Final thoughts on the US elections

By October 21, 2020Politics

This probably my last piece on the US elections, unless something quite extraordinary turns up. My focus here is on the issues, and my basis is some work done by the Pew Center in July and August, and published in August. Yes, it’s a while ago, but my own experience with election issues is that the real ones are pretty constant. What is also important is that there can be sharp partisan differences in the relative importance of particular issues. Issue X may be most important to Democrats, but not really important, or so important to Republicans. I’ll use some Pew results to illustrate this point. To average the results is not really helpful. A third point is that an issue, ‘the economy’ for example, can be so broad in its implications that you are not sure what it really means. It might be an umbrella word to cover jobs, our mortgage, am I going to get a promotion at the end of the year, the cost of living, and so on. You’ve probably seen this ambiguity in our own polling results in Australia.

I’ve said this before, but what we see of the two candidates in Australia is heavily skewed against Donald Trump. So much of it is about his tweets, his personal style, and so on. Candidate Biden is not in any way an impressive figure, and there is a lot that can be said against him. We don’t hear much of it in Australia. As far as I can see, matters of style are not much of an issue in the US. Like the rest of us, Americans are focused on their own problems. If they don’t like candidate Trump, his personal style is not an issue for them. Their job is.

Okay. Pew asked voters to say whether or not a given issue was ‘very important’ to their likely vote in November, and 79 per cent said the economy was. The range was 88 per cent for Republicans and 72 per cent for Democrats. There’s not much in that. It suggests that Democrats are better off, all things considered. ‘Health care’ was the second most important issue in terms of the average (68 per cent), but only 48 per cent of Republicans leaner thought so, compared with 84 of Democrats. The widest range was for ‘climate change’, where the average was 42 per cent, but the range was 11 per cent for Republicans and 68 per cent for Democrats. Another wide range occurred in attitudes towards ‘race and ethnic inequality’: average 52 per cent, but 24 per cent for Republicans compared with 76 per cent for Democrats. ‘Economic inequality’ was rather similar, with a 37 per cent range — 28 per cent for Republicans, compared with 65 per cent for Democrats. Violent crime as an issue is important for those favouring Trump (74 per cent), but much less so for those favouring Biden (46 per cent).

Take a burning issue of the right now, Supreme Court appointments. Here the difference is only five per cent: 61 for Republicans and 66 per cent for Democrats, but you can be pretty sure that what each side sees as important is quite different. Gun policy, a difference of ten per cent only. Foreign policy: no difference at all, as the average, 57 per cent is the same for each side. There is anxiety about economic concerns, for this is not a time where everything is rosy. Not at all. Bad economic times make those who are poor worried about doctors and hospital bills. Many are worried about violence on the streets; it could happen here, and it underlines the worry about jobs.

What about Covid-19? Well, it’s not the leading issue, and while that was August, I doubt that much has changed. The average is 62 per cent, the range 39 per cent for Republicans and 82 per cent for Democrats. Again, where does it point, in terms of one’s vote? Democrats probably blame President Trump for his handling of it, and maybe some Republicans  will do so too, though here I’d suspect that it is the same kind of worry that  is associated with the economy and health care. American voters will have had to weigh up all these factors first in deciding whether or not to vote, and second which candidate they will support.

Another Pew question asked voters which party would do a better job in deal with a given issue, not the same wording as in the earlier question. Here the Republicans have the edge in economic matters, the budget, gun policy, terrorism and law enforcement, while the Democrats have the lead in social policy concerns like health care, abortion and ethnicity.

Start to put all this together, and you get a picture of what disturbs the American voter. There is apprehension about the future, and it applies to all voters save the few who are comfortably off and not worried about their jobs. Remember that the electorate seems to be pretty evenly divided, as it was four years ago. The lack of explicit pointers makes calling the election outcome pretty difficult, in my opinion. How do you weigh up abortion against jobs? Of course, we all have to do something similar at election time.

But of course predicting outcomes is what polling organisations are for, and they are all having a go at it. Pretty well without exception, they are predicting that Joe Biden will be the next President. Why is this? I think that the technical explanation is twofold. First, the pollsters have done their homework on why they got 2016 wrong: they underestimated the numbers of people who were likely to vote for Trump but who weren’t likely to respond to a pollster.

Second, the numbers of voters who were undecided about whom they would vote for has shrunk a great deal. In 2016 some 15 per cent weren’t sure if they would vote, or weren’t sure whom they would vote for if they did turn up. In 2020 that proportion is now five per cent. Put them together and you have a much clearer sense of who has been polled by the organisations and much less uncertainty about vote outcomes. That gives the pollsters much greater confidence about their own predictions. Is that enough for us to be confident about their predictions? I think so. It does not foreclose new mysteries and last-minute decisions, though.

It is not easy for us in Australia to get much clarity about whether, for example, Trump’s attack on Biden’s honesty and his family’s close links to Ukrainian heavies has had much resonance in the USA. If the great majority of people are decided about whom they will vote for, and that seems to be the case, then I doubt that these revelations have had much effect. But, to repeat, I find it hard to be sure about the popular mood in the USA.

Well, there it is. Save a shocking discovery in the next couple of weeks, I expect a Biden victory. What the former President Trump will do if that occurs is an open question. He could, for example, set up a television news channel, where viewers could get his take on what is happening, not the ‘fake news’ he says what you get on mainstream mass media…

Last thoughts on another election

The ACT elections give Labor another four years as the Government, in some sort of alliance with the Greens, who did well. It’s not the result I was looking for, but that’s electoral democracy for you!



Join the discussion 87 Comments

  • Thanks for your thoughts Don. We know for certain someone as flamboyant as Trump wouldn’t be elected here. The ABC would never allow it

    • PeterD says:

      You write, Michael, that the ‘ABC would never allow it’ but what of the proposition: ‘News Ltd would actively promote Trump’s re-election’. I would also have thought that James Murdoch, in walking away from Fox/News Ltd, and accusing it of disinformation, you would have been somewhat appalled, especially that such a signifiant story as this receives minimal coverage in News Ltd outlets in Australia ‘or dare I say it, ‘is allowed to cove’. Is ‘allowed’ in your lectionary only associated with the ABC?

      Don’s refers to poll data around Trump and Biden: the US system holds up two old dopes, and their families. It might be time for Trump and Biden both to say: “If re-elected, let’s remove our families from political roles and let them just simply be family. Once upon a time it used to be called nepotism.” Another great talking point might be: ‘Donald pays thousands of dollars in tax to the Chinese but no taxes in the US. Biden is a fool to pay thousands of dollars in taxes in America or should he perhaps declare himself bankrupt five or six times?’

  • spangled drongo says:

    Good summary, Don. 2 weeks to go which can be a long time. If Giuliani’s message gets out and around enough it should make a considerable difference.

    But otherwise, things are not looking good for common sense.

    • PeterD says:

      Giulani should be given tremendous credit for searching through the slops and filth and bringing back to his grateful leader such a morsel. Hunter Biden seems to be a huge liability and is doing his best to sink his aged father in mire and intrigue. It’s not all as simple as that, however strangled drongo, if you note Katie Robertson’s takeaways in ‘The New York Times’:

      “The report was mostly written by a staff writer who refused to put their name on it, per two Post sources.

      Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani says he gave the material to the Post because he was worried other outlets would practice actual journalism: “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”

      Top figures at the paper were involved in deciding how to proceed, including editor in chief Stephen Lynch, digital editor in chief Michelle Gotthelf, and adviser Colin Allan.

      Editors at the Post pressed people there to add their name to the byline, according to two sources who spoke to Robertson.

      Of the two bylines on the piece, we had known that Emma-Jo Morris had worked at Sean Hannity’s Fox News show recently, and that her Instagram had pictures of her with figures like Hannity, Roger Stone, and Steve Bannon. Robertson adds that Gabrielle Fonrouge, who had the other byline on the piece, did not know that she had a byline until after the piece went live. Robertson writes that three sources told her that Fonrouge “had little to do with the reporting or writing of the article.”

      The one outlet that embraced the report wholeheartedly from the get go was Fox News, which ran over 100 segments on the story in the first two and a half days, despite all the red flags. The New York Post is the corporate cousin of Fox News.”

        • PeterD says:

          More interesting stuff on Giuliani:

          The main point about these URLs is that there are very questionable journalistic standards around many of them – it’s mainly about smear, ideology, nastiness and innuendo, often based on partisan politics. Steve Bannon and Borat could be put in the same deranged box, both Biden and Trump in the other.

          In terms of climate change, I have never made comments about the interpretation of scientific evidence because it requires far more expertise in scientific methodology that I possess. When I see some of your comments drawn to lunatics and bizarre politics, however, it leads me to think whether there are any parallels or flaws in your thinking re climate change.

          • dlb says:

            Agree Peter D.

            As someone who is scientifically trained and rather sceptical of much of the climate doom, I now prefer to shut up, rather than be associated with right wing nutters. I am getting the impression those Australians who tend to be of the Right are being influenced by US political websites which spew out quite exaggerated views on a whole lot of issues including Covid 19 and climate change.

            Having said this, the Left is just as bad with it’s woke “group think” emanating from US universities and politically Left websites. What we don’t want in Australia is polarised community like what is happening in the US.

            Hopefully many of us still have the attitude “What are you reading that sh** for?… Mate go and get a life!”

          • spangled drongo says:

            Are you saying that sceptics are not being sceptical enough? I didn’t think I had passed an opinion on that subject.

            But WRT climate change and the “interpretation of scientific evidence” you can verify much of the interpretation against the fact that there has been no measurable evidence provided that is in any way different from what has been occurring throughout civilisation.

            When the claimed culprit didn’t exist.

            Also, when oceans have not risen in the last century, that is a good indication of CAGW “science”.

            Doesn’t it occur to you that when “science” berates a non-problem to this degree, it has nothing to do with science?

            And that is what is being promoted in spades in the US during this election by one particular side.

  • Aynsley Kellow says:

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Don.

    Looking at the choice, I’d like to propose that it is like that of Buridan’s Ass: Buridan’s Ass finds itself equidistant between two identical bales of hay and, unable to choose between them, starves to death. (Actually, in the original, it is between hay and water and cannot choose to satisfy hunger or thirst).

    Trump i something of a crude iconoclast and Biden – well, he seems corrupt, senile, has lied about his past, plagiarised speeches, etc. Is he the guy you want with the nuclear codes? They are different, but are they equally unattractive? Will some voters simply abstain – and let their vote ‘perish’?

    A couple of friends asked me to elaborate why I thought Trump might win. What follows is what I sent them this morning. I should add that the Democracy Institute and Trafalgar both got 2016 correct and the former got Brexit right. I remain to be convinced that the other pollsters have corrected their failings.


    There are several indicators. One problem with the main polls is that they oversample some demographics and favour the Democrat cohort. There are two polls that address these problems: the Democracy Institute (for the Sunday Express in the UK) and Trafalgar in the US. They try to prise out the ‘Shy Trumpers’ with techniques such as asking whether their neighbours support Trump or Biden. The last such figure I saw was 47% said their neighbours were Trumpers and only 34% Biden.

    The other factor is enthusiasm. Voting is voluntary in the US, so it is enthusiasm that counts. An individual might express a preference to a pollster, but will they make the effort to leave work, stand in line and actually vote? Trump is way ahead in enthusiasm, with many more of those expressing support for him than those for Biden. This also shows in attendance at rallies. Coverage shows Biden not attracting more than a handful, and he has not given a press conference all month!

    He has now gone back to his basement and has no events before election day. This is probably to avoid questions over His son’s dealings with Burisma and China, and the attempt to cover this up by the new media and the Left media is likely to be counterproductive, because the news is out and their efforts simply confirm Trump’s ‘fake news’ narrative. (Attempts to describe the emails as Russian propaganda will fail miserably: Hunter Biden’s lawyer tried to get the laptop back once the news broke; ownership has been claimed not denied). Biden is taking the ‘small target’ strategy to ridiculous lengths.

    The other indicators of enthusiasm are early voting and voter registration. Voters can register as Democrat or Republican, and the registration in states like Florida and Pennsylvania have shown considerable enthusiasm for Trump.

    Voters might vote differently to their registered affiliation, of course, and Biden would be hoping that was the case with early voting. Democrats were hoping to build a big lead with early voting, and to hold on with Trump doing better on election day, but they do not appear to be out-pacing Trump in early voting on battleground states. See:

    Another indicator is that Trump is at about the same position in the mainstream polls as he was in 2016, and the betting markets are also in about the same place

    So I think Trump has a very good chance of winning, and the more the Burisma scandal develops, the worse it is likely to be for Biden. He had carriage of Ukraine and there in mid 2014 is his son in the pay of a pro-Moscow gas oligarch while the loyalists are fighting in the East, shooting down a Malaysian 777, and Putin is annexing Crimea. Not a good look – and nor is the China situation (with 10% equity in the company established to be held by Hunter ‘for the Big Guy’).

    We will see, though with the odds available on Trump, were I a betting man, I might have a piece of that market.

    As a postscript, it should be noted that Biden has bragged about threatening to withhold a $1bn loan guarantee if the Ukrainian government did not fire the Burisma prosecutor – all on tape while addressing the Council on Foreign Relations.

  • Neville says:

    I regret that I have to agree with Don and I fear that we will see the Biden , Harris donkeys winning the election on the 3 of NOV.
    But they still have some big problems with blue collar unions, just as Labor did in NSW and Qld in our FED election last year.
    Have a look at this Union leader talking about the problems with the confused Biden/Harris message about fracking etc and their S&W lunacy.
    Check the video at about 1 min 50 secs and you can clearly understand why they endorse Trump.
    IOW for them it’s just plain common sense, if they want to retain their jobs.

  • Chris Warren says:


    Once again demonstrating that he is the “donkey”.

  • Chris Warren says:

    I suspect that climate change will feature more in the future as there has been a shocking 1°C from 1975-2020 (45 years)

    So, are we are looking at 1 degree per generation?

    • spangled drongo says:

      But try using data that has not been faked, blith.

      It’s only half as much:

    • John Stankevicius says:

      Excuse me for being crass and vulgar.
      Female physicist saw 4 sun spots though her you buet telescope inFeb this year.
      She predicted a cooler and western year than average.
      That’s what’s happened here in Adders.
      Don I never thought it could be conceivable that the lunacy of socialism and the lies, the framing of innocent individuals for crimes they did not commit, the accusations of anti human behaviour against people would happen .
      Then I recall the apathy and back slapping of Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan, the “heroics” of the Red Army, Badner Hoffner etc, the sneering of people with jobs and a home, the idolisation of drug use, the social heroism of getting blind drunk – it all comes together now.
      If Trump looses I hope your prediction of a tv station comes through. I fear murder and laughter by Hilary, who has a thing against men.
      I know fully understand the effect of Keating setting up JJJ and super gaurantee.

      • Stu says:

        “ She predicted a cooler and western year than average.” Can you explain that curious statement please? And on what scientific basis did she make that “prediction” or should I say prophecy.

        • John Stankevicius says:

          Hi Stu
          The effects of sun spots is to reduce the heat output of the sun. I do not understand why.

          • Stu says:

            Oh, I see. So now we are reversing the old “grand solar minimum” prophesies are we? Which is it now, sunspots and colder or warmer conditions?

  • Neville says:

    Another huge trove of emails has been released from Hunter Biden’s fra-dulent ex business partner. And it looks like there are now concerns for his safety in prison. This new trove is independent of Hunter’s lap top emails trove now held by Giuliani the FBI and the computer shop owner.

    Gosh who would have thought that Hunter and Joe would be involved with such a corrupt fra-dster and con merchant? SARC. Here’s the story. Things are starting to warm up.

    “Bevan Cooney, the former business associate of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden who flipped on the Biden family, has been moved from his cell, sources familiar with the matter confirmed to Breitbart News”.

    “On Tuesday, several days after emails Cooney provided to Breitbart News senior contributor Peter Schweizer and journalist Matthew Tyrmand became public, federal agents moved him from his cell to protect him. Tyrmand, who is in contact with members of Cooney’s family, told Breitbart News that Cooney was moved from his cell in a federal prison in Oregon around 11:00 a.m. local time on Tuesday. Tyrmand said that Cooney spoke with family members multiple times on Tuesday, which he said is “much more than usual.”

  • Neville says:

    Bevan Cooney ( Hunter Biden’s ex business partner) has now officially handed over a huge trove of his emails to the FBI and Breitbart News and possibly more to come.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks Neville.

      But dlb reckons; “What are you reading that sh** for?… Mate go and get a life!”

      He [and others] can’t see the problem.

      • Neville says:

        Yes SD but methinks that Dlb is actually of the left and needs his regular dose of BS and fra-d to supplement his so called scientific pursuits.
        He could just follow the data by Dr Rosling over the last 200+ years, or check out our poorest continent since 1900 or 1950 or 1970 or 2,000 and come to the obvious conclusion that THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS at all.
        Even a lefty like Shellenberger now admits there is no apocalypse, although he has spent decades trying to convince himself that there was such a disaster. But full marks to him for admitting the truth.

        • dlb says:

          I am economically about as Left as Labor and socially about as Right as the Libs. So where does that put me ? Probably in the direction of One Nation!

          SD the problem is polarisation, the right are getting ever more selfish…. it’s all about my freedoms, make as much as you can, begger the rest. While the Left are getting even more loony with their woke philosophy, losing the support of their worker base.

  • John Stankevicius says:

    Disagree – the one who are saying “make me the most and stuff the rest” are the public service. Private industries salaries are going backward, govt salaries are going up, so are the unproductive charities and not for profits. As a result people, in particular women move to charities and Not for profits. They are in to causes and dare I say it “life/work balance” – meaning I want to pick the kids up from school or prep the evening meal with a wine – nothing really has changed over the decades. Men are into creativity and the result.
    Private industry is so strangled with regulation that people do not think at work and employees do not need to work and cannot be let go.
    Kohler on the ALPBC mentioned this months ago that PS salaries were growing faster than private industry which had flat lined.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes John, I can go along with that. I find the ever increasing numbers of public servants are not only collecting more for doing less [and often achieving virtually nothing] but these Sir Humphreys are over-regulating private enterprise to the point where it is becoming non-functional as well.

      Campbell Newman had it sussed long ago but the world crucified him for it.

  • Hasbeen says:

    The real problem is dib is that kids today expect to be at 30, where their parents were at 50. Actually they expect something a lot better, nothing less than a McMansion, a couple of luxury cars, & an overseas holiday every couple of years.

    I’d love to drop them in the late 40s, where my folks who had been through a depression, & a world war at 40 were living in a tin shed, building their own home by their own hand, when ever they could raise the cash for some building materials.

    Having lived through that I am totally sick & tired of hearing about the “underprivileged” who don’t have a nice house & those cars, supplied by the taxpayer all free of effort on their behalf.

    At 45 my mother was walking a mile & a half into town from that tin shack, half of it on a rough gravel road, towing a trolley thing behind her to do the weekly shopping. Pardon me if I don’t feel much sympathy fr your underprivileged of today.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Hasbeen, expectation levels among the young today are unbelievably high yet their real-world awareness levels are the complete reverse.

  • Neville says:

    Another bumper world wheat crop and looks like another record in 2020. Gosh and this is supposed to be a climate crisis and according to their so called scientists + Biden, Gore, Mann and the DEMs etc we have only a short time before the point of no return.
    And people actually BELIEVE this delusional garbage.

  • Neville says:

    More wonderful news from Sudan where they have just grown a new record wheat harvest. Here’s a summary and the link.,from%20315%2C500%20hectares%20of%20farmland.

    “Despite coronavirus-related lockdowns, travel and transport restrictions, Sudan has just recorded its largest wheat harvest. According to Sudanese officials, the nation saw a wheat production level of a 1.115 million-ton harvest from 315,500 hectares of farmland. That’s quite an improvement from just five years ago, when farmers in Sudan working about a quarter-million hectares of land harvested just 472,000 tons of the grain”.

  • Neville says:

    More ignorant assumptions from the DEMS etc about ACB’s appointment to the Supreme court.
    I wish they could tell us what they mean when they say “we need to take action on climate change”?
    We can accurately state that the world today has a much higher pop of about 7.8 bn people and today they have higher life expectancy, are better educated, higher calorie intakes, are wealthier, healthier etc than at any time in history .
    Just one hundred years ago there were 6 bn+ fewer people and since that time there’s been 95% fewer people per year killed by extreme weather events. See Lomborg, Goklany, Shellenberger, Christy etc.

  • Neville says:

    The debate today will include a climate change section, but I wouldn’t hold your breath hoping to learn anything from the Biden donkey.
    I hope Trump just stays with the data and monsters China etc and their incredible increase in co2 emissions and particularly over the last 15 years.
    The OECD countries have flat-lined while China and developing countries ( non OECD) have seen co2 levels increase by about 65 ppm since 1988.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Is this the defining moment?:

    Trump: “Would you close down the oil industry?”

    Biden: “I would transition from the oil industry, yes”

    Trump: “That’s a big statement”

    Biden: “That is a big statement”

    That big statement will lose Joe Biden the election. His plan is too radical and will destroy our economy!

  • Neville says:

    During the debate on climate change Biden told us that we only have “8 to 10 years before we reach the point of no return”. Check it out.
    He also said that he would move to net zero by 2025, then by 2035 then by 2050. Biden is clueless.
    He also laughed when Trump said it would cost the USA 100 trillion $. But the real cost is much higher and is 700 trillion $ using the NZ formula for net zero emissions.
    And Lomborg’s team agrees with the NZ numbers for net zero. Note NZ 0.1% = 5 T $ and USA 14%= 700 T $.
    He also lied about Unions supporting his change to the S&W idiocy. See my previous link. If the US voters choose this fool they are pig ignorant donkeys and deserve no sympathy at all.
    Here’s the link and see about 1 hour 36 mins for CC.

    • PeterD says:

      Hi Neville and spangled drongo

      “I would transition from the oil industry, yes,” Biden said. This response even seemed to perplex the debate moderator, who asked Biden, “Why would you do that?” “The oil industry pollutes significantly,” he continued. “It has to be replaced by renewable energy over time.” His plan calls for 100% clean energy within 15 years.

      You two guys seem to believe this statement is bizarre and will lead to Democrat annihilation at the ballot box. Why not allow for some change in the coming years and think more positively. Sceptics often look at what can go wrong: why not look at what can go right over time.

      It seems like only two minutes ago, the then Premier of SA, was almost beaten to death for power blackouts after a horrible storm. And here is a recent clip: “The combination of rooftop and utility scale solar met 100 per cent of demand in South Australia for the first time on Sunday, reaching a milestone that will surely be repeated many times over – and for longer periods – in the future. The milestone was reached at 12.05pm grid time (Australian eastern standard time), with rooftop solar providing 992MW, or 76.3 per cent of state demand, and utility scale solar providing a further 315MW – meaning all three of the state’s big solar farms, Bungala 1m Bungala 2 and Tailem Bend were operating at full capacity.” I’m trying to introduce the positive concept of change over time.

      It also seems you both see Trump as far superior to Joe. In my view they are both very poor presidential candidates. Trump believes Joe is asleep at the wheel but how bright is Trump anyway?:

      And here’s another clip for good measure:

      “A “green” hydrogen project on the west coast that is set to be the country’s largest has taken a leap forward with the hiring of London-based oil and gas services company Petrofac to carry out engineering and design work. Final go-ahead for construction of Infinite Blue Energy’s $350 million Arrowsmith project at Dongara is scheduled for early next year. The first stage would produce 25 tonnes a day of hydrogen through the electrolysis of water powered by solar and wind energy.”

      spangled drongo will fret about costs and subsidies with this project and to some extent with justification – but hey, guys, gradually over time, work beyond your sceptical phase to more positive thinking! Move beyond can’t do to can-do!

      • Neville says:

        Peter D you do realise that the developing world couldn’t care less about S&W and only want real base-load power? Check out co2 levels since 1988 and hundreds of new coal power stns to be built by 2030 and beyond.
        And I don’t think Trump will win, just read what I said in my first comment.
        The cost of so called net zero will be horrendous and will wreck the environment and S&W will have to be changed regularly every 20 years.
        Of course there will be no change in temp or climate by 2100 and beyond and even the RS and NAS agree that there will be no change in co2 levels for a thousand years.
        Stick with the data/ evidence and forget about your silly ABC frolicking with the fairies.
        OH and the SH is already a NET co2 sink, check out the CSIRO Cape Grim site and please start to wake up.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Its a good start but I wonder about the economics.

        There is other research as well, such as;

        • PeterD says:

          Hi Neville,

          What struck me in your response was: “The cost of so called net zero will be horrendous”.
          Money is the only thing: it’s everything! I mentioned that sd would ‘fret’ over it – predictable.

          But even with the ABC – despite its bias and flaws – it has a value that you seem to be oblivious to. Ask yourself why James Murdoch’s disinformation charges – as he walked away from the family firm – went unreported in News Ltd.

          • Neville says:

            Gosh Peter and I suppose we shouldn’t worry about our future or jobs or a cesspit environment or guaranteed waste of trillions of $ for a zero change?
            BTW can you tell us where we can find your/their so called climate crisis and it definitely isn’t our poorest continent or anywhere else that I can find?
            Also please tell us how you intend to compel the non OECD to change their plan to become even wealthier and healthier, just like the rest of the world?
            Don’t forget the data tells us that co2 levels have increased by 65 ppm since 1988 and yet our SH is already a NET co2 sink and the 7 bn in the NH are the NET co2 source.
            What is it that you fail to understand about any of this evidence?
            BTW I’m only interested in the real planet Earth and not your delusional fantasies, so please no more of your frolicking with their ABC fairies.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Most people born in the early 40s grew up with blackouts, kerosine heaters etc. The current generation would not know what to do if they couldn’t recharge their phones. Prospective Green governments might think about that. As might President Harris. People do not like being uncomfortable. It’s not popular, regardless of how desirable the Left thinks it will be.

    • PererD says:

      Hi Neville:

      You write: “you do realise that the developing world couldn’t care less about S&W and only want real base-load power?”

      Good practice and good case studies, if economically implementable, will flow to developing countries. A very crude analogy: in many large schools, there will always be a hard core of ill-equipped students who will never succeed in the system for many different reasons, but does that mean you should put brakes on the overall educational momentum. Or does your thinking accept that the undeveloped forces set the pace and the agenda?

      Joe Biden’s 2 trillion dollar plan to combat global warming, if he is elected, will face legislative challenges but “Still, a President Biden could have real impact: solar panels and wind turbines spread across the country’s mountains and prairies, electric charging stations nearly as ubiquitous as gas stations and a gradual decrease in the nation’s planet-warming greenhouse pollution.” [NY Times, today]

      “Check out co2 levels since 1988 and hundreds of new coal power stns to be built by 2030 and beyond.”

      I don’t dispute this but the essence of my posting was to promote more positive change thinking over time and move away from climate silo debates -alarmist and deniers. Climate alarmists’ warning and climate modelling has been a minefield of failed predictions and almost locked silos if that is not a tautology.

      “And I don’t think Trump will win, just read what I said in my first comment.”

      Given the unreliability of 2016 polling it’s hard to be definitive but my point was surely there are better substitutes for Trump and Biden in presidential terms. Maybe the unreliable polling last time is an analogy for climate sceptics – a good example of how the accepted knowledge got it so wrong and may do again. Sometimes more cautious conclusions are based on previous learning.

      “The cost of so called net zero will be horrendous and will wreck the environment and S&W will have to be changed regularly every 20 years.:

      This is where your economic fearfulness needs some nurturing and encouragement, Neville. I mentioned two case studies – SA and WA – where initiatives are occurring. Only last year the dominant narrative was around ‘coal’ and now it is ‘gas led recovery’ and horrors of horrors – there is talk about new suburbs not even having gas infrastructure installed in the ACT. These are not mainstream case studies that can quickly be applied to developing countries but surely, Neville, the possibility of change over time is logically possible and that there is a case for optimism.

      “Of course there will be no change in temp or climate by 2100 and beyond and even the RS and NAS agree that there will be no change in co2 levels for a thousand years.”

      [Lack knowledge to to comment on this – may or may not be true or indeed other scientists may dispute it – you can always dig up a few sceptics here or there].

      “Stick with the data/ evidence and forget about your silly ABC frolicking with the fairies.”

      [I have written more than forty postings criticising the ABC over seven years so to use the word ‘frolicking’ seems rather quaint to me.’

      “OH and the SH is already a NET co2 sink, check out the CSIRO Cape Grim site and please start to wake up.”

      In terms of waking up, I tend to frolic with the sorts of ideas presented by Thomas Friedman who argues that the planet’s three largest forces – Moore’s law (technology), the Market (globalization), and Mother Nature (climate change and biodiversity loss )– are accelerating all at once. These accelerations are transforming five key realms: the workplace, politics, geopolitics, ethics, and community.

      He talks of “the way in which CO2 is piling up in the atmosphere. The way in which its impacts on the environment. The way in which biodiversity is being lost and population growth. So, when I really thought about it altogether, it struck me that wow, the Market, Mother Nature and Moore’s law are only in simultaneous, nonlinear acceleration, and that’s actually what’s not just shaping the world today, but reshaping the world.”

      In another interview he said “if I were running for president against Trump, I’d be leading with the Earth Race as an economic opportunity, a national security necessity, a health emergency, an environmental urgency and a moral obligation. No other issue can combine those five.” That optimistic type of thinking may be elusive, Neville, but that’s what I was writing about. For you to delve into these thresholds maybe a stretch, just as it is for me to understand the science.

      Getting up close and personal with the data and its interpretation is not possible for me – you seem capable there. But in my view it’s best conducted by practising scientists and researchers, working in multi-disciplinary teams or engaged with it on a daily basis, and not for old guys like me in the lounge room of their life.

    • PeterD says:

      Hi Neville

      In terms of waking up, rather than frolicking with the ABC. I’m drawn to ideas presented by Thomas Friedman who argues that the planet’s three largest forces – Moore’s law (technology), the Market (globalization), and Mother Nature (climate change and biodiversity loss) – are accelerating all at once. These accelerations are transforming five key realms: the workplace, politics, geopolitics, ethics, and community.

      He talks of “the way in which CO2 is piling up in the atmosphere. The way in which its impacts on the environment. The way in which biodiversity is being lost and population growth. So, when I really thought about it altogether, it struck me that wow, the Market, Mother Nature and Moore’s law are only in simultaneous, nonlinear acceleration, and that’s actually what’s not just shaping the world today, but reshaping the world.”

      In another interview Friedman remarked “if I were running for president against Trump, I’d be leading with the Earth Race as an economic opportunity, a national security necessity, a health emergency, an environmental urgency and a moral obligation. No other issue can combine those five.” That optimistic type of thinking may be elusive, even naive, Neville, but that’s what I was writing about. Collecting the data and its interpretation are best done by practising scientists and researchers, working in multi-disciplinary teams and not for old guys like me in the lounge room of their life.

      Note: this is an abbreviated posting.

  • Neville says:

    The CV-19 crisis in the USA is one major reason Trump is in trouble, according to the media. So let’s look at our OZ numbers for CV-19 for the first six months of this year or up to June 30th.

    Ken Stewart has compiled all the graphs and data and found that deaths this year are lower than the last five years and he uses ABS data to come to some very interesting conclusions. Of course this may change in time, but even taking the Andrews/Vic disaster into account we have about 1457 less deaths ( end of June) so far this year.

    Here’s his conclusion and the link. Boy I wish I had his computer skills and many graphs to try and comprehend.


    With the caveat that the ABS mortality figures are provisional, and putting together figures for various states, ages, and causes of death, some conclusions may be drawn:-

    Either a mystery respiratory illness or undiagnosed Covid19 was widespread in the eastern states amongst elderly people weeks before the peak of first wave deaths, possibly arriving from cruise ships.

    There were probably many more Covid19 deaths and infections than reported. It is likely that the real Covid19 death toll was at least double the official tally, and possibly hundreds more.

    Social distancing, good hygiene, and travel restrictions have caused a large decrease in mortality in May and June by restricting the spread of many common illnesses. The first lockdown worked- until the Victorian fiasco.

    The net effect of the first wave of the Covid19 pandemic on Australian mortality was negative. Covid19, and public health responses to it, resulted in a lower death toll in the first half of 2020. This lower death toll was not just in relative (mortality rate) terms but also in absolute terms: there were 1,457 fewer deaths in the first six months of this year than last year.

    ABS data for the second half of the year will be released around April 2021 and will provide much better information about excess mortality for all states (and Victoria in particular), for all age groups, and for all causes.

    I include an appendix with raw mortality data for 2015 -2020.

    • dlb says:

      Nothing unexpected in those graphs.
      Which all goes to show that those restrictions on our freedoms have had positive outcomes for the health of those over 60, as well as crushing the spread of Covid 19.

      Also nothing fancy about those graphs, even you could do it Neville if you have a spreadsheet programme like Excel on your computer.

      One day I might be tempted to do a plot to see if the number of comments between you and SD are correlated over a few months.

  • Neville says:

    I see Biden continues his delusional nonsense and effectively promises to blow out the average voter’s cost of living, wreck the environment and generally force the USA into a depression.
    Of course his madness won’t change the temp, climate or co2 levels at all by 2050 or 2100 or beyond. Meanwhile the clever, intelligent non OECD countries trust in proven base-load energy for their future prosperity.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Let’s just hope that the average US voter is aware that there is nothing happening today, climate-wise, that has not happened during the long period of civilisation and that the chance of change by human intervention is rather remote awa unnecessary:

  • spangled drongo says:

    The purposeful dismantling of one particular industry – or, in more palatable but deceptive parlance, “transitioning” – would result in wide-arcing circles of economic erosion:

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova has a look at two experts who have a good history on predicting US elections.
    This Robert Barnes bloke is very heavy on data and evidence and seems to be fairly confident of a Trump win and is very dismissive about the latest polling.
    He is very entertaining and I had a good chortle listening to some of his yarns. If he is right about the Black vote,the Hispanic vote and the young Bernie voters etc there could be an upset on Nov 3rd. Who knows?

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a Sky News special on the background to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

    • PeterD says:

      Hi Neville,

      Sky News – Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson – are worse than the ABC in terms of credibility and fake news generally. If your climate change thinking is influenced by such pitiful sources in any way, please give it away but that may be unfair because you stated that you are grounded in the science and the data. Like to hear from you, though, why such an important event as James Murdoch walking away from the family firm, and accusing News Ltd of disinformation and having none/minimal coverage in the press here in Australia.

      This clip from ‘The New York Times’ today touches on your posting above.

      “…….Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and now a lawyer for President Trump, burst onto the scene with the tabloid version of the McLean crew’s carefully laid plot. Mr. Giuliani delivered a cache of documents of questionable provenance — but containing some of the same emails — to The New York Post, a sister publication to The Journal in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Mr. Giuliani had been working with the former Trump aide Steve Bannon, who also began leaking some of the emails to favored right-wing outlets. Mr. Giuliani’s complicated claim that the emails came from a laptop Hunter Biden had abandoned, and his refusal to let some reporters examine the laptop, cast a pall over the story — as did The Post’s reporting, which alleged but could not prove that Joe Biden had been involved in his son’s activities.

      While the Trump team was clearly jumpy, editors in The Journal’s Washington bureau were wrestling with a central question: Could the documents, or Mr. Bobulinski, prove that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s lobbying? Or was this yet another story of the younger Mr. Biden trading on his family’s name — a perfectly good theme, but not a new one or one that needed urgently to be revealed before the election.

      Mr. Trump and his allies expected the Journal story to appear Monday, Oct. 19, according to Mr. Bannon. That would be late in the campaign, but not too late….”

      My earlier response to these tawdry, salacious, Borat-level stories remains: get the Trump and Biden families out of politics, and let them be family.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Will the US voters be smart enough to see the fake science in all that’s coming their way.

    The scientific method should promote scepticism, rationality and empiricism. Instead it “has become home to a dizzying array of incompetence, delusion, lies and self- deception”.

    A Danish study based on a sample of 6000 people, half of whom wore the mask and half of whom didn’t, suggests that face coverings make no difference. Some may want to debate the findings, but it’s hard to do so, since the Lancet and other prestigious publications flatly rejected the study for publication.

    The Lancet is not having a good pandemic. In May it published a study claiming hydroxychloroquine had no clinical benefits in treating COVID-19 and was potentially dangerous. The study was quickly retracted when it was found to be based on data described by its editor as “a monumental fraud”.

    It would be comforting to think this was an isolated departure from rigorous science. Sadly, it is not. COVID-19 has merely exposed a virus that has infected science for decades, eating away its integrity and weakening public trust. The scientific errors exposed by the pandemic are merely a symptom of a wider malaise to which few, if any, disciplines are immune.

    Scottish psychologist Stuart Ritchie makes a forceful case as to why science needs to take a good long look at itself in his book, Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science, published in July.

  • Neville says:

    Peter D have a look at the Sky News special and watch John Ratcliffe (at about 21 min) the Director of National Intelligence for the US expose the truth for us.
    There’s no connection to Russia and the details come from Hunter Biden’s emails,videos, photos etc on his laptop and his connection to his father Joe Biden.
    And James Murdoch is about as well informed on climate change as Prince Harry or Prince Charles. IOW ZIP.

    • PeterD says:

      Hi Neville,

      I find it incomprehensible that you are suggesting John Ratcliffe as some sort of creditable authority.

      According to ‘The NY Times’ “Mr. Ratcliffe has approved selective declassifications of intelligence that aim to score political points, left Democratic lawmakers out of briefings, accused congressional opponents of leaks, offered Republican operatives top spots in his headquarters and made public assertions that contradicted professional intelligence assessments.

      If you are genuinely citing John Ratcliffe as some sort of impartial, respected authority – or indeed similar types such as Guiliani or William Barr – then I would ask: do you follow the similar processes in identifying climate scientists you respect or do you focus first and indeed objectively on the climate data/methodology etc?

      Trump has sacked many of his leaders/appointees when their views do not reflect his own views, even though these people may have acquired expertise over a lifetime. Dr Fauci is a case in point: he has served six presidents and is wily and respected by the American people – far mores than Trump – because he is true to his discipline and it has been suggested that Trump would dearly like to sack him. For those who want to remain employed, there is the spiritually corrosive habit of compromise and there are many names you can identify who have been pushed off the podium.

      I am not sure if you can access this reference but it tells me a lot about Sky News:

      The difference between James and Charles/Harry is that he has worked extensively in the media at the top. of Sky News. It is not a huge intellectual challenge to detect if a publication provides balanced or even fair coverage to an issue. Count up the number of stories, look at the headlines, identify the views in each column, and then ask for critical reviews by both opponents/advocates if there has been fair coverage. Even the ABC can do this.

      • Boambee John says:


        “Even the ABC can do this.”

        If the ABC does this, then we should ask why they do not act on the results.

        • PeterD says:

          Hi Boambee John

          When I wrote that statement I thought what you have written. So yes, they can conduct the analysis, but action does not always ensue. Agree

  • Neville says:

    GEZZZZ how to you argue with a delusional ABC hugging loon? The ABC is the most left wing of all the media and hasn’t allowed a mainstream program to be compered by a conservative for at least 30 years.
    And yet they’re supposed to be unbiased according to the rules and to be fair to all Aussies regardless of their POV or political preference. Hasn’t this fool watched a Q&A program lately where the lone conservative is up against the far left compere plus the rest of the panel and a left majority audience? Always.
    Little wonder that these fools don’t understand proper data and evidence when they even convince themselves that a far left mob like their taxpayer funded ABC is doing a good job.
    BTW Sky news does allow a number of lefties on every week, although they have every right to target their programs to a more conservative audience. They are privately funded and to stay in business they must target the majority that enjoy their programs.
    Just imagine the mess they’d be in if they allowed stupid James M to have his way.
    Their ABC is funded by the taxpayer ( over 1 bn $ every year) and is supposed to represent all POV, not just the loony left layabouts and fra-dsters. See the Dark Emu idiocy for example.
    BTW Jo Nova has a very good coverage of some of the big rallies for Trump and the ZIP numbers for Biden and Harris. See the videos at her link.

    • PeterD says:

      Hi Neville

      Most of your comments focus on what you perceive as my infatuation with the ABC. If you carefully read my comments above – as I read many in the links you posted – you will see that I am quite critical of the ABC and understand the enormous pain many people feel when their taxes support an organisation they loathe and which is, in some cases clearly biased and certainly is pervaded by a left wing ideology. Nevertheless, I support the ABC and certainly don’t want a world in which News Ltd/Fox is completely dominant. I had no time for Kevin Rudd as a politician, nor for Malcolm Turnbull, but the petition they have signed is worthwhile. I value diversity in society and views that are supported by evidence etc. and I don’t want an IPA world in which everything is privatised. If you listen to the ABC RN Sunday Background Briefing it captures the best of ABC investigative reporting in my view. The stories and issues they cover are rarely covered elsewhere. Even on climate change I try to keep an open mind about the issues, accepting that many climate predictions by alarmists have been bizarre and that around re CO2 levels, causes etc there are many spectrums.

      I’m far more impressed with dlb’s observation which is honest, self-aware and recognises the divisions and silos which are increasing in society. Anything which builds community, inter-silo communication, breaks down division is of value.

      “As someone who is scientifically trained and rather sceptical of much of the climate doom, I now prefer to shut up, rather than be associated with right wing nutters. I am getting the impression those Australians who tend to be of the Right are being influenced by US political websites which spew out quite exaggerated views on a whole lot of issues.”

      • Boambee John says:


        IIRC, the Murdoch press supported Rudd in the 2007 election. Perhaps he has forgotten that, or doesn’t understand that credibility has to be continuously cultivated, not assumed?

        Turnbull is far too taken with his own (unjustified) opinion of his own brilliance.

        • PeterD says:

          Boambee John

          Your comments about Rudd and Turnbull are fair. The fact that News Ltd supported Rudd and why they did this is an interesting side issue. Similar play with Tony Blair, another dud.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Check the latest mean sea level for Fort Denison. The pacific Ocean is now over 6″ LOWER than it was when the first record was taken over a century ago:

    How does a huge fact like that support any claim of global warming?

    What is it saying about the 100 trillion GND by the Dems to prevent this non-problem?

  • Neville says:

    SD down at the bottom of that page we have the MAX recorded since 1914 as 2.4 metres on 25-5-74 and the MIN on the 19-8-82 as minus – 0.190 metres. See below from the site. So what are you measuring MAX or MIN or the MEAN?

    Just wanted to know to compare to 1914, where MIN is 0.470 , MAX is 1.70 and MEAN is 1.111 metres.
    See stats copied below from bottom of page.

    Statistics Top

    Mean sea level = 0.936 (Average monthly means = 0.937)

    Maximum recorded level of 2.400 metres at 1300 hours 25/05/1974
    Minimum recorded level of -0.190 metres at 1700 hours 19/08/1982
    Standard deviation of the observations = 0.4191 metres
    Skewness = 0.1422

  • Neville says:

    Sorry SD, I can see it is the MEAN SL you have measured and it is about 6 inches lower than 1914. I should learn to read properly.
    BTW I don’t think Biden or Harris care about the data and will carry on regardless.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Yes Neville, it’s the Mean Sea Level over extended periods that tells the real story. The first in May 1914 MSL = 1.111, the latest in Sept. 2020 = .956. Lower by 155 mm.

    For the last couple of centuries at least, the MEAN sea level has been the main measurement in sea levels. Those were the marks that Sir James Clark Ross wanted to establish world wide nearly 2 centuries ago for world navigation purposes. Ross explored and mapped both the Arctic and Antarctic. sought the NW Passage, found the magnetic north pole, searched for the lost Franklin expedition and visited Australia, all under sail.

    He was vitally interested in sea levels in order to map the world’s oceans for navigation purposes.

  • spangled drongo says:

    What it says is that WRT the world’s oceans, they are, in effect, doing nothing other than normal variability.

    This is exactly what one of the world’s greatest oceanographers [Nils-Axel Morner] has been trying to tell us for the last 50 years.

    • Stu says:

      But do bear in mind that the obituary is written by the infamous Christopher Monckton of whom it is written:

      “ I’d say that you can’t make this stuff up, except that Lord Christopher Monckton has, indeed, fabricated nearly every aspect of his life in order to get a putrid seat in the climate change denier clown car. But Monckton, who is afforded so much credibility by right wing deniers here in the US, and Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, have yanked too hard on their leashes recently and may be falling out of favor with their evil overlords. There is increasing message board and website “chatter” that their dirty attacks on female climate scientists, along with incessant bullying of the Pope (ahead of his encyclical about climate change) have turned off a large segment of their supporters.

      If you’re wondering why anyone would listen to Christopher Monckton, the reasons are disappointingly simplistic. Thanks entirely to a wonky English accent, an outsized ego, lots of eye-bulging bluster, and a dubious (inherited) title, this whinging wanker and utter fake has conned the likes of James “Snowball Thrower” Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Devin Nunes (R-California), and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), to name just a few. Monckton, who married in middle age and is childless, but who is, curiously, a ranting homophobe (methinks this lady doth protest too much) is NOT a scientist, NOT an intellect of any significance, and, definitely NOT qualified to steer public policy or debate about much of anything, except how to be a punter. And yet, for the reasons above, he occasionally finds himself in front of an audience of dolts (such as attendees at the upcoming Heritage Institute AGW deniers circle jerk) who, thinking so little of their own intellect that they gladly listen to Monckton’s drivel. Thankfully, he may be wearing out his welcome here in the US, so hopefully we can silence this miserable git.

      Here are just some of Monckton’s dubious claims and accomplishments:

      1) Monckton has claimed for several years that he has found a cure for AIDS, multiple sclerosis, the common cold, the flu, prion-related diseases (like Mad Cow), herpes…literally 2/3 of all known illnesses. When asked about this incredible achievement, he will then go on to say that he is in the process of patenting his miraculous “cure.” The reality is that he begins the application process, does not pay the fee, nor does he ever finish the paperwork, which then causes the patent application to ultimately expire. This allows him to continue making the (false) claim that he’s patenting SOMETHING. He has done this, at least, for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013;“

      You can read the full text here.

      The adjectives used above are strong but no worse than the language used by Monckton himself in his waffling piece. Whatever you may think of his climate ponderings you must admit that by now his AIDS claims etc are looking more than a little under par, and should question his statements on anything.

  • Neville says:

    Well it looks like Prof Will Happer and fellow scientist William Van Wiingarrden have been busy on a new study to test the saturation of GHGs in the atmosphere.

    Here’s part of David Wojick’s summary of the study.

    “Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In radiation physics the technical term “saturated” implies that adding more molecules will not cause more warming.

    In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming. There would be no climate emergency. No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect.

    This astounding finding resolves a huge uncertainty that has plagued climate science for over a century. How should saturation be measured and what is its extent with regard to the primary greenhouse gases”?

    At least we should stop wasting money on their so called mitigation lunacy until we are more sure of the science. Anyway whatever we do will not make any measurable difference at all. Just check out the waste of hundreds of billions $ since 1988 . And co2 levels have increased by 65 ppm over the last 32 years.

    • Stu says:

      You guys are always quoting precedent. So how does Happer explain the much higher temperatures in long gone eras tied with high concentrations of CO 2? Does he guarantee that global warming will now cease? Probably not.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu sez; “So how does Happer explain the much higher temperatures in long gone eras tied with high concentrations of CO2?”

        What makes you think they were “tied” then, any more than they are today?

        When they obviously were not “tied” during the Eemian or the Holocene H/S.

      • Boambee John says:


        Precedent might just be more reliable than computer models, the principal source of alarmist predictions. You know, those predictions with such an abysmal record of consistent failure.

        • Stu says:

          Do they really? Are you sure? That is a common claim made by you believers in non science but show the evidence.

          • Boambee John says:


            I and others have recounted varulious failed predictions before. Obviously your reaction then was to close your eyse, put your fingers in your ears, and shout “Nyah, nyah, nyah, I can’t hear you”.

            I will repeat one for you, the 50 million climate refugees by 2010 failure.

            There are plenty of websites that maintain lists, but you would dismiss them as “denialists”.

          • Stu says:

            Show me the link where a proper climate model or the people responsible for it made such a claim. Sure there have been outlandish claims made by unqualified people, and the same can be said about some on the head in the sand side.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, go and read the hundreds of pages of the IPCC Assessment Reports to see how much of the world is “vulnerable” to the point of death, to so many aspects of climate change.

            These people who are considered to be the last word on the subject never stop making claims of potential disaster.

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova has a look at the fuss and excitement about the claims that SA was recently running on ruinables for about ONE Hour.
    But Tony from OZ has found that gas also featured in the mix and anyway SA is only 5% of the Aussie grid and the cost was about 2 bn $ to achieve this pathetic outcome.
    If we consider that to RUN the entire Aussie economy would take 20 times that number it’s clear that ruinables are not the answer.
    Don’t forget this is only ONE HOUR and with the help of gas as well.
    Sorry, Tony from OZ now claims (in comments) that more coal powered energy FROM VICTORIA was entering SA, so this calls into question the sources of energy on that day.
    Remember they blew up the coal fired Port Augusta plant and yet it would’ve taken a lousy 30 mil $ to maintain it and have reliable BASE-LOAD power for SA’s future plus their industries + jobs.
    OH and of course their ABC thinks all this fra-dulent nonsense is wonderful and couldn’t care less about the wasted billions $ involved.
    IOW billions $ wasted AGAIN for a guaranteed ZERO RETURN.

  • Neville says:

    Here the Conversation echos what I’ve linked to from the RS & NAS and the Zickfeld study. If we stopped ALL co2 emissions today it wouldn’t have an impact AT ALL for THOUSANDS of years.

    Yet we have silly donkeys telling us repeatedly that we will have a better climate if we reduce our co2 emissions. Of course there’s no evidence AT ALL of a climate emergency and in fact the reverse is true. Just look at deaths from extreme events, SLR, human’s standard of living + life expectancy etc.

    And if Prof Happer is correct we have nothing to fear from co2 except a much GREENER planet and a brighter future for everyone.

    Here’s the link and quote about co2.
    “Slam on the climate brakes”

    “What would happen to the climate if we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide today, right now? Would we return to the climate of our elders?

    The simple answer is no. Once we release the carbon dioxide stored in the fossil fuels we burn, it accumulates in and moves among the atmosphere, the oceans, the land and the plants and animals of the biosphere. The released carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Only after many millennia will it return to rocks, for example, through the formation of calcium carbonate – limestone – as marine organisms’ shells settle to the bottom of the ocean. But on time spans relevant to humans, once released the carbon dioxide is in our environment essentially forever. It does not go away, unless we, ourselves, remove it.

    In order to stop the accumulation of heat, we would have to eliminate not just carbon dioxide emissions, but all greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide. We’d also need to reverse deforestation and other land uses that affect the Earth’s energy balance (the difference between incoming energy from the sun and what’s returned to space). We would have to radically change our agriculture. If we did this, it would eliminate additional planetary warming, and limit the rise of air temperature. Such a cessation of warming is not possible”.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    After watching Joe boasting about blackmailing a foreign leader to protect his son, how anybody could accept him as leader of the free world is beyond belief. Backed up by an adultress, who slept her way to power. Some interesting books in the pipeline.

  • Chris Warren says:

    yet again, as usual, our stupid Neville has posted references to material that he does not understand, has not read, and that directly contradicts his crazy claims.

    If you read the William Happer and William van Wijngaarden paper you will see at pg 13 their clear statement;

    “Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 (from 400 ppm to 800 ppm) would cause a forcing increase … of 3.0 W m-2.”

    The next page states that doubling CH4 causes forcing increase of 0.7 W m-2.

    This is VERY different to any satuation that occurs at a particular concentration. Of course if you have a particular concentration it could become satuated as some flux. But so what – global warming is driven by changing concentrations, so any satuation occurs with different temperatures.

    The William Happer and William van Wijngaarden is jumbled garbage as demonstrated by the fact that it has been rejected by normal scientific journals and so is being peddled by denialist rumps who have no idea what they are talking about.

    Really – our denialists are just laughing stocks, and Neville the epitome.

Leave a Reply