • Stu says:

    SD, Neville et al,

    You missed the point entirely. Either of those propositions is possible (though not likely for one – but that is the centre of this debate). And it will give me no satisfaction to be proved correct and would even be delighted if on the other hand the problem went away. But the SD’s and Neville’s of the world are going to be shunned if they are wrong (and they are)

    And for dogs sake stop bleeting about evidence, it is all over the place. My quoting it here will achieve nothing because you will dismiss it as you dismiss all logic. That is just a classic Monckton/Roberts piece of bull. Throw in “the climate has always changed”, “it is the sun stupid”, “more CO2 will be a good thing” and “what about the pause” and you have the full boxed set.

    If you really want proof go and read those court documents I referred you to, but which you ignore.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, stu knows exactly where and what the empirical evidence is.

      But he’s just not going to tell us.

      So there!

      “If you really want proof go and read those court documents I referred you to, but which you ignore.”

      Give us a link, we missed it.

      That’s not proof of anything, stu.

      Didn’t you even notice that judge made a decision based on no evidence whatsoever.

      The sooner there is a Royal Commission into human caused climate change the better.

      But I notice that you alarmist, groupthinking, consensual true believers don’t want to know about a RC.

      Why is that, stu?

      Could it possibly be that you have nothing to back your bed-wetting claims?

      • Stu says:

        You wrote “Didn’t you even notice that judge made a decision based on no evidence whatsoever.”. Shows you did not read the case. There has been no decision beyond a forcing of Exxon and co divulge millions (yes millions) of pages if documents dating back to the 60’s that prove they knew about climate change, then covered up, then denied and finally funded contrarian groups to cause delay.

        You can find one of the briefs here:

        Case: 18-15499, 01/29/2019, ID: 11171856, DktEntry: 95, Page 1 of 51
        Nos. 18-15499, 18-15502, 18-15503, 18-16376
        United States Court Of Appeals

        The important thing is the evidence, in their own words and deeds. For all sorts if reasons the final case could go either way, such is the strange nature of the legal process. And of course we should not overlook the rapid stacking of the US Federal court benches by your man Trump which may alter outcomes. But facts are facts.

        Yes there should be a Royal Commission to uncover the money trail behind the denialist movement and a remedy for the harm it has done by deluding so many future pariahs. Note that I am letting you off the hook for now, but you will be a pariah before too long. Dont forget to leave a note for your descendents explaining your position and your “logic”.

        Regarding the poor mammal. Extinct or not, caused by climate change or not, tell me how many extinctions you would like before you would be convinced. Anyhow surely such a thing is a very poor measure and one that we hopefully we will not see tested.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “So prepare well your grave.”

    Neville, the sandwich board wearer-in-chief, the bed-wetter-in-chief, the blitherer-in-chief has spoken.

    Surely you must be impressed by the logic, science, rationality and general level-headedness of the predictions here?

    Mind you, predictions are all they have and even those are based on their book-cooking past.

    If blith had only checked those king tides as I instructed him, his nerves would have settled down amazingly.

    In the meantime, blith, take note of what I advised stu:

    “Just stop ranting and either produce your evidence or admit you don’t have any.”

    And bear in mind, while the ABC may think so, this sort of stuff is not evidence:

  • Stu says:

    Going back to the Judity Curry story, Don said she was 65 and retired. Here is what she sai happened:

    JC in transition
    Posted on January 3, 2017 | 239 Comments
    by Judith Curry

    “Effective January 1, I have resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech.

    Before reflecting on a range of things, let me start by answering a question that may have popped into your head: I have no plans to join the Trump administration (ha ha).

    Technically, my resignation is a retirement event, since I am on the Georgia State Teachers Retirement System, and I need to retire from Georgia Tech to get my pension (although I am a few years shy of 65). I have requested Emeritus status.

    So, I have retired from Georgia Tech, and I have no intention of seeking another academic or administrative position in a university or government agency. However, I most certainly am not retiring from professional life.

    Why did I resign my tenured faculty position?

    I’m ‘cashing out’ with 186 published journal articles and two books. The superficial reason is that I want to do other things, and no longer need my university salary. This opens up an opportunity for Georgia Tech to make a new hire (see advert).

    The deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.”


    • Don Aitkin says:

      That she didn’t say she was 65 doesn’t mean she isn’t. I made a similar move at the same age. I could have stayed where I was, but I chose to go, partly because I had been in the job long enough, and felt that a new head would be useful at a time of (continual) change, and partly because I felt there must be an interesting life after higher education, and indeed there was. Same in her case.

      • Stu says:

        You did not read it all. She said “she was a few years shy of 65”. I think your motives in going might have been better than hers. And note she requested Emeritus status. She is probably 65 by now and nit exactly retired.

  • John says:

    Many deniers here merely dismiss IPCC science as being some kind of fabrication. For example, they dismiss Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick. Tony Eggleton (2013) mentions groups of scientists who confirmed Mann’s Hockey Stick (page 149 and in a note page 226 citing “Climate of the Past” 3, 591-609). Recent “hottest years” must tell us something.

    Bob Carter has been mentioned. He confirmed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but claimed in his book “Taxing Air” that the more CO2 there is, the less effective it is in “extra radiation forcing”. His claim is based on the MODTRAN “standard atmospheric model” (University of Chicago).

    His mate Ian Plimer would tell him that it is not possible to use computer modelling to predict climate change.

    Peter Ridd, also mentioned by Don Aitkin, worked on silts filtering through the Great Barrier Reef. He was employed by companies dredging near Gladstone. He said the corals loved heat and would soon recover, silt having no effect. No conflict of interest there.

    Yet a scientist from JCU went to Hawaii to see how scientists there were dealing with hybridisation of coral in order to protect the Reef. A contradiction there shown on ABC. But then deniers do not watch the ABC.

    Judith Curry has been telling the US government that we need to go beyond C20th science which merely ends up back with CO2 as the villain . She advocates that we engage with C21st technology, such as artificial intelligence, which will enable us to better see the cycles embedded in climate change. She seems to know all about it, but she did not say how long we will have to wait for the solution.

    And yet there are people here who claim IPCC science is a fairy story! But nowhere do they prove this to be the case. It seems to be a matter of vested interests where the chosen tactic is to shout out loud with home-spun denials and, proudly, with no science.

  • Stu says:

    SD, you want proof. This is not proof but is a very good explanation in simple terms so that even you could understand if you tried. Not my words but borrowed from the UCAR part of NCAR.

    “Energy from the Sun that makes its way to Earth can have trouble finding its way back out to space. The greenhouse effect causes some of this energy to be waylaid in the atmosphere, absorbed and released by greenhouse gases.

    Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s temperature would be below freezing. It is, in part, a natural process. However, Earth’s greenhouse effect is getting stronger as we add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. That is warming the climate of our planet.

    How Does It Work?

    Solar energy absorbed at Earth’s surface is radiated back into the atmosphere as heat. As the heat makes its way through the atmosphere and back out to space, greenhouse gases absorb much of it. Why do greenhouse gases absorb heat? Greenhouse gases are more complex than other gas molecules in the atmosphere, with a structure that can absorb heat. They radiate the heat back to the Earth’s surface, to another greenhouse gas molecule, or out to space.

    Greenhouse Gases

    There are several different types of greenhouse gases. The major ones are carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gas molecules all are made of three or more atoms. The atoms are held together loosely enough that they vibrate when they absorb heat. Eventually, the vibrating molecules release the radiation, which will likely be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule. This process keeps heat near the Earth’s surface.

    Most of the gas in the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen – both of which are molecules made of two atoms. The atoms in these molecules are bound together tightly and unable to vibrate, so they cannot absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

    A Couple of Common Greenhouse Gases

    Carbon dioxide: Made of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms, carbon dioxide molecules make up a small fraction of the atmosphere, but have a large effect on climate. There was about 270 parts per million volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the mid-19th Century at the start of the Industrial Revolution. The amount is growing as burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There is about 400 parts per million volume (ppmv) now.

    Methane: A powerful greenhouse gas, able to absorb far more heat than carbon dioxide, methane is made of one carbon and four hydrogen atoms. It is found in very small quantities in the atmosphere but is able to make a big impact on warming. Methane gas is also used as a fuel. When burned, it releases carbon dioxide greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

    Even though only a tiny amount of the gases in Earth’s atmosphere are greenhouse gases, they have a huge effect on climate. Sometime during this century, the amount of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is expected to double. Other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are increasing as well. The quantity of greenhouse gases is increasing as fossil fuels are burned, releasing the gases and other air pollutants into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases also make their way to the atmosphere from other sources. Farm animals, for example, release methane gas as they digest food. As cement is made from limestone, it releases carbon dioxide.

    With more greenhouse gases in the air, heat passing through on its way out of the atmosphere is more likely to be stopped. The added greenhouse gases absorb the heat. They then radiate this heat. Some of the heat will head away from the Earth, some of it will be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule, and some of it will wind up back at the planet’s surface again. With more greenhouse gases, heat will stick around, warming the planet. “

    I already well imagine your response!

    • spangled drongo says:

      “I already well imagine your response!”

      As well you might, stu.

      That, as you are smart enough to admit, is certainly not proof.

      It is simply a theory.

      And it can’t be quantified.

      And the negative feedbacks from water vapour which totally overwhelms CO2 could easily reduce any actual CO2 warming to zero or even less.

      It’s not an unreasonable argument to make that as the true warming of the planet since the coldest prolonged period of the Holocene [the LIA] followed by the Industrial Revolution, is about half of Nat Var, that the extra CO2 could just as easily be causing cooling.

      We’ve had it quite hotter in this Holocene interglacial.

      We had it hotter still in the previous Eemian interglacial.

      And the earth has previously been hotter with less CO2 and cooler with more CO2.

      To even dream that the “science is settled” is pixieland stuff.

      But you must know this and yet you and the rest of the groupthinkers simply deny these fundamental truths.

      Be rational.

      • Stu says:

        Show me the proof of your theory. It seems to have much less going for it than the alternative. By the way where do you think all the extra heat went to during the “pause”. It was actually the oceans and the impact is still being assessed.

        Another fail for the climate change sceptic pariahs. You don’t like the D word so get used to the P word. On our side we can sleep easy, wonderful.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Show me the proof of your theory”

          Please be specific. What are you referring to?

          Are you saying that we shouldn’t have warmed coming out of the LIA and into the IR?

          Do you know what peer reviewed Nat Var per century for the last 80 centuries is?

          Are you familiar with temps for the last 10,000 years:

          And for the last 450,000 years:

          • Neville says:

            Gosh SD you really are a bully. You should know by now that Chris and Stu etc aren’t interested in data/evidence.
            Pixie dust drivers are all they need, like the much wetter OZ data ( last 50 years see BOM) and the reduced rainfall ( recently) of the SE OZ, Tassie and SW WA. IOD is the cause, but who gives a stuff, certainly not when you can call on your pixie dust cult to bail you out?
            This is their magic theory that can account for everything UP or DOWN, WARMER or COLDER. OH and then there’s the stable NZ rainfall data and the sth island is about the same lat as Tassie.
            So how does that work in with their fairy tale science?

  • Neville says:

    Arctic sea ice is certainly going gang -busters lately. The Gore donkey couldn’t have been more wrong and his advisers Dr Hansen (NASA GISS) and Dr Pearman (CSIRO) also have a lot to explain.
    They helped with his Sci-fi AIT book and movie. I bought the AIT video at a garage sale for $1.50 and the bloke I bought it from said it was “the greatest load of BS he’d seen in a long time”. I have to agree, truly dreadful stuff.
    Perhaps the AMO is heading into the cool phase, who knows?

    • Stu says:

      Oh yes Mr Watts at it again with statistical manipulation. Why has he shortened the time scale to start on Feb 1st when the actual website goes from Jan 1. (Hint, it helps his argument.). Then he chooses an interesting mix of years data to portray. So don’t go to his version of the graph, go directly to the source, see what data they display, then by all means fiddle with the years, but be aware of the effect of comparing this years ice (which is pretty poor so far) with recent bad years and not the longer record. Lies, damn, lies and statistics eh.

    • Chris Warren says:

      More disgusting cherry-picking from our in-house deniers.

      If you cherry-pick just the last 5 years – then Arctic sea ice is slightly higher than these well-chosen years and 2019 is matching pretty well the trend for 2014.

      However if you do not cherry-pick and use all the data you get the real truth.

      It is possible for others to cherry-pick. For example you can set the chart to show just 2019 compared to:

      1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982,1981,1980,1979.

      ie 10 continuous years – not just Neville’s 5 years.

      This produces the exact OPPOSITE to our denialists.

      Once again – just laugh at ’em.

  • Neville says:

    Here is the ABC Catalyst story about Dr Nott’s study of OZ cyclones over the last 6,000 years.
    I wouldn’t swap our mild climate today for the terrible super cyclones that were a part of OZ history just 200+ years ago.

  • Neville says:

    The Concordia Uni study showed that global warming since 1800 was about 0.7 c and OZ’s contribution was 0.006 C or 6 thousandths of 1 c over the last 205 years. (to 2005) Also called Mathews et al 2014.

    Of course the warming up to 1950 would have a lot less attribution due to co2 warming, so the 0.7 c ( due to AGW) estimate is probably far too high. IOW well under 0.7 c would be from AGW. Here’s their FIG 2 and the link.;

    The first number in each country’s horizontal column is the total degrees c attribution since 1800.

    Table 2. Top 20 contributors to global temperature change, ranked in order of their total climate contribution, and including a breakdown of
    the contribution of different types of emissions. All values here are given in C of global temperature change.
    Rank Country Total Fossil Fuel CO2 Landuse
    CO2 All CO2 NonCO2
    GHG All GHG Aerosols
    1 United States 0.151 0.143 0.026 0.170 0.044 0.213 ?0.063
    2 China 0.063 0.042 0.036 0.078 0.049 0.127 ?0.065
    3 Russia 0.059 0.059 0.014 0.072 0.020 0.092 ?0.034
    4 Brazil 0.049 0.004 0.032 0.036 0.018 0.054 ?0.005
    5 India 0.047 0.013 0.025 0.037 0.025 0.062 ?0.015
    6 Germany 0.033 0.035 ?0.000 0.035 0.008 0.042 ?0.009
    7 United Kingdom 0.032 0.031 0.001 0.033 0.007 0.040 ?0.007
    8 France 0.016 0.014 ?0.000 0.014 0.007 0.021 ?0.005
    9 Indonesia 0.015 0.003 0.013 0.015 0.006 0.021 ?0.006
    10 Canada 0.013 0.011 0.007 0.017 0.005 0.023 ?0.009
    11 Japan 0.013 0.021 0.001 0.022 0.002 0.024 ?0.011
    12 Mexico 0.010 0.006 0.008 0.014 0.003 0.017 ?0.007
    13 Thailand 0.009 0.002 0.006 0.008 0.004 0.012 ?0.002
    14 Columbia 0.009 0.001 0.006 0.007 0.003 0.010 ?0.001
    15 Argentina 0.009 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.010 ?0.001
    16 Poland 0.007 0.010 0.001 0.011 0.003 0.014 ?0.007
    17 Nigeria 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.000
    18 Venezuela 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.008 ?0.001
    19 Australia 0.006 0.005 0.002 0.007 0.006 0.014 ?0.007
    20 Netherlands 0.006 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.006 ?0.001

    • Stu says:

      So another twist on the good old canard of climate change pariahs, “it is not happening here so it can’t be real”. Need I remind you we live on one planet and there is no planet B. Maybe like in Hitchhikers guide we should send all the climate pariahs on the first ship out, along with the phone sanitizers and account executive people.

  • Stu says:

    Here is part of a good piece in the New Yorker. It makes some very good points comparing the pariahs, who have no skin in the game, and the follow on generations who will have to live with the consequences of todays actions or inactions.

    “Well, maybe. But Feinstein was, in fact, demonstrating why climate change exemplifies an issue on which older people should listen to the young. Because—to put it bluntly—older generations will be dead before the worst of it hits. The kids whom Feinstein was talking to are going to be dealing with climate chaos for the rest of their lives, as any Californian who has lived through the past few years of drought, flood, and fire must recognize.

    This means that youth carry the moral authority here, and, at the very least, should be treated with the solicitousness due a generation that older ones have managed to screw over. Feinstein’s condescension, though it’s less jarring in the video of the full encounter, which also shows gracious moments—including one when she offers a young person an internship—echoed that of Nancy Pelosi, from earlier this month, when the Speaker of the House talked about “the green dream, or whatever they call it. Nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”

    This smugness stings—although, of course, it stings far less than the climate denialism emanating from the White House. But that’s not really the problem. The problem is that, even if you give Feinstein every benefit of the doubt, her response illustrates the fix we’re in. Later Friday evening, Feinstein’s aides released portions of her proposal, and on first view they appear to be warmed-over versions of Obama-era environmental policy: respect for the Paris climate accord, a commitment to a mid-century conversion to renewable energy.

    It’s not that these things are wrong. It’s that they are insufficient, impossibly so. Not insufficient—and here’s the important point—to meet the demands of hopelessly idealistic youth but because of the point that the kids were trying to make, which is that the passage of time is changing the calculations around climate change.“

    • Neville says:

      More silly arguments with complete ignorance about their so called problem. They should read the RS, NAS report Q&A and perhaps they might wake up?
      But don’t hold your breath.

    • JimboR says:

      I think it’s a lot more politicised here than in most places (well in the US now I guess too but everything is politicised in Trump’s US). If you look at the world leaders who’ve taken it most seriously, they’ve all been from the conservative side of politics: Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, Angel Merkel, Arnie Schwarzenegger. You could almost include Malcolm Turnbull in that list except every time he got close the RWNJs would rise up and revolt.

      The Nats are conflicted between farmers (who do believe) and Gina Rinehart. Labor is torn between the inner-city greenies and coal miners – just look at how many positions they simultaneously hold on Adani.

  • Chris Warren says:

    What our denialists do not want to show you.

    Here is the latest CO2 and methane trends in full correct historical context.

    Each past heat peak was caused by Milankovitch cycles as proxied by solar insolation [at bottom].

    Today’s insolation is not the same and in fact we should be experiencing a natural cooling.

    Except for the additional factor of human CO2.

    The Earth’s climate system has been fighting off the natural cooling trend and is now sending temperatures to levels that only ever occurred when the Earth was closer to the sun.

    This will only worsen if the concentration of GHGs [CO2, methane, water vapour etc] in the atmosphere continues to rise.

    This will lead to unstoppable continual melting of land ice, plus rapid soil temperature gain [now at 6C per century], and more disruption to the atmospheric weather system.

    Harm from spurts of cold and heat and from floods and droughts and species loss are the first events, then will come loss to agriculture and population shifts, until finally the sea level has increase by over 50 metres.

    This is our future.

    Denialists be damned.

    • Neville says:

      Chris you couldn’t be more wrong about co2 levels and the impact from your so called CAGW.

      Dr Curry and many other scientists look at the different temps since 1850 and dispute the fact that there has been more warming because of higher levels of co2.

      The earlier 20th century warming trend from 1910 to 1940 was greater in Greenland than the trend from 1975 to 2009. And unfortunately for your theory there was also a cooling trend for the world from 1945 to about 1975 or 31 years. This while co2 levels were much higher than the earlier 20th century.

      Also that cooling trend in Greenland lasted until 1995 when co2 levels were well over 350 ppm. Your theory doesn’t make sense when the strongest warming trend in Greenland started when co2 levels were just over 300 ppm in 1910.

      Have a look at the Greenland Vinther study and you can see what I’m saying is right. Also most of the recent warming is in the NH and much lower in the SH and no warming from the satellite data for Antarctica since 1978. So much for more polar warming according to their AGW theory.

      Let’s see what happens when the AMO changes back to the cool phase in the NH. Also the Antarctic peninsula has been cooling since 1998 according to the BAS study of Turner et al and this was once thought to be one of the fastest warming areas of the planet.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Denialists be damned.”

    I agree, blith.

    Especially when they are too stupid to put their heads out the window to see that our local sea levels are not rising at all.

    And the only SLR is in their pyjamas.

  • Neville says:

    Little wonder that young people believe in silly nonsense like so called CAGW. It turns out they are also ignorant of even the most evil men who were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people during the 20 th century.
    Certainly donkeys like Sanders are reaping the rewards of this appalling ignorance once again leading up to the Dems selection of a candidate to run against Trump.
    I’m sure Sanders isn’t another Hitler, Mao, Lenin or Stalin but this collectivist idea that Governments always know best how to look after you and your family has always been the path to ruin.
    Just look at the Venezuela disaster over the last decade and all the support that moron received from prominent left wing loonies in Australia and around the globe.

    • Chris Warren says:


      You lie.

      Sanders never said “Governments always know best how to look after you ” and there is no evidence he supports such a crazy misrepresentation.

      Your egregious labelling of others as “donkeys” means you are a true Ass.

      • Don Aitkin says:


        I try to stay out of these bunfights you like to have, but your comment here is so egregious I have to comment. First, you have placed some words in inverted commas, as though these are alleged to be Sanders’ words. But Neville did not quote Sanders at all. Indeed, second, what Neville wrote was this: ‘this collectivist idea that Governments always know best how to look after you and your family has always been the path to ruin’. Sanders is not mentioned as the author. Third, there is no possible way that you or anyone could know everything that Sanders has said. You simply do not know everything. He may indeed have said something like this; it would be consistent with some of his published statements. I have no idea.

        Finally, Neville did not lie. You simply stuffed everything up.

        • Chris Warren says:


          If there was no intent to associate Sanders with such words, why say:

          ….but this collectivist idea that Governments always know best how to look after you and your family has always been the path to ruin.

          in a sentence about Sanders?

          This is nothing but making a direct false provocation by imputation.

          Sanders has NO association with dogma such as “Governments always know best how to look after you” and Neville was associating this with Sanders.

          If not Sanders – who was Neville imputing against?

          If you want to claim that such dogma “would be consistent with some of his (Sanders) published statements”, then where is there evidence?

          In any case, if is false to associate Sanders with such words.

  • Neville says:

    Dr Spencer once again dispels another AGW myth on the Canadian prairie. No change in temp in those areas since 1940, but there is definitely an increased demand for Soybeans in China.
    Read his post and look at his graph. But I must admit I would have expected some warming in that area over the last 80 years. Of course no UHIE to help things along on the vast prairies.

  • spangled drongo says:

    BTW, here are some donkey lies about Trump:

    “During the election campaign of 2016, then-President Barack Obama rhetorically questioned the ability of candidate Trump to restore America’s manufacturing sector claiming it would take a “magic wand” to bring those jobs back.”

    But two years and a half million more manufacturing jobs later, Trump’s “magic wand” is working.

    The donkeys’ junk science regs introduced by those same donkeys will hopefully be disbanded.

    If only we had the courage to treat the donkeys similarly:

  • spangled drongo says:

    More from our resident blitherer:

    “The Earth’s climate system has been fighting off the natural cooling trend and is now sending temperatures to levels that only ever occurred when the Earth was closer to the sun.”

    Check this blith!

    Scientists Present New Artifact Evidence From An Arctic Island That Was 5-6°C Warmer 9000 Years Ago.

    Zhokhov Island in the Siberian High Arctic today exhibits inhospitably severe climate conditions, desolate tundra, and year-round pack ice in the surrounding sea. During the Early Holocene this same island was warm enough to host waterfowl species, birch trees, and year-round human residents who hunted polar bear and reindeer:

  • Stu says:

    Interesting article by Dana Nuccitelli

    “Thirty years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.

    Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.

    The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.

    The incredible accuracy of Hansen’s climate model predictions debunks a number of climate denier myths. It shows that climate models are accurate and reliable, that global warming is proceeding as climate scientists predicted, and thus that we should probably start listening to them and take action to address the existential threat it poses.

    Hansen’s predictions have thus become a target of climate denier misinformation. It began way back in 1998, when the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels – who has admitted that something like 40% of his salary comes from the fossil fuel industry – arguably committed perjury in testimony to Congress. Invited by Republicans to testify as the Kyoto Protocol climate agreement was in the works, Michaels was asked to evaluate how Hansen’s predictions were faring 10 years later.

    In his presentation, Michaels deleted Hansen’s Scenarios B and C – the ones closest to reality – and only showed Scenario A to make it seem as though Hansen had drastically over-predicted global warming. Deleting inconvenient data in order to fool his audience became a habit for Patrick Michaels, who quickly earned a reputation of dishonesty in the climate science world, but has nevertheless remained a favorite of oil industry and conservative media.

    Last week in the Wall Street Journal, Michaels was joined by Ryan Maue in an op-ed that again grossly distorted Hansen’s 1988 paper. Maue is a young scientist with a contrarian streak who’s published some serious research on hurricanes, but since joining the Cato Institute last year, seems to have sold off his remaining credibility to the fossil fuel industry.

    In their WSJ opinion piece, Michaels and Maue claimed:

    Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect.

    They provided no evidence to support this claim (evidence and facts seem not to be allowed on the WSJ Opinion page), and it takes just 30 seconds to fact check. In reality, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.35°C since 2000 – precisely in line with Hansen’s 1988 model projections, as shown above. And it’s unscientific to simply “discount” the El Niño of 2015-16, because between the years 1999 and 2014, seven were cooled by La Niña events while just four experienced an El Niño warming. Yet despite the preponderance of La Niña events, global surface temperatures still warmed 0.15°C during that time. There’s simply not an ounce of truth to Michaels’ and Maue’s central WSJ claim.

    It’s also worth noting that Hansen’s 1988 paper accurately predicted the geographic pattern of global warming, with the Arctic region warming fastest and more warming over land masses than the oceans. And climate deniers in the 1980s like Richard Lindzen were predicting “that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small.” If anyone deserves criticism for inaccurate climate predictions, it’s deniers like Lindzen who thought there wouldn’t be any significant warming, when in reality we’ve seen the dramatic global warming that James Hansen predicted.

    Michaels’ and Maue’s misinformation didn’t stop there:

    And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

    Once again, this unsupported assertion is completely wrong. I evaluated the IPCC’s global warming projections in my book, and showed in detail that theirs have been among the most accurate predictions. The climate model temperature projections in the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports were all remarkably accurate; the IPCC predicted global warming almost exactly right.

    Why lie? To keep cashing Koch paychecks

    We don’t even have to guess at the motivation behind Michaels’ and Maue’s misinformation; they give it away toward the end of their opinion piece, asking:

    Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?

    Michaels and Maue don’t want us to cut carbon pollution, and it’s easy to understand why. They work for the Cato Institute, which was co-founded by and is heavily controlled by the Koch brothers, who have donated more than $30 million to Cato. As Michaels admitted, they’re basically fossil fuel industry employees.

    But the answers to their question are simple. As climate scientists have predicted for decades, global temperatures are rising dangerously rapidly. Moreover, research has shown that the economic benefits of cutting carbon pollution far outweigh the costs.

    Michaels and Maue want us to bet the future of all life on Earth. They want us to put all our chips on black – a bet that burning billions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal every year won’t cause dangerous climate change. They want us to make that bet even though their arguments are based on unsupported lies, whilst they cash paychecks from the Koch brothers.

    We would have to be incredible suckers to take their bet.”

    But never mind, 9000 years ago things might have been a little warmer. SFW, everything was different back then. The problem is now.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Dana Nuccitelli was the co-author of the 2013 paper that found 0.5% consensus to the effect that recent global warming was mostly manmade and reported it as 97.1%, leading Queensland police to inform a Brisbane citizen who had complained to them that a “deception” had been perpetrated, yet our stu cut and pastes miles of more DANACRAP.

    Give us a break.

    • Neville says:

      I’ve linked to Jones’s 2010 BBC interview where he agreed that the THEN 1975 to 2009 trend was not stat significantly different than the 2 earlier 19th century and early 20th century warming trends.
      I then showed that the 2 earlier trends were NOW adjusted down and the later 1975 to 2009 trend had ALSO been adjusted up.
      All these data changes had taken place just a few years after he admitted that all the trends were similar. What a con and fra-d and yet these fools still ignore this IPCC preferred data base change so soon after Jones’s 2010 admissions?
      BTW I wouldn’t read anything from the Nuccitelli or waste my time on “upside down Mann” and “his trick” as outlined in the Climategate emails.

      • Chris Warren says:


        You are a “trick” dirty trickster.

        As you know well and truly, the word trick was part of working materials NOT part of their institutional output.

        Not only this. You also are aware that the accusations of “trick” were investigated by independent reviewers and there was no problem. Scientists often use tricks to develop theories and deal with materials. Different tricks are used to solve simultaneous equations, and different tricks are used to work with partial fractions.

        This is the context within which the original use of “trick” was based.

        But our denialists, in direct contradiction of the findings of authoritative independent reviewers, rant about the use of “trick” in a different imaginary context – that does not exist.

        This is your denialist “dirty trick” and repeating it ad nauseam does not convert a lie into a fact.

        This means you have been hoisted by your own petard.

    • Stu says:

      You still have not explained the background to your strong negative bent on this subject. The most common link for climate change pariahs is the right wing free economy thing most often aligned with the Republican party in USA or the right fringe of the Liberals here, as in Abbott and Kelly etc. The other alignment/cause which is often related to the first is religion. The belief in a super natural power that has such strength that it is arrogant to believe that humans could possibly change the climate.

      So which of these fits you? There is no answer to the second string (no point in arguing with that kind of illogic) and with the first, the economics have reversed. The argument (even the purpose) of the scepticism was premised on the desire to delay the move from a carbon economy because of the cost. Now there is growing evidence of the economic benefits flowing from change versus the increasingly negative cost impacts the longer the delay.

      Don’t be distracted by the second paragraph, please answer the first.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Poor deluded stu simply can’t get that to be a rational sceptic, as Neville and I am, all it takes is awareness of history.

        And often very short history at that.

        As Neville tries to point out to stu, there was nothing happening until his heroes cooked the books and they continue to do so to make their books try to keep up with their GIGO-assumption-based-models.

        What is it about your mentality, stu, that you allow your heroes like Dana, who manipulate and manoeuvre, plain for all to see, that denies that they have anything but the purest of motives?

        Also, when you’ve lived and worked through higher temperatures and sea levels in the past, while you may be prepared to accept that some warming is happening, it’s nothing that hasn’t happened in the past when CO2 had nothing to do with it.

        IOW, Nat Var exceeds current warming.

        That is the inescapable truth yet you are in complete denial of that fact.

        • Stu says:

          You said “IOW, Nat Var exceeds current warming.
          That is the inescapable truth yet you are in complete denial of that fact.”.

          No mate that is not the inescapable truth except for you and a tiny minority of true believers, fellow pariahs. This is not about what is happening in Blacktown (or where ever it is you watch the tides from) it is about the globe. As stated before there is no Planet B.

          The best example of rapid change is what is happening in the Arctic and your cherry picked unscientific examples do not prove that what is happening is natural variation. What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic.

          To accept your story one has to “believe” that practically all of the world’s scientists plus every met bureau, science academy and NASA, have pulled off the greatest con in history by manipulating the data and creating a false scenario. That is the same as believing in fairies.

          And I read today that the percentage of people in USA who are worried about climate change has increased markedly. More to the point the number who are seriously worried has increased even faster. And that is the group pushing for and achieving political change. Just see the scrambling by Morrison and company to shift ground (not very convincingly though) and the Democratic party in the US.

          Each election cycle there and here sees many thousands more young voters on the rolls. And they are the ones with skin in the game. On the other hand the age profile of the pariahs is definitly skewed to the right. Get used to it, your argument is dying on the vine.

          • spangled drongo says:

            If you don’t believe that Nat Var exceeds current warming, show us the proof.

            It is all about evidence and I have shown you peer reviewed papers where Nat Var per century for the last 80 centuries is around 1.0c.

            Whereas pre-doctored [raw data] warming for the last 2 centuries following the LIA is around the same amount.

            And that is self evident from all the ice core graphs where the Holocene max was considerably warmer than today and sea levels back it up.

            But give us your thoughts on what is Nat Var just from the short Holocene period.

            And you’ll find if you go back into the cooler and warmer periods of history, these temps fluctuate by many times current variations.

            All your fakery at the bakery can’t hide these facts.

            And when scientists have such a fragile grasp on what causes these temp fluctuations, blaming current noise on something as specific as ACO2 is childish.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Have a read on the early stages of the CC con, stu, and proced from there:


            I know you are trying desperately to polish your act but there are others ahead of you.

      • Neville says:

        See above, simply data and evidence. You obviously have trouble understanding language and very simple logic and reason?
        Look up Jones’s BBC interview and then start to wake up.
        I’ve also repeatedly said that I’m no fan of silly religious stories, yet I have Christian friends ( not fundamentalists) who I admire for their strong family tradition and concern for the less well off people they try to help.
        And don’t start me on the idiocy of Islam and some of their vile traditions. Watch some of the debates and you might learn something.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Because we have had denialist Neville propagating the fake news of some supposed “trick”, it is worthwhile to indicate the findings of the British Parliamentary expert inquiry into such wanton claims by the denialist rump.

    Executive Summary

    1. The main findings of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (?the
    Review?) are set out in Section 1.3 below, and the main recommendations in
    Section 1.4. We comment in Section 1.5 on some of the more general issues
    raised by the Review that we think are important about the context in which
    scientists operate and in which science contributes to public policy.

    Section 1.3

    1.3 Findings

    13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards
    of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific
    allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their
    rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

    14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of
    advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of
    behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

    15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display
    the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the
    part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory
    requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to
    the credibility of UK climate science.


    The rest of the Report refuted point by point every other fake political accusation from the denialists.


    • spangled drongo says:

      Dopey blith just doesn’t think that there is any problem with self examination following a criminal:

      The latest follow-up report by the Science and Technology Committee on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) confirms that the Climategate inquiries had serious flaws, lacked balance and transparency and failed to achieve their objective to restore trust and confidence in British climate science.

      The report by the Science and Technology Committee shows that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were deficient and biased.

      In particular, the report finds that:
      •UEA Vice-Chancellor Professor Acton misled the House of Commons Committee over the nature of the Science Appraisal Panel (paragraph 23).
      •As Graham Stringer MP, a member of the Committee, has pointed out: “The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers… This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable.”
      •Lord Oxburgh’s Science Appraisal Panel may have not been wholly independent (paragraph 32).
      •The review by Lord Oxburgh lacked rigour and diligence (paragraphs 33; 61).
      •The Inquiries failed to investigate the serious allegation relating to the deletion of e-mails in response to an FOI request (89).
      •None of the inquiries have determined if CRU staff actually contacted the journals they discussed threatening. The alleged threatening of the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, arguably the most important incident in this area, has yet to be examined at all. The committee’s finding in this area is shameful.

      Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF’s report “The Climategate Inquires” said:

      “The committee suggest that we should all just move on. That may be what suits most politicians, but the public deserve to know the truth. The committee have turned a blind eye to the abundant evidence of wrongdoing at UEA and in the Climategate inquiries.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    The blitherers here think that assessment of human caused global warming should be the same as gender assessment:

    “Alex Drummond is a transgender woman who lives in Britain. Drummond, 54, does not take hormones, has not had sex reassignment surgery, and has even kept her beard (she says she’s “widening the bandwidth of how to be a woman”).

    If a person’s legal sex should track her biological sex, then Drummond’s legal sex should be male. After all, there’s nothing to distinguish her from males except how she sees herself. If a person’s legal sex should track something else, then perhaps Drummond’s legal sex could be female.

    Britain, the US and New Zealand are dealing with proposed changes to legislation that make a person’s legal sex a matter of self-identification (although New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin has announced her controversial bill to enable this would be deferred, in light of a failure to properly consult over it). This means that to change sex, one simply fills out a statutory declaration. It will be up to us to decide our sex. But is your legal sex something that should be this easy to change?”

    Why not? The climate is.

    • Stu says:

      I would rather be called a blither (falsely) than a pariah. Your end time is coming. The game is nearly over, you will soon be proved to be dangerous delayers of meaningful change. In other words pariahs. Your so called evidence is just bullshit. Enjoy.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Nature and climate are not like stu-pid people, stu.

        They make the final decision, they can’t be brainwashed and they don’t do groupthink.

        • Stu says:

          Exactly, get with reality not your narrow cocoon, of self reinforcing bullshit. The people and studies you quote and promote are clearly ridiculed by the mainstream. And meantime the weather is changing, temperatures rising, even the LNP reluctantly are getting onboard. Get used to it and stop your blithering, blither, pariah.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Now you’ve got that off your chest, try some facts to support your story as to why I am wrong.

      • Neville says:

        We’re not interested in your foolish left wing politics Stu, we’re interested in proper data and evidence.
        You’re only interested in the political science of your clueless point of view, but please tell us how to more quickly change the temp, weather or climate.
        China and India will have a good belly laugh at your expense, because they want to develop quickly using the best energy sources and certainly not dopey S&Wind.
        If you’re happy wasting endless billions dollars down the drain for a guaranteed ZERO return that’s just your stupidity, but don’t include the rest of us with your mad ideas.

        • Stu says:

          No you just don’t get it do you. It is not about politics, except on your side of the discussion. Strangely enough (to you no doubt) my politics generally aligns on the right side. But I am a realist and can accept scientific evidence. None of the “data and evidence” you claim seems to be backed by the serious scientific community. You resort to claims (unsubstantiated really) about the past but ignore the present. You claim fraud and data manipulation about current data. Such rubbish. Outside this tiny site your views would be shut down in a flash. Mutual back scratching does not science make. But I can accept that you are deluded old doddle and I do not take it too seriously. I am just having fun responding to your outlandish claims, and am reasonably confident that I will be here to see the future unfold and your position be recognised as dangerous delusion. Fortunately very few people follow this site so no major damage done. If I keep you busy here you will probably do less harm elsewhere. Is there a special pariah handshake?

      • spangled drongo says:

        BTW, stu, I supply evidence, you just blither.

        If you want your argument to amount to anything, at least try to refute my evidence.

        You know you can’t.

  • Stu says:


    SFW Pariah

    • stu says:

      To put that more politely, what is that graph supposed to show? The average for the year, the max, the min, the who cares it looks good for the argument. How do you reckon there is melt going on across the greenland ice sheet in summer. Of course we have black carbon pollution descending and reduced albedo etc and the surface temp may vary from the air temp, but really, look at the scale in that graph. What is it saying and how does it relate to now?

      You are clutching at straws. PARIAH

  • By 2100, and possibly as soon as 2075, world sea level will have risen about 3 metres, driven by the very recent solar Grand Maximum (spanned 1937-2003), whose effect on Antarctic ice collapse (raising sea level) is delayed a few decades by ‘ocean memory’ (comprising ocean thermal inertia plus ocean ‘conveyor-belt’ circulation, both ignored in IPCC models, which also dismiss Svensmark’s breathtakingly elegant demonstration of the link between solar magnetic output, cosmic rays, clouds and therefore temperature). The last such multi-metre sea-level rise (google ‘Godwin Romano-British Transgression’; also ‘Fairbridge Rottnest Submergence’, by Australian geological genius Rhodes Fairbridge) occurred at the start of the Dark Ages, a few decades after the last comparable solar Grand Maximum (spanned about 275-345AD; Inceoglu et al. 2015 fig.1, spike at 300AD), and drove Anglo-Saxon coast-dwelling “boat people” to Britain en masse, shaping the English nation. Of course, CO2 is just as blameless for the Dark Ages Rise as it is for the lookalike metre-scale sea-level rise that’s about to begin (in fact it’s already begun) …

  • spangled drongo says:

    And stu confirms his “evidence”.

    Hand waving and name calling are all good fun, stu, but you still have to supply facts.

    And in your case, as we already knew, you simply can’t.

  • Neville says:

    More idiotic pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo to scare the pants off ignorant and gullible religious fanatics. But how do you dislodge them from their addiction to fake science?
    The vile lefty media can’t get enough fairy stories to try and fool the cultists and the lawyers line up to trumpet their services.

    The full post from Matt Ridley can be found at the Spectator link.


    Date: 28/02/19
    Matt Ridley, The Spectator

    Pseudoscience is on the rise – and the media is completely hooked

    ‘The whole aim of practical politics,’ wrote H.L. Mencken, ‘is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’ Newspapers, politicians and pressure groups have been moving smoothly for decades from one forecast apocalypse to another (nuclear power, acid rain, the ozone layer, mad cow disease, nanotechnology, genetically modified crops, the millennium bug…) without waiting to be proved right or wrong.

    Increasingly, in a crowded market for alarm, it becomes necessary to make the scares up. More and more headlines about medical or environmental panics are based on published scientific papers, but ones that are little more than lies laundered into respectability with a little statistical legerdemain. Sometimes, even the exposure of the laundered lies fails to stop the scare. Dr Andrew Wakefield was struck off in 2010 after the General Medical Council found his 1998 study in the Lancet claiming a link between the MMR vaccine and autism to be fraudulent. Yet Wakefield is now a celebrity anti-vaccine activist in the United States and has left his long-suffering wife for the supermodel Elle Macpherson. Anti-vax campaigning is a lucrative business.

    Meanwhile, the notion that chemicals such as bisphenol A, found in plastics, are acting as ‘endocrine disruptors’, interfering with human hormones even at very low doses, started with an outright fraudulent study that has since been retracted. Many low-quality studies on BPA have pushed this theory, but they have been torpedoed by high-quality analyses including a recent US government study called Clarity. Yet this is of course being largely ignored by the media and the activists.

    So the habit of laundering lies is catching on. Three times in the past month, pseudo-science flew around the world before the scientific truth had got its boots on (as Mark Twain did not say, but Jonathan Swift almost did): in stories about insect extinction, weedkiller causing cancer, and increased flooding. The shamelessness of the apocaholics is increasingly blatant. They know that even if a story of impending doom is thoroughly debunked, the correction comes too late. The gullible media will have relayed the headline without checking, so the activists have made their fake-news hit, perhaps even raised funds on the back of it, and won.

    Take the story on 10 February that ‘insects could vanish within a century’, as the Guardian’s Damian Carrington put it, echoed by the BBC. The claim is, as even several science journalists and conservationists have now reported, bunk.

    The authors of the study, Francisco Sánchez-Bayo and Kris Wyckhuys, claimed to have reviewed 73 different studies to reach their conclusion that precisely 41 per cent of insect species are declining and ‘unless we change our way of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades’. In fact the pair had started by putting the words ‘insect’ and ‘decline’ into a database, thereby ignoring any papers finding increases in insects, or no change in numbers.

    They did not check that their findings were representative enough to draw numerical conclusions from. They even misinterpreted source papers to blame declines on pesticides, when the original paper was non-committal or found contradictory results. ‘Several multivariate and correlative statistical analyses con?rm that the impact of pesticides on biodiversity is larger than that of other intensive agriculture practices,’ they wrote, specifically citing a paper that actually found the opposite: that insect abundance was lower on farms where pesticide use was less.

    They also relied heavily on two now famous recent papers claiming to have found fewer insects today than in the past, one in Germany and one in Puerto Rico. The first did not even compare the same locations in different years, so its conclusions are hardly reliable. The second compared samples taken in the same place in 1976 and 2012, finding fewer insects on the second occasion and blaming this on rapid warming in the region, rather than any other possible explanation, such as timing of rainfall in the two seasons. Yet it turned out that there had been no warming: the jump in temperature recorded by the local weather station was entirely caused by the thermometer having been moved to a different location in 1992. Whoops.

    Of course, human activities do affect insects, but ecologists I have consulted say local populations of some species are often undergoing huge changes, and that some species regularly die out in one location and are then regenerated by migrants. This is not to be confused with species extinction. The real evidence suggests that insect species are dying out at a similar rate to mammals and birds — which means about 1 to 5 per cent per century. A problem, but not Armageddon.

    Curiously, 41 per cent cropped up in another misleading story the same day, 10 February. This is the claim that exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, increases the incidence of a particular, very rare cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). ‘Exposure to weed-killing products increases risk of cancer by 41 per cent,’ said the Guardian’s headline.

    Once again, this paper is not a new study, but a desktop survey of other studies and its claim collapses under proper scrutiny. According to the epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat, the paper combined one high-quality study with five poor-quality studies and chose the highest of five risk estimates reported in one of the latter to ensure it would reach statistical significance. The authors highlighted the dubious 41 per cent result, ‘which they almost certainly realised would grab headlines and inspire fear’.
    Full post (£)

  • Chris Warren says:


    Do you really think adults are going to take any notice of you as long as you spew all over the place thusly:

    – idiotic pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo

    – ignorant and gullible religious fanatics

    – addiction

    – fake science

    – vile lefty media

    – fairy stories

    – fool the cultists

    – trumpet

    • spangled drongo says:

      Hey, denier-shouter!!!

      Pot, meet kettle.

      If you don’t wish to be referred to in those terms all you have to do is come up with some empirical evidence and facts that rational people can accept and believe.

  • Neville says:

    Willis Eschenbach checked on Hansen’s extreme cherry pick of some of the recent SLR data. In this May 2018 post he shows the actual trends from the data since 1900 and the 1930 to 1960 trend is the real stand out.
    Certainly there is no correlation with co2 levels since 1900- and Willis provides all the data for every year at the end of his post.
    Just amazing what these so called top scientists try and disguise and the lefties just lap it up every time.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The blitherers, bed-wetters and denier shouters here would love to introduce the AOC Green New Deal which could be quite expensive:

    In all, the plan would cost between $52.6 trillion and $94.4 trillion, over 10 years. The burden to the taxpayer would amount to between $361,010 and $653,010 for each household over 10 years:

    If they keep brain washing the kiddies it’s bound to happen.

    If only all non-solutions to such non-problems were so cheap.

  • Accord123 says:

    I have started collecting BoM data from my local weather station on the rural coast of Victoria. The data I have commences on 1 June 2017. As a matter of interest, here are the results of a simple analysis. I summed the highs for two periods, from 1 June 2017 to 24 Feb 2018, and from 1 June 2018 to 24 Feb 2019, and I summed the lows for those two periods. I divided those four totals by the number of days for each period. Here is the average temperature for each:

    1 June 2017 to 24 Feb 2018 – 19.5C
    1 June 2018 to 24 Feb 2019 – 19.1C

    1 June 2017 to 24 Feb 2018 – 9.3C
    1 June 2018 to 24 Feb 2019 – 9.1 C

    This year was substantially cooler than last.
    I know short term measurements are of limited value in assessing climate. And I know one weather station does not speak for all.
    I will continue to collect the data and over the years it will become more useful.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Well, well, well ….

    BOM declares 2018-19: “The warmest summer on record.”

    when all the natural causes are neutral.

    Future summers will be warmer if more CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Well, well, well …. BOM declares 2018-19: “The warmest summer on record.”

    Poor ol’ blith.

    Is he just deluded or having a joke?

    Even when he knows the gatekeepers’ fingers are all on the scales….

  • Neville says:

    More recent studies that show a deceleration in SLR. So much for evidence about a much warmer planet.
    Meanwhile we continue to waste endless billions $ on this lunacy and of course no change to temp or co2 levels at all, thanks to China India and the non OECD.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Who has cited an acceleration rate for your small sample of 20 years – 1992-2012?

      The acceleration – shown by Ole Humlum – is based on using all the data.

      Due to variability of such measurements, the acceleration signal may not emerge from the noise within short time frames.

  • spangled drongo says:

    True environmentalists really pay attention and even if they aren’t initially too aware, eventually the truth dawns on them.

    But will the bed-wetting blitherers ever extract themselves from their state of denial?:

    “I think it’s natural that those of us who became active on climate change gravitated toward renewables. They seemed like a way to harmonize human society with the natural world. Collectively, we have been suffering from an appeal-to-nature fallacy no different from the one that leads us to buy products at the supermarket labelled “all natural.” But it’s high time that those of us who appointed ourselves Earth’s guardians should take a second look at the science, and start questioning the impacts of our actions.

    Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?”:

  • spangled drongo says:

    And stu forthwith produces a Friends of the Earth campaigner to discredit a pro nuclear environmentalist who has been on both sides of the debate.

    Try some hormesis, stu.

    It beats LNT every time.

    • Stu says:

      Better a friend of the earth than a collaborator with the spin of billionaire coal producers protecting their income. Or in the case of Shelley a paid nuclear hack.

      I am surprised you have not yet been chortling about Trumps collection of climate pariahs for his climate review. Even Currey thinks they are a bit extreme, but is oh so ready to work with them.

      You can babble but in the end facts win out. Just a but more time before you have to concede you are wrong. Will you still be around?

      Oh, you have to laugh, pity the issue is so serious though.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Yes, facts win out. A pity you don’t realise you can never supply any.

        I hang out with “friends of the earth” in various groups and I see their blind stupidity first hand on a daily basis in so many differing fields and they all come across like you, stu.

        All touchy-feely with no common sense or evidence for their do-gooder actions.

        And their outcomes generally disastrous.

        But when you try to get them to sit down and look at the facts, they don’t want to know about it.

        But it’s good to see that even the Lefties have enough sense sometimes to draw the line:

        • Stu says:

          No doubt you also watched your special mate Trump totally mischarecterise the GND in his rambling speech yesterday to CPAC. The post is on similar ground. While they claim editorial independence you have to wonder, when often what they preach aligns so closely with the owners views (Bezos).

          In case you missed it, the GND, is not a plan or even a policy, but merely an aspirational framework to guide decision making. It is all of 14 pages long. Truly scary puece of writing eh.

          Even AOC does not believe any of it achievable in those time frames. But she, and those who support her, think that you have to have a framework if we refuse to die in the gutter of climate change without trying. Hang on I forgot that is your preferred position.

          And please stop banging on about evidence. The entire climate change science community has produced so many papers and collected so much evidence it is pointless to even try and reproduce it here. On the hand you and your cult followers are the ones with an evidence problem, sticking to narrow aspects of the science and cherry picking your way. If your position is so strong how come it gets such a poor run except with the Abbott, Bolt, Jones and Kelly crowd.

          For example you bang on about the temperature record in Australia and never look at the broader impact of change. For example one of the significant changes has been the number of weather stations recording very warm night-time temperatures and the frequency with which these occur has increased since the mid 1970’s. And the rate of very hot daytime temperatures has been increasing since the 1990’s. These are the less celebrated measures usually overshadowed by the tendency to just quote means etc. But they demonstrate climate change, not just weather.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “The entire climate change science community has produced so many papers and collected so much evidence it is pointless to even try and reproduce it here.”

            Why then do you find it so hard to give us just one tiny example?

            Just one bit of measured evidence, stu.

            Go on, give it a shot!

            Show us that you are not as completely deluded as your friends of the earth.

  • spangled drongo says:

    You don’t seem to be aware that our BoM have been cooking the books throughout our recorded history as have most of the world’s climate gatekeepers.

    Give us your evidence, stu, how this less-than-1c global warming since global records began, 170 years ago, [0.5c per century – half the rate of Nat Var] indicates that we are in peril from human-caused warming.

    The signal of any human causation may well be there but it is so small it is lost in the noise.

    We have been asking you for ever to show us your evidence and all you can do is bang on that you have plenty, but you just don’t seem to be able to put your finger on it.

    • Stu says:

      No, you tell me why 1 degree change is not significant.

      • spangled drongo says:

        You admit then, that you are not capable of understanding my previous comment?

        I have been giving you that answer forever.

        Read it s-l-o-w-l-y again and then give us your evidence.

  • Neville says:

    Let us once again refer to the IPCC’s chosen data base HAD Crut 4 and check the trend since 1850.
    The trend overall is 0.56 c/century or about 0.9 c over the last 169 years. But don’t forget that they’ve recently changed all the warming trends since 1860 and big surprise the two earlier trends have been adjusted DOWN and the 1975 to 2009 trend has been adjusted UP. ( from 0.161 c/dec to 0.193 c/dec or plus 0.032c/dec or 0.32c/century)
    This just checks Jones’s claims in the 2010 interview with the BBC against the recent adjustments to the SAME periods used in the interview.

    The 1860 to 1880 trend has been adjusted down by 0.07c/century and the 1910 to 1940 trend has been adjusted down by 0.13 c/ century or combined this is adjusted down by 0.2 c/century.

    These recent combined adjustments UP+ DOWN have somehow added another 0.5 c of warming if you accept Jones’s 2010 interview data and the data from Cowton’s York Uni tool in 2019.

    I think there are big problems with ongoing temp data-base changes from GISS, BEST , HAD Crut4 and our BOM and I wouldn’t trust any of them.

  • Stu says:

    A fellow called John Abraham wrote this, referring to a study in Nature. It is one of the very many lines of scientific research which all point the same way. And paleoclimate studies dont rely on thermometers so you can drop the BOM fiddling crap.

    In order to understand today’s global warming, we need to understand how Earth’s temperatures varied in the past. How does the rapid warming we see now compare with past natural climate changes? Also, how long have humans been having an impact on the climate? These are some questions that can be answered through paleoclimate studies. Paleoclimate research uses natural measurements of the Earth’s temperature. Clever scientists are able to estimate how warm or cold the Earth was far back in time, way before we had thermometers.

    Readers are probably familiar with some of these paleoclimate techniques that may use ice cores or tree rings to infer temperature variations. A different method that uses plant distribution was a technique used in a very recent study published in Nature. That technique used pollen distribution to get an understanding of where plant species thrived in the past. Those distributions gave them insights about the temperatures. On the surface, it’s pretty straightforward. Tropical plants differ in major ways from plants that live in, say, the tundra. In fact, plants that thrive where I live (Northern USA) differ from plants that populate landscapes further south.

    The authors used the pollen of various plants to help determine where they thrived in the deep past. I communicated with Dr. Bryan Shuman, from the University of Wyoming and I asked him why they used pollen. He responded:

    “Pollen works well as a temperature recorder because plants have specific temperature ranges that they can tolerate. By combining the temperature requirements for dozens of different plants that we can recognize from their pollen, we are able to narrow down the possible temperatures at the location where the pollen was collected.

    We use pollen rather than other plant fossils because pollen is widespread each spring and settles to the lake bottom where it is surprisingly resistant to degradation. We wash the samples of lake bottom mud with acids that can dissolve minerals, but the pollen can tolerate it. It lasts up to millions of years with degrading.”

    What the authors found was very interesting. Using data from 642 sites across North America and Europe, the temperatures they found closely matched those expected from computer simulations. They found that throughout most of the Holocene period (the last ~11,000 years), the Earth was warming very slightly. Only in the last ~2000 years has the Earth been in a cooling period (which probably would have continued except that human emissions of greenhouse gases have now reversed the cooling.

    (Temperature in North America and Europe over the past 11,000 years based on pollen reconstruction data. Illustration: Marsicek et al. (2018), Nature.)

    The authors attempted to put the recent warming (last century or so) into context. They found that the recent temperatures are much higher than temperatures over the past 11,000 years. In fact, according to their calculations, 2016 was warmer than 99.41% of all simulated Holocene years.

    This finding is profound. First of all, it means that human greenhouse gas emissions were easily able to overturn what should be a natural cooling trend. Second, the warming we have caused is far outside of the natural range. According to Dr. Shuman:

    The major significance here is temperature across two continents over the last 11,000 years. The paper provides a geologically long-term perspective on recent temperature changes in the Northern Hemisphere and the ability of climate models, such as the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) models used in the study, to predict the changes. Climate simulations do a strikingly good job of forecasting the changes.

    I would say it is significant that temperatures of the most recent decade exceed the warmest temperatures of our reconstruction by 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit, having few — if any — precedents over the last 11,000 years. Additionally, we learned that the climate fluctuates naturally over the last 11,000 years and would have led to cooling today in the absence of human activity.

    People who deny or try to minimize the importance of human-caused climate change will often argue that climate changed naturally in the past. And while that’s true, we know the climate change is now being dominated by what humans are doing. That’s one clear result of this new paper.

    We have now pushed the Earth’s environment outside of where it should be. There are consequences for this disruption. Those consequences will include significant sea level rise, changes to rain/drought patterns, acidification of ocean waters, and a warmer atmosphere and ocean. There is still time to stop some of the coming climate change, but we are rapidly running out of time. The longer we delay, the worse things will get.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “In order to understand today’s global warming, we need to understand how Earth’s temperatures varied in the past.”

      Do John Abraham’s figures of Holocene temps give a range, stu? Or doesn’t your version of that paper give you that?

      All generally accepted scientific data from ice cores from many different parts of the world [awa other paleo data including pollen]show temperature fluctuations [often quite sudden] of around 4c including the LIA cooling.

      The Holocene temperatures have risen and fallen consistently and often, showing around 1c natural variability per century for the last 80 centuries. Following a longer than average period of cooling like the LIA it would be reasonable to expect a somewhat similar period of warming.

      Graphs like this are widely accepted by both sides of the debate and current temperature on this graph is at -31, temps having risen nearly 1c since the coldest extended period of the Holocene:

      This is also supported by measurable sea level changes.

      When we are currently less than 1c warmer than the coldest period of the Holocene which has had 4c of fluctuation, that makes our current temp at least a measured 1c below Holocene average.

      Please show how this indicates any sign of unnatural warming.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      ‘That’s one clear result of this new paper.’ Nope. No paper is able to do that. It puts forward a hypothesis. It may be right, it may be wrong. But it does not provide a clear result of anything. That will be the task for those who try to replicate and try alternative approaches. We are way off that time.

  • Neville says:

    I think we must be living in a time warp Stu. If we believe your UN mates we should have seen entire countries washed away by the year 2000.
    This is from a report in 1989 and yet this should have happened nearly 20 years ago and last time I looked the SLR data hasn’t changed much since then,but perhaps I’m far too optimistic.
    But how many more trillions of $ will we waste on this problem????? I wonder and for the same guaranteed lousy ZERO return on this lousy investment?
    I think they should borrow some of Flannery’s 100 metres SLR to help them along.

    • Stu says:

      ANother classic cherry pick and misinterpretation by Whatshisface. What was actually written back then was that the world needed to take serious action by 2000 to avoid major problems in the future. And guess what, the global community passed on the opportunity and now further heating is locked in what ever we do. However just like with smoking, the sooner you stop the less may be the ill effects later. But of course I forgot it is the same groups who opposed tobacco action that now promote climate pariahism. People like Happer and Lindzen. Where were you in the tobacco debate?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Another sign of dangerous climate change…

    Tasmania has just suffered its highest ever March heat on record.

    AS this follows record heatwave across Australia and South Africa – it looks like global warming is starting to get a firm grip on the Southern Hemisphere.

    And it is only going to get worse as nations such as Australia are increasing their annual carbon emissions “up 0.9 per cent (4.6 Mt CO2-e) on the previous year”.

    A climate catastrophe awaits for someone – our grandchildren.

    Denialists have descendants too.

    • Stu says:

      They don’t like the term Denier for stupid and false reasons. Join me in getting the new non controversial term of Pariahs better known. It is certain that they will be remembered as such.

      • Chris Warren says:


        There is a difference between a denier and a pariah.

        I like to engage with wanna-be denialists to understand their tricks, cherry-picking and expose their schemes.

        I have no intention of engaging whatsoever with trolling pariahs who should be blocked.

        There is a difference – hundreds of priests and a few Cardinals were deniers – they are now pariahs and locked in their cells.

        Trump is a denier – and may well soon be a pariah.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Blithnstu think that bigger insults are the solution to lack of evidence.

        Can you bear it?

        • Stu says:

          It is only in this little space of few players (Don may be able to tell us how many) that you think you have all the evidence and ignore reality. Go try and play in the mainstream climate space and see how your ideas stack up. Dont ask me for evidence, you pick out a few hundred of the top science papers on the subject and NASA, the US Government, BOM, CSIRO etc and show us how they are wrong. Your trivial, playing at the edges, monographs by unrecognised scientists do not cut it. They only lay with tiny facets of the climate evidence and only in places where there is always a small margin for error and therefore debate. In the world of peer review the people and studies you repetitively quote do not seem to fare very well at all.

  • Neville says:

    I’ve provided you with the data from all the so called best sources and you still don’t understand how stupid your arguments are?
    The IPCC, the IEA, Had Crut 4, the RS & NAS report etc and it still doesn’t sink in? As I’ve said before if you’re so concerned go and protest in China, India and the non OECD, because that’s where 90% of human co2 emissions have come from since 1990.
    OH have a look at OZ population in 1990 and compare that to 2018. Do you start to see a wee bit of a problem with your mitigation nonsense?
    Then check out SLR, recent Greenland studies and zero warming at the SP since 1978 according to the sat data. And there are many paleo-climate studies that show a much warmer earlier Holocene and much higher SLR over many thousands of years.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, poor silly blithnstu simply can’t get that when we are exiting the coldest part of the Holocene via the Industrial Rev that records that are conveniently cut back by the climate gatekeepers to a mere century, showing “unprecedented” warming, are not something you squander your life savings on so as to fail to fix a non-problem.

      Particularly when we are still in the cooler half of the Holocene average.

      That was not influenced in any way by ACO2.

      What a brainwashed brace of bed-wetting blitherers they are.

      Come up with any evidence yet, stu?

    • Chris Warren says:


      This makes no sense and exposes the fact that you do not understand climate change.

      For myself – I never raised mitigation.

      The only thing that needs to happen is that CO2 emissions need to match CO2 sinks.

      It would be beneficial if CO2 emissions were less than the sinks so levels can be drawn-down back towards natural levels.

  • Neville says:

    We’re told that co2 is a well mixed trace gas , yet even the dubious RSS data shows just 0.03 c/decade SP warming over the last 40 years.
    IOW just noise and certainly no stat significant warming, while co2 levels are over 400 ppm in Antarctica and Cape Grim. And about 409 ppm at Mauna Loa station.
    UAH V6 sat data shows no SP warming at all since 1978 .

  • Neville says:

    I think the dummies here will have trouble understanding these very simple kindy sums so I’ll provide it for them.
    In 1990 OZ population was about 17 mil and today it is slightly over 25 mil. Therefore we have about 47% more people today, but our co2 emissions haven’t gone up much and co2 increase per person have fallen a lot.
    Of course none of this nonsense will have the slightest impact on future weather or climate, but we will have a more fragile elect grid and much higher prices to worry about from now on.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Canberra warming – 1C over 80 years, with some acceleration since 2000

  • Stu says:

    Poor Neville wrote “I’ve provided you with the data from all the so called best sources and you still don’t understand how stupid your arguments are?
    The IPCC, the IEA, Had Crut 4, the RS & NAS report etc and it still doesn’t sink in? ”

    So you are saying your argument is backers by the IPCC. Get a grip. As you well know the climate change argument is gathering major support, even good ol Scomo with his Snowy 2 etc. the game is over, get on board.

    So clear it up, what exactly are you arguing? Meantime find some real scientists supporting your argument, what ever it is.

    • spangled drongo says:

      And stu perfectly demonstrates and confirms what all rational sceptics have been saying for years about groupthink alarmists.

      But has yet to supply one scrap of evidence.

      Having a bit of trouble putting it together, hey, stu?

  • Neville says:

    SD I’m convinced you’ll never get an intelligent answer from Stu or if you do it will be incoherent nonsense.
    But some lefties do eventually wake up about the use of clueless S&W energy. Certainly it’s a disaster for the environment , because it uses enormous areas of land and kills heaps of wildlife.
    Shellenberger and Hansen are correct about nuclear energy, but I still think we should be building new HELE coal plants in OZ to provide safe, cheap, reliable power and certainly much better for our environment as well.

    Here’s the FOX NEWS video of Shellenberger and some other links.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Naturally this will only get worse.”

    You are such a denier that you can’t see that any increase in fires is almost all down to modern greenie tree changers occupying the bush but not doing anything to maintain firebreaks and fire trails or do the serious burning-off as the previous farmer- occupiers did.

    And before that Captain Cook noticed [and entered in his journal many times] the huge amount of fire that was occurring along the east coast due to the first occupiers trying their hardest to eliminate our rainforests because they simply could not live in them.

    “In the Course of this day’s run we saw the Smoke of fire in several places near the Sea beach.”

    As usual, blith, you leap to oversimplified, dumb conclusions that don’t withstand scrutiny.

    Please be a little more scientific, and less enuresisic:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Further reading for blith to assist with his enuresis.

    Describing the fakery that goes into CAGW reporting:

    “As we now know, the BBC has now withdrawn claims in their original report last month, based on the above IPPR paper, that since 2005, the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, and wildfires seven-fold.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    The need for a large part of the population including much of the media, to enforce this travesty of justice, is like the necessity for a similar guilty verdict on AGW.

    Very good evidence here, too, is also ignored:

  • Neville says:

    Thanks for that link SD. And I thought I fully understood the data/stats about church and other child abuse? We can learn something new every day.
    BTW have a look at how Steve McIntyre pulls apart the 2017 Stenni et al study on Antarctic temps over the last 2,000 years.
    The Law Dome study temps must be hidden at all costs, but even so modern Antarctic temps are very low compared to the last 2K.
    Of course he forced the retraction of the earlier PAGES 2K study and Karoly had to thank him for his findings in the blog comments at that time. In the yank jargon McIntyre whipped their arse and there were a lot of clueless backsides to whip in that monster study. Gergis, Karoly etc,etc also hid the Law Dome study.
    If you look at the study graph you’ll understand why and Steve tried to have it included in the IPCC AR4 report at that time. His fellow reviewers flew into a panic and managed to keep it out of the report. What a con and what fra-dsters these people are and Steve can hold his head high amidst these intellectual runts.
    He again talks about upside down Mann in this post who is either a hopeless scientific clown or something much worse. But Steve is very lucky to have such maths , science, data and stats skills plus integrity to win the day. He won the top schoolboy prize for maths in Canada and used his data, stats skills in mining projects throughout his working life.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks, Neville. The way those consensuals just love to treat a lone voice like McIntyre, who is more scientific that the rest of them bundled together, shows up their complete lack of science.

  • Neville says:

    Jennifer Marohasy has a look at the ongoing temp adjustments from the BOM.

  • Stu says:

    Come on this is a rehash of Morahasy trash from two years ago. It was debunked then and would be again now except BOM and others have moved on and don’t even bother to comment on her crap being regurgitated.

    Just stop and consider the absurdity anyhow. If they had “doctored” a couple of sites data how does that have real influence in the total world wide data temperature game. Get real.

    Meantime did you see the latest Arctic ice data is not looking good even from your misquoted Danish sources. Oh and things are soon going to start warming up for northern summer.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Your usual level of “evidence”, hey, stu?

      How are your wrists standing up to all that handwaving?

  • Stu says:

    Hey, have you guys been taking money from Glencore? Or weider still is one of you Linton Crosby? LOL

  • Chris Warren says:

    Do denialist claims boil down to two now??

    1) Earth was warmer when the Earth was closer to the Sun?
    2) Atmospheric warming has yet to hit the extreme southern tip of the globe?

    Is that it?

  • spangled drongo says:

    And blithnstu get their sci-evidence from Wapo and the Guardian.

    Oh, dear! What science!

    • Stu says:

      Are you denying the fact that Glencore funded pariahs like you?

      • Don Aitkin says:

        I am unaware of Glencore’s having funded anyone, certainly I’m not one who has benefited. I think this is another canard of the orthodox — you know, ‘everyone would be in favour of what we want were it not for those denialists funded by Big Something’.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Are you denying the fact that Glencore funded pariahs like you?”

    What a blitheringly stu-pid remark!

    No-one has heard of them here until recently whereas much greater numbers of billionaire alarmist groupthinkers like Soros, Rothchild, Hewlet, Packard etc have been funding the hysterical, bed-wetting side of the debate for many decades with exponentially larger amounts of money.

    Based on no evidence.

    Glencore, with their tiny contribution are at least trying to preserve peoples life savings.

    You two are getting stu-pider by the day.

    • Stu says:

      What a rubbish example of Nova output to use. She quotes Sabra Lane but manages to leave out most of what was actually said in the interview, that is the words from Glasser. Why? And she has the hide to try and rubbish the skills of Sabra Lane. From what I have seen I would rate the investigative and journalistic skills of Sabra as very much higher than Jo Nova, who is after all running a business based around her prognostications. Not much different to Jones and Bolt et al.

      So to enlighten you , here is the actual (full) ABC transcript. Somewhat more informative than the standard cherry picked format you seem to like.

      “SABRA LANE: Could it be that Brexit, the UK voting to leave the EU, is the result of a cascading series of events due in part to climate change?

      Robert Glasser, a visiting fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, thinks a case can be argued that it might well have had an impact, and that it could be an example of the disruptive side-effects of a warming planet.

      He’s warning in a new report out this morning, that Australia needs to be better prepared to deal with an ‘era of disasters’, which will have a profound effect on our economy and way of life.

      Dr Glasser previously served as the special representative to the UN Secretary-General on risk reduction and he joins us now.

      Good morning and welcome.

      Let’s get to that Brexit argument first.

      ROBERT GLASSER: Good morning.

      SABRA LANE: Can you concisely explain your thinking on how climate change played a role there?

      ROBERT GLASSER: Yeah, so there was a persistent drought that effected the region, probably the worst drought in something like 900 years and as a result of that drought there were major failures of crops and literally millions of people moved from rural areas into the cities and when they arrived they were exacerbating existing social tensions.

      So this wasn’t by any means the cause of the Syrian civil war, but it was certainty a factor and that migration, the increased instability resulted in this cascading, really profound cascading impacts.

      You had a refugee crisis in the region that became a refugee crisis in Europe, actually a global refugee crisis.

      There was quite a lot of discussion at the time about the refugee problem in the UK and it was a major feature of the discussions around Brexit. And so you had the Brexit, this contributing to Brexit and you had it also contributing at the same time to the rise of right wing populist governments in Europe that further undermined the EU as an institution.

      So it was a profound sequence of events for which climate changes and drought in this case was a contributing factor.

      SABRA LANE: All right, and you think cascading effects around drought, food security and people movement are risks that Australia and our neighbours should be prepared for – how big a risk is it?

      ROBERT GLASSER: I think it’s an enormous risk, particularly in our region as we’re in a country that has many near neighbours – highly densely populated, less developed countries.

      We know that the collapse of coral reefs which are now probably sadly likely by 2 degrees of warming will affect 10 per cent of fish supplies, it’s the fish nurseries. That will have a huge impact on 130 million people who rely on fish in our region.

      We know that the warming climate is already additionally causing fish species to move towards the poles, again with a huge decrease in fish stocks in our region in the tropics in general.

      We know that higher temperatures will increase, will have more El Ninos as a result of climate change, which will cause bush fires, major fires in countries like Indonesia in our region.

      We have the increase in crop pests from rising temperatures. We have the heat stress, which will make it harder for people to work in fields to produce the crops, and we know that the same things will be happening outside of our region.

      So the options for countries like Indonesia to purchase, for example, grains from other countries as Indonesia did during a major drought in the 90s may not exist anymore.

      SABRA LANE: So Dr Glasser, sorry you argue that senior military and security leaders need to be aware of this and preparing for this – how?

      ROBERT GLASSER: Well I think you know, there are a couple of things. First of all, the Australian Defence Forces will probably become much more active in responding to disasters within Australia.

      So there will be an increase in demand on the forces to set up joint commands, as happened during the Black Saturday fires, to provide relief — as they have been doing in Queensland in the wake of the recent consecutive and simultaneous hazards that buffeted Queensland.

      And they will be needed to respond to security threats that arise from climate induced instability in our region.

      Generally the military designs its forces for traditional military threats and then the residual capacities is what is used for other things, but I think that will have to change.

      SABRA LANE: All right, Dr Glasser from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, thanks for joining AM this morning.

      • spangled drongo says:

        When poor ol’ stu can’t see what’s right in front of him, no wonder he can not only never provide any evidence, but doesn’t get what the indicators indicate anytime.

  • Stu says:

    Oh the Drongo has sussed it all out. The greatest plot of all time was hatched by virtually all of the world’s scientists conspiring to create an imaginary environmental crisis, only to be exposed by a plucky band of billionaires, politicians and oil, gas and coal companies. What a fantastic feat. Right up there with the moon landings and vaccinations. Way to go. (Not my words alone but from a very funny cartoon, unless you are a climate pariah of course, in which case no laughs at all.). And it leaves out the tenacious pseudo scientists weighing in to also expose the plot. Few in number but loud in voice, it is amazing what you can do with industry funding on a global scale. Remember to look up the story of “Exxon knew” or go to where all the source documents are listed.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “…virtually all of the world’s scientists…”

      Oh, dear, can you bear it?

      Ten years ago 31,487 American Scientists, including 9,029 with PhD’s signed the Global Warming Petition Project warning that there is no convincing scientific evidence that man-made CO2 will cause catastrophic heating, and that agreements like Kyoto (and Paris) are harmful, and hinder science.

      Environmental crisis?

      Due to ACO2 you mean, hey stu?

      Any evidence on that?

      Or is that just more of your hand waving blither?

      Catch you on a tender spot, with your billionaire bed-wetters?

      Yes, I’d be embarrassed, too.

      • Stu says:

        What a laugh. That petition has been so discredited. All anyone needed to sign was a degree, but many did not have that. The PhD’s were not climate acientists. The whole thing was a sham, can’t you do better than that?

        And your lack of a sense of humour shines through, you missed the point entirely. Are you actually that old? Probably yes, as that would explain your attitude completely. Never mind, the few here with a sense of reality and a respect for science continue to have a good laugh. It is just sad that the subject is so serious.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Get the latest here:

    “Climate scientists used to be unimportant academics in an unimportant academic field. The global warming scare made them into celebrities jetting around the world. They won’t give up the glory without a fight.

    As far as the climate mafia is concerned, the business plan of the fossil fuel industry is to wreck the Earth and wreck the global warming industry. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is wimpy and not inclined to take on the global warmers.”

  • Stu says:

    BTW, this site is just a little behind the times. The time stamp for posts seems to be one hour slow, runnIng on GMT +10 not Summer time. Never mind, probably reflective of the dominant view here eh! And of course there is no means of editing posts after the event and no capability for more than plain text. Probably in line with the skill set of some posters here.

  • Neville says:

    SD you’re dealing with silly religious people who often ignore proper data and evidence. Like the early 20th century warming and Greenland and Antarctic temp trends over hundreds and thousands of years.
    But has Dr Roy Spencer shone a light on the difference between Altimeter and tide gauge SL measurements since 1993 ? Could the water vapour calcs be part of the answer? He doesn’t claim to be correct but his inquiring mind makes a good start.
    That big gully in the graph during the 2010- 11 la nina is fascinating and according to the Uni Colorado a good proportion of that water was dumped in inland OZ. Here’s Dr Spencer’s link.

    • Chris Warren says:


      You do not have to resort to slandering others as “silly religious” particularly when such labels are lit up in flashing neon signs above your own good self.

      No one disputes early 20th century warming and you have the distinction of arguing against global warming by citing evidence of global warming. Congratulations.

      The evidence of global warming from Greenland and Antarctica is represented by sea and land ice measurements.

      The acceleration of sea level is a long-run trend. Variations due to other factors (poss. water vapour and air pressures) are short run phenomena that reverse around the underlying acceleration.×413.jpg

      Maybe Spencer should spend more time looking at the need to correct tide gauge data for thermal expansion of land, as the land is heating up at a much higher rate compared to water.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes indeed, Neville.

      But not only are they climate religious true believers but they tell the most horrendous lies to promote their cause.

      The U of Q is now promoting this “course” based on those book-cooker specialists, John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli whose original paper on the subject published in May 2013 said:

      “…examining 11, 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
      change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed

      And based on that “66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW”, these silly, climate-religious keep claiming their fraudulent 97% of scientific consensus.

      The scientific papers that actually claimed human-caused catastrophic global warming were virtually non-existent but this “course” states:

      “In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.”

      And based on those very evident lies, our stu has the hubris to criticise the Global Warming Petition Project.

      The desperately dissimulating religious being led and financed by even more desperately dissimulating religious.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Maybe Spencer should spend more time looking at the need to correct tide gauge data …”

    And maybe our deluded blith could simply look outside for himself instead of believing what his “bible” tells him.

  • Neville says:

    An interesting post on wind generation in NZ. How can we be so stupid to rely on this birding mincing and land despoiling rubbish energy?
    NZ is lucky to get so much energy from hydro and geo-thermal, but any new hydro schemes seem to be rejected by idiot lefties all around the globe. And all this idiocy for a ZERO return and no change or nicer weather/climate forever.

  • Neville says:

    More studies that seem to support a much warmer Arctic in the early 20th century.
    This supports other studies that show warmer period in the 1920s, 1930s and ’40s

    • Chris Warren says:


      For the hundredth time – global warming is GLOBAL and your frantic searching for individual regions with different trends which were reversed does you no credit.

      Your inveterate cherry picking just shows – once again – that you have no idea of what GOBAL warming is.

      Global warming is global and based on a moving average over 30 years.

      Any school boy can see global warming by looking here:

      This places your copying from denialist websites into a proper context.

      You really should give up at this stage.

      Global warming is global and the warming of concern is climate change which can only be judged over several decades – 30 years is the norm.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, Neville, especially when our blith is too thick to recall that his groupthinking alarmist buddies did nothing for the last 20 years but cherry pick the Arctic as the prime example of Global Warming.

      Not just a hypocrite but a silly, ignorant and forgetful one.

      Not to mention one who also tells lies about sceptics “denying” this 0.86c warming.

      How embarrassing for you, blith, when you know how they were telling us that 4c of Arctic warming was unprecedented and it must be due to our emissions.

      Yet any rational person who knew the history of the Arctic was quite aware that this has all happened before.

      Tell us all, now, blith, in your own well chosen words, how your 0.86c of global warming since the beginning of the industrial rev and the end of the LIA which still leaves us in the lower half of Nat Var for the last 8,000 years, indicates anything other than normal climate change?

      But if, OTOH, you can’t, I will settle for your abject apology.

  • Stu says:

    There is a resistance to acknowledging science in this space. So these words from a BBC article appear precient and also more within the skill set and training of Don to comment on.

    “Psychologists have identified more than 150 cognitive biases we all share. Of these, a few are particularly important in explaining why we lack the will to act on climate change.

    Hyperbolic discounting. This is our perception that the present is more important than the future. Throughout most of our evolution it was more advantageous to focus on what might kill us or eat us now, not later. This bias now impedes our ability to take action to address more distant-feeling, slower and complex challenges.

    Our lack of concern for future generations. Evolutionary theory suggests that we care most about just a few generations of family members: our great-grandparents to great-grandchildren. While we may understand what needs to be done to address climate change, it’s hard for us to see how the sacrifices required for generations existing beyond this short time span are worth it.

    The bystander effect. We tend to believe that someone else will deal with a crisis. This developed for good reason: if a threatening wild animal is lurking at the edge of our hunter-gatherer group, it’s a waste of effort for every single member to spring into action — not to mention could needlessly put more people into danger. In smaller groups, it was usually pretty clearly delineated who would step up for which threats, so this worked. Today, however, this leads us to assume (often wrongly) that our leaders must be doing something about the crisis of climate change. And the larger the group, the stronger this bias becomes.

    The sunk-cost fallacy. We are biased towards staying the course even in the face of negative outcomes. The more we’ve invested time, energy or resources into that course, the more likely we are to stick with it – even if it no longer seems optimal. This helps explain, for example, our continued reliance on fossil fuels as a primary source of energy in the face of decades of evidence that we both can and should transition to clean energy and a carbon neutral future.”

    – Mathew King. March 8

    • spangled drongo says:

      Or then again, stu, could it be that sceptics are rational enough to understand the real fact as outlined above.

      That you groupthinking alarmists seem incapable of understanding.

      It’s really very simple:

      As I said above and repeat below, ad nauseum, if you have any reason to disagree that is backed by any measurable evidence, go right ahead an supply it.

      “Tell us all, now, blith, [stu] in your own well chosen words, how your 0.86c of global warming since the beginning of the industrial rev and the end of the LIA which still leaves us in the lower half of Nat Var for the last 8,000 years, indicates anything other than normal climate change?”

      How long does it take you to get this very simple message?

      • Stu says:

        Once again, you did not actually read it did you? Or on the off chance you did then you certainly did not understand a word of the quote did you? It is clear who has the one track, narrow minded view and membership of a cult, and it is not me. You seem to hold the view that your ideas are mainstream and that people concerned for the health of the planet are a small group of loonies. That is why you continue to insist that we produce “evidence”. The scientific case is solid. The obligation is on you to produce your “evidence” to back your position. So far what you have cobbled together is light weight, unsupported by science and just plain wrong.
        You are the cultist and you are subject to groupthink, albeit a very small cult.

        • spangled drongo says:

          All you do, stu, is cut and paste non-scientific blither that is standard back-up for alarmists that can’t support their narrative so they deny the real facts.

          As Neville says, just stick to the facts and the data.

          As he and I are both doing.

          Stop hand-waving and waffling about cults.

          And answer the simple question:

          “Tell us all, now, blith, [stu] in your own well chosen words, how your 0.86c of global warming since the beginning of the industrial rev and the end of the LIA which still leaves us in the lower half of Nat Var for the last 8,000 years, indicates anything other than normal climate change?”

          This is reality, stu. Try and engage with it, hey?

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Cognitive biases apply to all people, and of course to those who accept the orthodoxy as well as those who don’t. It is easy enough to set them out — just to invoke the negatives is a good start.

  • Neville says:

    Amazing that I supposedly don’t understand about so called global warming. I’ve provided the data, evidence about HAD 4 warming periods and the abrupt changes made after Jones’s 2010 BBC interview.
    Certainly a lot of AGW made by humans at the IPCC’s preferred data base after 2010 in one foul swoop.
    But these fools seem to ignore Antarctic and Greenland temp trends for the last 100+ years and now the Antarctic peninsula cooling since 1998.
    But geezz why would you care about temp trends in Ant and Greenland? This combined is only 99% of the world’s ice sheets, so surely nothing to see there? SARC No surprise that we don’t see any evidence for their dangerous SLR in the latest data, compared to 20th century.
    Also there doesn’t seem to be any dangerous change to world extreme weather events since 1900 and in fact deaths from all such extreme events has fallen by 98% since 1920. See Rosling, Goklany, Ridley, Lomborg etc using the latest data. In 1920 less than 2 bn people and now 7.4 bn. Just THINK about those numbers, sort of tells you something about your terrible fossil fuels and our modern world doesn’t it? But apparently not if your a religious extremist? I mean data/evidence, who could care less about such trivia?
    Of course China’s life expectancy has increased to 76 over the last 50 years and their coal use and co2 emissions have soared since the 1990s.
    Oh and OZ region cyclones ( both severe and non severe) have a lower trend now than 50 ,100 and 200 years ago. See BOM data and Dr John Nott’s studies I’ve linked to a number of times.
    BTW here is the latest nonsense from Gergis in a recent speech in Perth and thanks to Tony Thomas for his recent history of Gergis and Karoly etc, etc calamities.

    • Stu says:

      Never mind your numbers, admit you are a tiny part of a very small minority group. To become known down track as the climate pariahs. Please, please discuss

      • spangled drongo says:

        Do you really think you have a handle on how many climate sceptics there are?

        Not that that has anything to do with the argument but are you really so naive, stu, as to believe that percentage of population with a certain opinion has anything to do with the science of that argument?

        Here’s Einstein on consensus:

        “Consensus is utterly irrelevant to science. The philosophy of science is devoid of consensus. What concerns science is not weight of numbers on the side of an argument, but what the facts are. What the evidence is.”

        “Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops.”

        Argumentum ad populum is not an argument.

        Please also see my comment below.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the Concordia Uni study AGAIN since the start of the Ind Rev and lists the top 20 co2 emitters and OZ is no 19. See table 2.;
    Our responsibility ???? is just six thousandths of 1 c over the last couple of hundred years, or 0.006 c or ZIP. Little wonder that Dr Finkel truthfully told the senate that removal of OZ emissions would achieve no benefit and certainly no mitigation of their so called CAGW at all.
    And the RS&NAS report found no change for a thousand years for temp and no change in co2 levels for many more thousands of years EVEN if the entire world stopped all human co2 emissions today.
    Of course none of the facts above will stop clueless Labor and the Greens parties from urging voters to fight their CAGW during the coming Fed election. What a pack of con merchants these people are and pig ignorant as well.
    But the left wing loonies just love it while they ignore proper data and evidence.

    • Chris Warren says:


      I do not think you actually read the paper. It says:

      “…per-capita contributions are not currently consistent with attempts to restrict global temperature change
      to less than 2? C above pre-industrial temperatures.”

      There is no comfort in citing Australia’s relatively small aggregate contribution to global warming when the real focus has to be on per capita emissions.

      The task is to develop a lifestyle for all that ensures that carbon emissions do not exceed carbon sinks irrespective of nationality or country of residence.

      If you cannot digest this – then, once again you demonstrate that you do not understand global warming.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “…you demonstrate that you do not understand global warming.”

        But you do, hey, blith?

        You think it is OK for Australia to completely destroy its economy for no purpose whatsoever?

        And we should turn a blind eye to huge developing economies that will continue to increase emissions which, according to you must cause catastrophe?

        IOW, you are quite OK with climate catastrophe and high emissions as long as we do our responsible bit and go broke?

        Not what anyone would call GOOD understanding, blith.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Paul Driessen on consensual, “settled,” cli-sci and how they are in panic mode at the thought of closer scrutiny:

    “Democrats, climate campaigners and renewable energy interests are in full outrage mode over news that President Trump intends to launch a Presidential Committee on Climate Science. He should do it now.

    The PCCS would, at long last, review and question the “dangerous manmade climate change” reports by federal agencies and investigations funded by them. The committee would be led by Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.

    No way! the climate alarmists rant. How dare you question our disaster claims? Our settled science?

    No! How dare YOU use those claims to justify your agenda – and your continued efforts to bludgeon and silence us into submission – without letting anyone examine, much less debate, your supposed evidence?”

    Oh, yes! That supposed evidence!

  • Chris Warren says:


    There is no point getting upset and ranting.

    Your HADCRUT4 data warming is clear…

    You do not monitor GLOBAL warming by cherry-picking the extreme ends of the globe where half the year is in darkness.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “You do not monitor GLOBAL warming by cherry-picking the extreme ends of the globe where half the year is in darkness.”

    Looks like our blith is a blind hypocrite as well. Comment to Neville, March 9 at 7.44 pm :

    “Yes, Neville, especially when our blith is too thick to recall that his groupthinking alarmist buddies did nothing for the last 20 years but cherry pick the Arctic as the prime example of Global Warming.

    Not just a hypocrite but a silly, ignorant and forgetful one.

    Not to mention one who also tells lies about sceptics “denying” this 0.86c warming.

    How embarrassing for you, blith, when you know how they were telling us that 4c of Arctic warming was unprecedented and it must be due to our emissions.

    Yet any rational person who knew the history of the Arctic was quite aware that this has all happened before.

    Tell us all, now, blith, in your own well chosen words, how your 0.86c of global warming since the beginning of the industrial rev and the end of the LIA which still leaves us in the lower half of Nat Var for the last 8,000 years, indicates anything other than normal climate change?

    But if, OTOH, you can’t, I will settle for your abject apology.”

  • Neville says:

    Good arguments SD , certainly better than I could muster. Unfortunately Chris doesn’t want data, he only likes the politics.
    Interesting to note that Jones also listed the 1995 to 2009 ( 15 years) trend in his BBC 2010 interview and found it was 0.12 c/ decade.
    But today that SAME trend is 0.18 c /dec or 50% higher trend. These so called scientists just love their frequent adjustments as long as it’s UP.
    And of course DOWN for the 2 earliest trends just to give the graph an extra uptick overall. To catch them out would be a hoot if it wasn’t so serious.

  • Stu says:

    I just wrote a long post, which subject to the vagaries of this site disappered, so here is a short version.

    The Drongo said “Not that that has anything to do with the argument but are you really so naive, stu, as to believe that percentage of population with a certain opinion has anything to do with the science of that argument?”

    It is not about the percentage of the population (half of which as you know are below 100 IQ). It is about the percentage of educated, intelligent, scientifically educated, peope doing actual science in the many facets of climate science. While on the other hand you routinely quite a hodge podge of outliers, many of whom have skin in the game as deniers, taking money from fuel related parties, most of whom are not recognised by their peers as significant contributors to the science.

    Even Don would I am sure agree that the majority of scientific opinion is not on your side. You see yourselves as fighting a Galilean fight against entrenched opinion. Problem is that Gaileleo was opposing stifling religious dogma (and he had facts on his side) while you are opposing rational scientific thought and have no valid facts.

    Game over. You are condemned to be regarded by future generations (probably those young ones now living) as climate change pariahs who held up life saving change. In the very unlikely event we are proved wrong, folk will just say that our intentions were good. But if correct, as we are, you will be condemned. Nearly as bad as the hell you probably believe in. It seems that there are three groups on the pariah side. Those making money, those who think man is too puny to change the world, and the just plain stupid or ignorant. Which are you?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Instead of hand waving and waffling, stu, please answer that simple question that I have been asking you for ages:

      How does less than 1c of global warming since the beginning of the industrial rev and the end of the LIA which still leaves us in the lower half of Nat Var for the last 8,000 years, indicate anything other than normal climate change?

      When and if you can answer it with supporting, measurable evidence, you will be worthy of future consultation and discussion.

  • Neville says:

    SD I think you’ll be waiting a long time for any sensible response to your questions. They will keep skirting around your central question about warming since the Ind Rev because they understand some of the studies showing sensitivity is much lower than most people’s conclusions.
    Here is Nic Lewis’s home site where he lists his peer reviewed studies and studies he found fault with and some of the retractions that were made in light of his interventions. I just wish I had his maths, stats and physics skills.
    Lots of other articles of interest at his site on all things climate. He is also an IPCC reviewer and boy we certainly need his skills, but I think Steve McIntyre is still a reviewer. Certainly hope so.

  • Stu says:

    Never mind whether I can or cannot answer your silly questions and whether I am or am not on the right side of the argument will you please just admit that you guys are in a tiny minority of the world scientific community researching this subject. I am not referring to the various 99% studies etc, but simply the sheer weight of published material and number of researchers who are doing anything with regard to the many facets of the world climate system. Not to mention every national met body, science academy and the likes of CSIRO and NOAA etc. The only outlier appears to be Donald Trump and even his administration contradicts him. If you are happy aligned with him it reveals a lot about your position.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu, at least 50% of the world are AGW sceptics.

      And the reason they are is based on that question I am trying to get you to answer.

      They get it, you don’t.

      Stop hand waving and squirming and tell us why.

      • Stu says:

        I said I am not talking population numbers, that includes people like you. What I mean is that among scientists the agreement is strong, and the deniers are weak in number. Outside of them the fact that half the world falls for the false narrative put out by indivuals and groups mainly funded by back door money from vested interests is a given. It shows the power of misinformation when it is backed by organizations like Newscorp and it’s associates.

        Also on the other hand there is quite a demographic bias by age for accepting the denialist propoganda. While the younger generations (you know the ones with skin in the game of the future) are on board with the reality and need for action. It is not even just millenials, it is broader than that.

        Just look at the looming federal election. The ground is shifting. Even Abbot has shifted ground on the Paris Accord (not really but for election purposes), pushed by Zali.

        But the key point remains, people in the know, scientists, tell us we have a major problem. They know based on thousands of different aspects of the climate system and signals back from the environment.

        The fact that you are part of half or more of the population that have your heads in the sand is not relevant. That is like many issues. Anti-vaccination players are similar. Even if half the population supported them it would not make them right. More than half believe in a god, but that does make them real.

        I will stick with people that know real stuff. And they tell us time for action is fast running out.

        Things are changing. Consider the reaction to the calls for a subsidised new coal plant. Neither the Qld or NSW governments have indicated any interest.

        • spangled drongo says:

          You haven’t listed one piece of evidence to support your story.

          With all those ” thousands of different aspects of the climate system and signals back from the environment” you can’t even come up with one piece of measurable evidence to show that it is ACO2-caused.

          Do you really believe that consensus is evidence and that the stu-pid multitude haven’t been wrong in the past?

          Brain-washing kids is not science.

          But it has an effect on elections that pragmatic politicians have to accept but you should be old enough to work that out.

          Now, reality up and answer the simple, single question I put to you.

          Who knows? It might even help you to sort out your mind-problems.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Abbott’s self interested camouflage, like Pell and many others, does not inspire confidence in the truthfulness of his brand of practicing Catholics.

    Any supposed fact will come out of his mouth irrespective of any truth.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Abbott’s self interested camouflage, like Pell and many others, does not inspire confidence in the truthfulness of his brand of practicing Catholics. Any supposed fact will come out of his mouth irrespective of any truth.”

    As a non-Catholic all I can say is, I would accept Abbott’s and Pell’s version of anything long before I would accept a blitherer’s.

    Particularly yours, blith.

    To make a claim like that without any supporting evidence is absolutely disgusting and something neither of them would do.

    Not only are you O/T, you have lost it completely.

  • Stu says:

    So finally the Drongo admits that his position is the minority one, hooray.

    • spangled drongo says:

      No wonder our stu can’t answer a simple question when he thinks that a multitude is automatically a majority.

      Prove to us all that you are really not that stu-pid, stu.

      • Stu says:

        Do you ever actually read any science from the other side of the argument? It seems not, hence my reluctance to even quote any here, it would go over your head. But that is ok, you stick with your dodgy false science reports. Your fudgy temperature trends etc prove nothing. You crap on about natural variation while quietly ignoring that it is getting warmer at a time when your NV should be seeing a cooling. In fact the last decade has seen great warming. Oh never mind, don’t bother.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Do you ever actually read any science from the other side of the argument?”

          I never stop, but I have yet to find any that is based on empirical evidence.

          When you’re in a climate hole, stu, an intelligent person stops digging, throws away his groupthink shovel and gets out his evidence ladder.

          Now, how about an answer to that simple question?

          If you query my numbers please supply your own.

          But remember to back them up with evidence.

          And please don’t reply with more hand-waving.

          Just the facts.

  • Neville says:

    We all know how the HAD 4 Crut data was fra-dulently adjusted ( after 160+ years) to change their temp trends, but it’s always interesting to check out some more of their problems. All this after Jones’s 2010 interview.
    But the 1916 to ’45 trend is still 0.167 c/decade, yet even now the trend for 1997.1 to 2019.2 is 0.168 c/decade. This is using the Cowtan York Uni tool and we can still find the SAME trend after all their con tricks. And all helped by a very strong el nino to help boost their most recent trend. When will people start to wake up?

  • Neville says:

    Here Dr Patrick Moore calls out the so called CAGW scientists, pollies etc and he uses the C word. It isn’t fair for me to use Don’s blog and repeat the C word but I know this is probably a very accurate description.
    I’ve mentioned con and fra-d any number of times but I won’t add the C word for now. It’s just a pity that we have so many gullible lemmings who are prepared to believe anything the media says and ditto for some pollies and scientists.
    Here is the interview link.

  • Neville says:

    Another good news story about climate from rational, sane scientists for a change. Some of Drs Rosling’s/Lomborg/ Goklany, Ridley’s points could be added to further prove the case against their CAGW extremism.

  • Chris Warren says:


    Blimey, what a shock. You have actually used some data for once.

    However when researchers asses climate change they use either 30 year averages or 11 year averages. This is a rigorous approach.

    Alternatively, evil persons will pick varying lengths after they have seen the data to suit their agendas. The most common example of this is to declare there has been no warming since 1998.

    If you adopt the rigourous approach and extract the current 30 year warming trend from Cowtan York using end point 2019.2 and start point 1999.33, you will get considerably greater warming trend than your cherrypicked range.

    No one else uses the manufactured period you have crafted. It must have taken you a lot of trial and error to find such a low rate from 2019. Were you trying to earn your Proficiency Badge in Climate Denialism???

    In fact I can do better cherrypicking than you. I can “prove” that CO2 causes global cooling by picking a 40 year period from 1939.3 to 1979.3. Maybe you would like to stick this “news” on your T-shirts. Of course this only fools fools who do not bother to check every other 40 year period.

    Rigor Trumps Denial.

    • Neville says:

      Complete nonsense from Chris once again and I’ve mentioned the cooling from 1945 to 1975 etc a number of times before. In fact I listed it in this post above in response to some other nonsense your were trying to feed us.
      If Jones can cherry pick say 1860 to 1880, then why can’t anyone else pick what they please?
      But why did they change all the warming trends so soon after 2010? And if those changes aren’t super cherry picked, then what are they? All done in one foul swoop and yet you still believe them?
      Yet this is exactly what one would expect from a silly religious fundamentalist. IOW par for the course.

  • Chris Warren says:


    Please stop ranting.

    You can pick any period you like, BUT you have to compare the same periods for the entire data set.

    For example – you could pick 50 years, and then there are plenty of cooling periods and warming periods but the magnitude of warming is greater than the cooling.

    This is clear as demonstrated by Ole Humlum here:

    Humlum also reports the impact of averaging different periods here:

    On any basis – glbal warming is a scientific fact, and your persistant slander has no effect.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “On any basis – glbal warming is a scientific fact”

    Who’d’a’thought, hey, blith?

    Please resist stating the bleeding obvious.

    But why do you and your groupthinker mates also flat out deny that this less-than-1c-of-warming still leaves us in the cooler half of Nat Var for the Holocene?:

    Which states very clearly that we have been there, done that, regardless of CO2 levels.

    So I am still waiting for you to answer the obvious question this poses:

    How does this support in any way your CAGW theory or even any AGW theory of ACO2-caused global warming?

    Have a go at being man enough to try and answer it.

    But in any case I will take your non-response as an admission that you got it wrong.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Someone’s been brainwashing the kiddies.

    Do our blithnstu fall into this brainwashed/aspergers category, too?

    It seems the only explanation for their endless, evidence-free blithering:

  • Neville says:

    I think we should stop responding to the witch-burners and religious fundamentalists or we’ll be be as deranged as they are.
    Meanwhile Trump backs Dr Patrick Moore and straight away Greenpeace are caught out in another lie. But that’s just par for the course for these extremists. So what’s new?

    • Stu says:

      Meantime now even the Reserve Bank is on board with the risks of climate change and the costly consequences. I think I will go along with the reserve bank rather than wattshisname bullshit. Watts is not a climate scientist. And did you see that the polls are picking up climate change as a key election issue.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Our very observant stu has just noticed that “climate change” has become an election issue.

        And he thinks that proves the “science”?

        Particularly when bankers tell us know, hey, stu?

        Any rational person would know that is more likely to prove the exact reverse.

        But you could always come up with answers and evidence if you had any real proof.

        But meanwhile, when you’re brainwashed and want to pass it on, it is much better to simply hand-wave.

        • Stu says:

          Once again proof that you cherry pick and misquote.

          You wrote “And he thinks that proves the “science”?

          I simply pointed out the trends in opinion on the subject.

          As for proof, none needed. It is dark when you have your head in the sand so you would not see it anyway.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “As for proof, none needed.”

            It’s one thing to waffle, hand-wave, support banker groupthink on scientific issues and deny the fact that you have no evidence but now to claim that no proof is needed in order to send our country broke over what is most likely a non-problem that we cannot fix anyway is now pure dissimulation.

            You’re getting stu-pidder by the day, stu.

  • Neville says:

    How do you wreck your electricity grid in the quickest possible time? Just vote for a barking mad socialist government, supported by many of the world’s dopiest groupthinkers and you’re well on your way.
    Venezuela is a complete basket case and yet we have many voters here in OZ that seem to want to believe in pixie dust mitigation of so called CAGW and all for a guaranteed ZERO change in climate or co2 levels for thousands of years.
    All at a cost/waste of 450+ billion $ if Labor brings in their co2 reduction of 45% by 2030. See the latest research from the Menzies centre. Germany has tried this for decades and achieved nothing.
    Knowing the hopeless incompetence of Labor govts that 450+ bn $ will probably blow out to over half a trillion $ and all for a zero return. How could any country survive such a hit to its economy in such a short period of time?

    • Stu says:

      Oh never mind the simple fact that Venezuela has been going through political and economic chaos for some time now and has an aged not well maintained grid. But stick to your hydro bashing if it makes you feel good.

  • Neville says:

    To be fair though Venezuela isn’t burdened by the S &W idiocy and generates most energy from FFuels (88%) 10.8% from hydro and the rest from bio+waste.
    But never underestimate the ability of a socialist/marxist govt to stuff up an economy and wreck a country in the shortest possible time. Here is the Venezuela data from the IEA or TOTAL energy in 2015.

  • Stu says:

    I am becoming more convinced you are simply a troll, try and convince me otherwise

    • spangled drongo says:

      Ya hear that, Neville?

      Ol’ hand-waving stu-pid who never provides one skerrick of science or evidence and dodges simple questions in a science debate thinks the people who ask for evidence and answers are trolls.

      Speaks volumes for his rationality.

  • spangled drongo says:

    If our climate concerned here either knew or spoke the truth on the politics of “climate change” they would have some genuine concern over the current fraud.

    From a story in today’s Australian:

    Children have become the latest weapon in the arsenal of anti-Western activists, designed to keep pressure on wayward politicians in advanced economies whose enthusiasm for Paris emissions reduction commitments is visibly waning.

    Now a British group called Youth Strike 4 Climate is attracting protesting students from more than 60 cities and towns across Britain. It has spawned an Australian clone, School Strike 4 Climate Australia.

    Their goal is not to save the world from ecological calamity but, as Christiana Figueres confirms, to ­destroy capitalism.

    UN Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer echoes these sentiments. He says: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is ­environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth.”

Leave a Reply