How did Labor get it so wrong?

By May 22, 2019Other


As I write, the Coalition is close to having 76 seats, and might get 78, which the ABC is tipping. I’m not concerned with these final numbers, which won’t be known for a week or more. Rather, like so many others, I expected a Labor victory, a close one, I thought. The actual result was a major surprise, and a dreadful one for Bill Shorten and his team. So, how did they get it so wrong?

First, the ALP seemed to coast along on what the polling organisations were saying, and had been saying for a couple of years. Labor would win. It was open and shut. The bookies said so too. Why would you argue with any of them? And on what basis? In an earlier essay I pointed out that the polling organisations no longer properly sample the States and Territories, so I couldn’t get data for Queensland, even though APOP (Morgan Gallup) and I go back into the 1960s, and they are always helpful to me. What the pollsters always provide us with is what I would call a ‘nationalised’ outcome, where the whole country is treated as a single domain.

Second, there are two technical reasons for this change. One is the loss of telephone landlines. When I was doing this sort of work fifty years ago, we used the electoral roll as the primary source of respondents, and we wroteto each of those who had come up in the sample. We got more than 80 per cent in response. Those were the days! The second is the much greater frequency of polling, which now can occur every week. The loss of landlines means that the White Pagescan’t be used as an effective sampling domain. And using mobile numbers is no more effective, because you can’t define where the numbers come from, which might mean that all your respondents come from Ipswich, for example. Not likely, I accept, but a flawed domain means that the outcome is likely to be rubbish.

Third, Mr Shorten claimed that he had put in place a ’bold and progressive’ program of policies. Did he? It didn’t come through to me, and much of what I heard came via the ABC. What I heard was traditional Labor emphasis on education and health, with promises galore. Not that the Coalition’s promises were any less generous. Yes, the Labor leader said, and kept on saying, that he would end the imputation of credits and negative gearing, and this would hurt some Australians, but the money was needed elsewhere. That was bold, to be sure. Progressive? Depends on your point of view. My own view is that if you’re going to do this sort of thing you say nothing at all about it unless you have started very early, long before an election campaign, and done your best to deal with it persuasively over time. Or you bring it out quickly and decisively in Year Two of the electoral cycle, which tends to be the year for doing the hard things.

Fourth, at the end of his campaign Mr Shorten threw everything he had into his ‘climate change’ policies, having proclaimed early in the campaign a fifty per cent by 2030 target for EVs and alternative energy sources for electricity generation. In all this he was extremely badly advised, but by whom I do not know. There was every indication that in two seats that Labor was expecting to win, Warringah and Wentworth (here Labor was supporting the Independent MP, Kerryn Phillips) the campaign was very much about climate change. Perhaps Mr Shorten thought the same would be true everywhere. But his advisers should have known that only a tiny minority, just seven per cent at last count of Australians, when asked, ‘What are the problems [facing Australia] that really worry you?’ will respond with ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ or a comparable environmental slogan. The same is true in most developed nations. And there is a growing backlash in Europe against climate change policies that do nothing to reduce global gas emissions or lower temperatures but lead to much higher electricity prices. The nationalised polling data might have led Labor astray.

In any case, it was not long before the actual results on election night showed that Australia is, with respect to ‘climate change’, a society with regions of very different attitudes. Paradoxically, the areas where dealing with ‘climate change’ gain their greatest support are the more or less comfortably off inner metropolitan electorates, and one or two country seats where alternative lifestyles have for some time attracted those who also think global warming is a threat, there should be no mining for coal or gas in their electorate (though they’re happy enough to turn on the electric power, 85 per cent of which comes from fossil fuels), and all food should be sourced locally. Queensland above the Brisbane River would have none of that, and Labor won nothing there that they had hoped for.

In fact, the night got worse and worse for the challenging party. At the end of it there was no way Labor could achieve power, and it will finish with fewer seats than it had in the last Parliament. The polling organisations will tell us, sooner or later, what they think went wrong. Perhaps their consistent suggestions that Labor was ahead for a couple of years was also wrong. We shall see. The Labor Party is trying to work it all out too, when its members aren’t being jockeyed to support this or that candidate for the leadership, now that Mr Shorten has retired as leader. A friend asked me, the other day, ‘Why do they all hate Mr Shorten?’ I replied that I didn’t know anyone who felt that way. He was always behind in the leader poll (maybe that was wrong too!), but he came across as a decent, well-spoken man who was disciplined in what he said and how he said it. That I disagreed with his EV policies didn’t mean that I hated him. Life is too short for hate, which is a useless sentiment.

He conceded late in the evening, congratulated the Prime Minister, and anounced that he was retiring as leader. There was not a skerrick of disagreement, no call to the barricades. This is a democracy, and the people had spoken. But consider this statement by Greenpeace Australia (at

From their official statement:

“This is not a post we thought we’d have to make.

We’re looking into the eyes of our friends, families and colleagues and seeing them all searching for answers, but only able to ask the same questions:

How? Why? Where do we go from here?

This result flies in the face of all Australians who’ve fought for our climate. For pristine oceans, for clean air, for the thousands of young Australians scared for what their future holds. We demanded they declare an emergency, and they shook a lump of coal in our faces.

So it’s right now, more than ever, that we want to tell you this:

This fight is not over, and none of us are going anywhere.

Tonight we learned something profound, something that changes the ballgame. Something that will require every one of us to stand up and take action in a way we’ve never before.

The system is broken. And as long our politics are shackled to the coal industry and vested interest, we’ll never fix it.

It’s time to change the game. It’s time to be disruptive. It’s time to take the power back.

If our government won’t declare a climate emergency, we’ll declare an uprising.

Last week Laura, one of the brave climbers who scaled the Sydney Harbour Bridge, said that that we can’t afford to rest on our laurels amidst this climate emergency. She put her body on the line and promised us that she’d never give up. And we shouldn’t either.

Now is not the time to leave. Now is the time to hold each other close, to pick each other up, and to stand up and fight.

If the climate-wreckers in the Coalition think we’re going to go away quietly, they’ve got another thing coming.

If Scott Morrison thinks he’s won the war on coal, he’s got another thing coming.

If anyone thinks the fight for our planet is over, they’ve got another thing coming.

We’ll be fighting back. Harder than we ever have before.

Now a new fight begins.”

Consider the phrases: ‘It’s time to be disruptive. It’s time to take the power back. If our government won’t declare a climate emergency, we’ll declare an uprising.’ Such statements are the antithesis of democracy, and tell me, once again, that Greenpeace has much less to do with the environment than it has to do with disruption and challenge. Stuff the people, who did speak, quite loudly, and against such talk.

I don’t like it at all. I doubt that the Labor Party does, either. I hope there is a backlash against this subversive organisation.

Join the discussion 230 Comments

  • Mike Burston says:

    Thank you Don for those insights about polling it’s interesting how it seems to be one “calling” which the internet has made more difficult
    There is a general observation about the recent election which is how it resembles Brexit and Trump. It’s the way Elites never see the humiliation coming. They seem to be so wrapped up in their own “infallible” judgement

  • Richard Quigley says:

    ” ‘It’s time to be disruptive. It’s time to take the power back. If our government won’t declare a climate emergency, we’ll declare an uprising.’”
    Re-written as: “It’s time to be disruptive. It’s time to take the power back. If fringe groups cannot accept majority decisions we’ll push back with lawfare. Pressure your state governments to use the full force of the law against any individual or group trespassing, or otherwise interfering with the citizens’ right to quiet enjoyment of their domain.”

    • Cameron says:

      This extremist activity only continues because the courts let them off. If they were charged and had to pay for the disruptions they cause most of it would stop.

  • Paul says:

    That you have alerted us to Greenpeace’s ‘call to action,’ suggests that some counter is necessary to the call: “We must do something about climate change!”
    Convincing the alarmists, politicians and the public of a few home truths may have the desired result, such as: Over the last several decades there has been no ‘disastrous’ or whatever change. No matter what is done by Australia or as in the Paris agreement, the effect on temperature would be negligible. That none of the alarmists forecasts of doom and gloom have come to pass.

  • Thank you Mr Aitken. As an accountant, my legal colleagues and business clients and colleagues, did not just sigh a breath of relief but all got drunk as the worst nightmare of a ruined society was avoided. I cannot under estimate the ruinious policies of the ALP which would have closed down businesses and had union members on public company boards (Franking credits) and decimated the construction industry (Paul Keating did this in the 80s and -`construction activity fell by 1/3) . Further the fear of people being murdered by Greenpeace, Climate Change zealots, people going to church, farmers , mining employees and being acquitted while the victim would be charged with some other crime.

    What is interesting and what I would like to see you do is explore what the education system and and the “mental wellness” industry has done. People are spewing out their problems over the slightest thing and unloading their suffering. These people under 40 are all saying they are limited/failed by mental health issues. The slightest task at work sets them off.

    Further the effect on people under 20 about manmade clime warming. Our society is “sick’ mentally.

    I was speaking to teacher at my daughters school who takes students to Vietnam to work at a Catholic run orphanage (the govt has now taken this over and the orphanage has gone down hill rapidly) and he was telling me the local are looking at scoial security and whether they should bring it in. The locals were also asking him what is anxiety, depression and peanut allergy.

  • Neville says:

    Good points Don, but can anyone tell us about their so called “climate emergency”? And please provide the data and evidence to underline your concern.
    OH and then tell us how to fix it, again using proper data and evidence? And I do understand that it’s very difficult to have a rational conversation with religious extremists. IOW just like the totalitarian Greenpeace fanatics.

    • stu says:

      And what no one seems to be admitting, Warringah was lost, not on climate issues, but people being sick of Abbott. His refusal to vote on the SSM bill was indicative of him being out of touch with his electorate. Anybody running under the liberal banner would have beaten Zalli. His stubborn refusal to stand down when presented with major opposition at the pre-selection was indicative that he thought he was more important than the party. But never mind I am sure Zalli will support them on most issues. Abbott would make a good ambasador to Iceland or Uzbekistan,

  • John says:

    But what about the pseudo-government that we elected? Yes, the senate. The original role of senators was to ensure that their states weren’t unreasonably disadvantaged by government legislation. These days, as I said, it’s more like a pseudo-government. Under the Abbott government we saw the senate block legislation based on policies that the election had been won on.

    I also noticed that parties announced policies even when they were only putting up candidates for the senate. The lower house where the government is formed, not the senate (i.e. upper house).

    I think it’s high time the senate was pulled back into line or abolished completely. The latter might sound risky, especially with the deluded people who think the senate should “keep the lower house honest” but the senate is not the government and I think the government should be allowed to sink or swim on its own merits.

    • dlb says:

      I disagree, not everyone favours the Libs or Labor. The Senate at least gives the smaller parties a chance to have some input into Government.

  • Hasbeen says:

    I started to get the feeling, in the last week or so that all was not lost. I had nothing to base it on except perhaps,

    1/ Morison spoke more like a PM than Shorten, I thought he may have a chance.

    2/ There was more discussion of Labors crazy policies, the impossibility of their alternate power generation policy, & electric car policy. It was not so much the inability of our grid to charge so many cars, but the fact that they thought they had a right to dictate what we should drive.

    3/ As I saw research showing it would cost billions to retrofit inner city highrise apartment buildings to charge the residents cars, & more billions to retrofit the power grids to supply the power, I could see the stupidity, & lack of considering unintended consequences.

    4/ Comments on blogs indicated many others were thinking similarly.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Thanks for those keen observations, Don.

    But when it comes to Greenpeace, they have never been green or peaceful so wots new?

    As active Getup supporters, they are in complete denial of the fact that warmer is what the world’s climate has been for 99% of the last quarter- billion years.

    As in at least 10c warmer.

    Yet during that period, biodiversity has never been greater.

    But they are certain that another 1c this century will be the end of us.

    And most Australians last Saturday finally told them just how truly stu-pid they really are.

    Which demonstrated how smart most Australians are.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Sadly though, as Dr Geoff Derrick points out:

    “We must remember that the LNP Coalition still subsidises renewables,
    has not built a decent dam for a long long time,
    is only lukewarm about a new coal-fired power station,
    has little interest in nuclear power,
    still gives too much money to the ABC,
    still wants to flood the country with immigrants
    before infrastructure can adequately cope,
    and we still have that French submarine agreement.
    And none of them can read a ‘sciency’ graph.”

    We still have a long way to go.

  • spangled drongo says:

    A couple of letters to the editor in the Australian today:

    “We have been repeatedly informed by Labor that one of the main reasons for the party’s loss was that its policy message was “too complex”. This barb was mostly directed at Queensland, where Labor suffered monumental losses.

    As a proud Queenslander let me be crystal clear: Labor’s policies weren’t complex, they were just dumb as a box of rocks. The genius trio of Shorten, Bowen and Plibersek cooked up a toxic brew of Greens insanity, topped by taxation madness and then sprinkled it with a dusting of identity and envy politics, served by a dislikeable opportunist. Thankfully, sanity prevailed.”

    John Vickers, Bellbowrie, Qld

    “Following the glorious win by Scott Morrison, we rather expected some disappointed comments from the Labor/Greens camp. What we have received is a barrage of vile insults and abuse, the likes of which is surely unprecedented in a civilised society. Australia has, for now, escaped this rabble that was hoping to ride roughshod over anyone who dared disagree with them.”

    John Court, Southport, Qld

  • spangled drongo says:

    Any’ow, congrats to the SMH for publishing Dominic Perrottet’s article today:

  • Chris Warren says:

    Maybe Greenpeace has picked-up some bad habits from shock-jock radio and SkyNews?

  • spangled drongo says:

    It’s great to see the Lefty Green “apoliticals” getting caught out and bringing their Lefty Green employers and themselves undone.

    Oh, the irony:

    “Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has ordered an investigation into her government’s hiring of an anti-coal activist as a top policy adviser to the state’s environment department.

    The Australian revealed this morning that former Queensland Conservation Council head Tim Seelig was given special treatment in applying for the role, after he missed the cut-off date for applications.

    The documents also show that Mr Seelig — who campaigned against Campbell Newman in the 2015 state election while working for the Wilderness Society — overcame a “must have” selection criterion that specified the applic­ant be “apolitical — both politic­ally and advocacy related”.

    Queensland’s resource sector and state opposition have questioned the appointment of Dr Seelig, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the Adani mine and coal industry.

    As QCC head, Dr Seelig, who holds a doctorate in urban sociol­ogy, said in 2017 that “we do not believe any new coalmines, includi­ng the Adani mine, should proceed given global warming trends and the imperative of carbon­ emissions reduction’’.”

    • Neville says:

      SD I watched this tonight on the Bolt report and if this doesn’t smack of more corruption and fra-d from the Qld govt then I don’t know what does. Fancy having these fools trying to run a state govt.
      Lets hope they get booted out next year.

  • Neville says:

    I’ll ask my question again, what is this climate emergency they keep yapping about? It isn’t Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets or temps. Just check the data.
    It isn’t SLR . it isn’t extreme weather events, because the data shows that deaths from extreme events have dropped by 95% over the last 100 years. Dr Pielke has the data that shows that huge fall despite many more billions of people compared to the small pop in 1920.
    Also the pop of Africa today is 1300 mil and was only 552 mil in 1984, yet there has been a 10 year increase in life expectancy as well. How is this possible?
    And the Ethiopian famine in 1984- 85 occurred when the pop was about 40 mil and today is over 100 mil. That much larger pop has seen an increase in life exp of 20 years in such a very short time. How is this possible?
    Then we have the AOC Dem and OZ Labor donkeys telling us we have only 12 years and 3 years to save the planet. This is completely barking mad because we know that the global economy has more than doubled since 1990.
    Anyone have any more bright ideas, because most of the above should be impossible. Just asking?

  • Boambee John says:


    I think that Labor’s greatest mistake was to choose the equivalent of Turnbull as leader.

    Shorten has shown for years that he will trample over and backstab anyone to become prime minister. AWU members at Cleanevent and Chiquita Mushrooms? Penalty rates sold out for a campaign contribution. First wife? Dumped for a better connected one. Labor leaders Rudd and Gillard? Stabbed in the back. And, to complete the comparison with Turnbull, as soon as he vacated the leadership, Shorten started pulling the strings on the selection of a successor.

    Australian publiclife would be much improved by the emigration of both of them.

  • Neville says:

    The delusional Greens are now threatening Labor in a belated bid to STILL STOP the Adani mine. Let’s see if the Qld govt now has the balls to take them on and whether Fed Labor grows a set after the new leader is elected.
    I’ll believe it when I see it, but who knows even Albo may need a new codpiece if he gets the top job. Let’s wait and see.

  • Neville says:

    The Coalition, Labor, Greens and PHONP are the big winners after this election. Palmer and Hinch are the big losers.
    But Pauline’s ONP are the big winners this time because they stood in more seats and got more than 4% in most of them.
    I don’t know about you but I couldn’t watch anything on telly or read or look at Youtube videos without Clive’s party begging me for a vote. And yet I can’t remember seeing ONE Ad for Pauline’s party over the entire 5 weeks of the campaign. Was it just me?

  • Rafe Champion says:

    Nice work as usual Don! You might be amused by this speculation about a Labor split . No way of course, nobody in the party with the charisma, demonic energy and organizing ability of Billy Hughes.

  • Neville says:

    Greenpeace co founder Patrick Moore looks at the AOC new deal lunacy and gives a complete summary of all the problems involved if they were stupid enough to believe the DEMs left wing loonies.

  • Neville says:

    India’s use of thermal coal is set to grow by 4.3% a year for the next 10 years. Let’s hope the clueless Qld govt wakes up and quickly approves the Adani mine. No ifs, no buts.

  • Neville says:

    I suppose we can always laugh about the climate change con merchants. This Will Franken bloke is very funny. But the late George Carlin was also a talent years ago, like his video about saving the planet.

  • Neville says:

    More delusional donkeys plan to stop traffic and lie down in Melbourne streets to perform “a die in” to protest about their so called CAGW.
    We’ve just had an election and yet these morons are going to cause more inconvenience for everyone else, because they didn’t get the result they expected at the ballot box. So is this what Greenpeace warned us about just a few days ago?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Very sad, Neville, but a natural consequence of lefty bed-wetters brain washing the cottonwool clad kiddies.

      No science, just ideology.

      And lack of real-world experience, observation and knowledge in both teacher and pupil.

      Childish minds concur.

      It should be the law that what is taught in classrooms be recorded.

      That might stop this exploitation of the young.

  • spangled drongo says:

    If we keep brainwashing the kiddies, Labor and the Greens will make sure this amount of complete waste will be trillions, not billions:

  • dlb says:

    Some people like Claire Lehmann from Quillette think Labor’ poor showing is the electorate getting tired with the progressive elites of the Left, a bit like what has happened with Brexit and Trump.
    As much as I disdain elites telling me how to think and behave, I doubt this issue has developed much traction in mainstream Australia. I think the real reason Labor flunked this election is our compulsory electoral system. By this I mean the requirement that politically disinterested people have to vote.
    These people have little idea of who to vote for, let alone comprehension of policies such as negative gearing and franking credits. For this group the personality of the leader is often a big factor and scare campaigns work well i.e. better the devil you know. I watch a fair amount of SBS and the attack adds by the Coalition on Shorten and Labor was intense in the last few weeks of the campaign. I can’t really remember much in the way of adds from Labor, so perhaps the Coalition was targeting politically ignorant immigrants?
    With Labor making itself a big target for scare campaigns, Morrison styling himself as a good bloke and support for Adani in regional Queensland, well Labor was up against it. I must say the electorate were not fools in falling for the Palmer hype second time around.

    • Boambee John says:


      “the requirement that politically disinterested people have to vote.”

      I would hope that voters would be “politically disinterested”, but I suspect that they are politically uninterested.

  • Neville says:

    Another good interview from Heartland, this time with Dr Benny Peiser of the GWPF. Benny always sounds grounded and has a commonsense approach when discussing their so called climate change.

    The Heartland conference this year is in Washington and is being held in the Trump centre. The speakers will be interesting as usual and I’m told that most will be in real time not just available later as a podcast.
    This is the best way to see and hear sceptical scientists present a point of view supported by the latest data and evidence.

  • Neville says:

    There is no doubt that their so called renewables industry in Europe is in a mess. Bankruptcies, other ongoing financing problems and very costly repairs to both BRAND NEW onshore and offshore farms are causing problems now and into the future.
    Taxpayer subsidies have been reduced and cost overruns in the near future seem likely. Luckily OZ has just dodged a super expensive bullet (for now) this election but unfortunately nothing seems to penetrate the thick skulls of delusional left wing pollies and the fools who vote for Labor & Greens. What a con and fra-d.

  • Neville says:

    Dr Pielke jnr highlights the fact that the USA is recently experiencing better rainfall over the entire country. IOW more people are living through a period of fewer droughts than at any other time.
    But don’t expect this to be highlighted by any of the usual suspects.

  • Neville says:

    More extremists stage another die-in, this time among the dinosaurs at the Qld museum. The fed election result showed clear support for the Adani mine and a landslide result in Qld for the Coalition and Scott Morrison, but these fools think we should support their looney POV?
    That’s the whole couple of hundred of them. What an embarrassment for OZ, that we have these stupid religious fanatics that clearly haven’t the first idea about climate and think we have just 10 years to fix their delusions. What are they teaching our kids in school and why aren’t the MSM and honest Qld scientists doing their job?

  • JimboR says:

    “….in two seats that Labor was expecting to win, Warringah and Wentworth”

    Really? That seems very optimistic given their primary vote in those seats were 6% and 11% respectively.

    “Wentworth (here Labor was supporting the Independent MP, Kerryn Phillips)”

    I wonder how Tim Murray feels about that.

  • JimboR says:

    We may not be out of the electric-car woods yet… Josh Frydenberg reckons there’ll be more than a million on our roads by 2030 and considers it a great outcome:

  • spangled drongo says:

    How did Labor get it so wrong?

    How does labor not get that after 8 days of rejection?

    Their new leader in complete denial. I thought he had some brains but he is even thicker than BS:

  • spangled drongo says:

    How did Labor get it so wrong?

    How do enuresistic Lefties always manage to get things so wrong?

    Desire for doom and failure to live in the real world is a start:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Believing in man-made climate change apparently means never having to prove it.

    Albanese on climate change after being elected the new ALP leader:

    “Let me say this unequivocally – the science is in, climate change is real, we must act.”

    • Neville says:

      SD, like I’ve said before, we are wasting our time arguing with religious fanatics. But why would any rational person vote for these silly donkeys? Their deception is fairly easy to understand.

  • Neville says:

    So what does the UN data tell us about average life expectancy from 1950 to 2017 and out to 2050? This graph shows the dark blue line (life exp for world ) starting about 48 yrs in 1950 and now about 72 yrs and by 2050 they estimate this will be about 78 years.
    Australia is not shown here, but would be higher than the north American light blue line at top. Note that the African red line shows the higher recent trend.

    Very difficult to find their coming end of our world apocalypse in these numbers and of course we should understand that the world economy has just doubled in less than 30 years or from 1990 to 2018.

    BTW today Aboriginal Aussies live about 69 years for males and about 74 years for females or combined about 71.5 years.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The 2019 election was shouted by the inner city Green and lefty Labor lot as the vote on Climate Change yet the Green vote was virtually unchanged and the Labor vote went backwards even in the inner city.

    These were the mostly non-self-employed well off who benefit from govt spending on climate yet those more remote workers who lose financially from climate policy were very certain in their opposition especially when constituents in the latter view large scale mining operations as a crucial potential source of income and employment.

    It’s hard to see how electing a new Labor leader from the far left can possibly win over support for these basic, far left policies.

    So, can Albo ever possibly change his spots?

    And if he claims he has, can anyone ever believe him?

    Has Labor already lost the 2022 election or can they brainwash enough “kiddies” to make the difference by then?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Can Labor really be blamed for telling lies and getting the “Climate Crisis” so wrong when the world’s “experts” specialise in doing likewise.

    “For the upcoming Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) a rate of global mean sea level rise over 1980-2000 is touted faster than during any preceding 20-year period since at least 1000 BCE.”

    They are merely guilty of their susceptibility to brainwashing like the juveniles they are.

  • Neville says:

    Good find SD and the Kench, Duvat plus other recent studies show that dangerous SLR is a myth. These people should be taken to court for their lies and exaggerations that seem to be accepted as the truth by most MSM, stupid pollies and the fools who vote for them.
    Here is a plea from the EU steel companies that are facing a downturn in the market, while so called co2 mitigation has driven up energy costs five fold in just one year. If this is true I expect there must be big job losses coming soon. Oh and not helped by cheaper imports that don’t have ruinous co2 taxes during their manufacturing.
    Will the EU ever wake up and ditch the barking mad co2 mitigation industry ASAP? China must be laughing at these hopeless fools and con merchants. The 5 fold increase in 2018 carbon cost is mentioned in the last paragraph.

  • Neville says:

    Andrew Montford has another excellent summary of the latest NYT attack on the Trump administration.


    Date: 28/05/19
    Andrew Montford, GWPF

    “The Trump administration is not attacking climate science, it’s recognising its shortcomings

    “Yesterday, the New York Times got rather upset over changes to President Trump’s climate policy, which it represented a hardening of his “attack on climate science”.

    Interestingly though, you have to read quite a lot of words before you actually get to the point – usually a sure sign that there is actually nothing much by way of news and quite a lot by way of hand waving. It turns out that Trump’s attempt to “undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests” is down to this:

    [Director of the US Geological Survey,] James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments … use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously.

    To describe this as an “attack” is obviously absurd. Reasonable people can question the ability of climate models to give us useful information about the climate in 20 years’ time, let alone 80.

    In a GWPF paper published last week, it was pointed out that climate models are overestimating warming in the tropical troposphere by a factor of three. With errors of that magnitude, how much trust can we really put in projections for the end of the century? You would have to be quite an innocent to take them at face value.

    In another GWPF paper Professor Judith Curry points out that the climate may be fundamentally beyond our ability to predict it:

    Arguably the most fundamental challenge with [climate models] lies in the coupling of two chaotic fluids: the ocean and the atmosphere. Weather has been characterised as being in state of deterministic chaos, owing to the sensitivity of weather forecast models to small perturbations in initial conditions of the atmosphere…A consequence of sensitivity to initial conditions is that beyond a certain time the system will no longer be predictable; for weather this predictability timescale is a matter of weeks.

    To describe the Trump administration as “attacking” climate science when it doubts projections out to the end of the century is therefore clearly nonsense. Indeed, the administration should probably be congratulated for recognising the powerlessness of the field in the face of an overwhelmingly complex climate system”.

  • spangled drongo says:

    And by way of proof of CAGW, our bed-wetter-in-chief blith quotes the groaner, quoting a social scientist.

    Not exactly pearls, blith.

    But they did get this bit right:

    “From Malthus to the Millennium Bug, apocalyptic thinking has a poor track record.”

    I wonder how they figure apocalyptic GIGO model projections will be more accurate?

  • spangled drongo says:

    It’s a pity blith and the groaner don’t look out the window, read some actual science and think [logically, not apocalyptically] a bit:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Will Eco-fascism destroy Germany or will they and the world wake up in time?

    For radical greens, it was never about the environment – the environment was a smokescreen for their extreme-left totalitarian political objectives:

  • Neville says:

    Dr Spencer explains how unusually cold temps across the US have caused the recent outbreak of tornadoes.Luckily overall the tornado count is lower today and the trend is lower over the last 65 years.
    That little bit of warming since the end of the LIA has made a lot of difference. Let’s hope the trend continues.

  • Neville says:

    Over half of Greenland’s largest glaciers are either stable or gaining ice. And the Nth Atlantic seems to now be in a cooling trend, plus some scientists think the AMO has also started on the next cooling phase, but I guess only time will tell.
    Even their BBC has reported on some of this over the last few weeks. Many new studies at the link. Note that Rowan Dean has also been reporting on this over the last few weeks at OZ SKY news channel 83.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Denialists always wave cherry-picked short run trends when global warming is a long run phenonema.

      If it was not for global warming, due to Milancovitch cycles, most Greenland glaciers would be stable or gaining ice.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, it warms and it cools.

      Severe Arctic climate variability is well documented.

      “Astute students of climate history recall rapid Arctic warming has happened often and naturally. During the last Ice Age when CO2 concentrations were just half of today’s, 25 abrupt warming events happened. Arctic temperatures rose 9°F, and sometimes as much as 14°F in just 40 years. These rapid warming episodes are now called Dansgaard–Oeschger events…”:

  • Neville says:

    It looks like the idea of so called renewables and growth are just more delusion and fairy tales. Big surprise, NOT. This new study shows that co2 emissions and economic growth are tied together and if we abandon growth of 2 to 3% we must then grasp the dead end of DEGROWTH to get us down to their so called safe (????) levels.

    So why are we listening to stupid pollies, the UN, the IPCC, Labor, Greens, Getup etc who tell us we must embrace their so called renewable strategy although we know this will mean NO measurable change to temp, climate or co2 levels by 2100 and way beyond?

    And the cost to the taxpayers will be horrendous,because economic growth must be changed to degrowth to actually partly achieve their dream. China, India and non OECD countries must be laughing, because they will never follow us down this delusional path to economic ruin.

  • Stu says:

    I have been away, but now back to catch up, and I find nothing has changed, the climate pariahs are still chanting. What is surprising is that in spite of mounting evidence of a serious global problem, folk still seem to find dubious “facts” and “papers” to support their position. Of course most of those are easily dismissed as bunkum and many of the authors as mere commentators rather than scientists (ad hominem I hear you cry). For that is what I see as the problem here. There are tens of thousands of scientists grinding away in narrow fields studying ice or fish or plants etc and the summation of their work is provided by the relatively small group of “climate scientists”. Then there are the scientists (mostly with quals in other fields) who comment but do not publish, and then the definitely not scientific commentators (Jones, Bolt, Abbott, Roberts etc) who pontificate. Finally there are the likes of us here who presumably make no claim to expertise but rely on quote and reference. Not enough credence is given to those who have expertise in this field.

    Climate change and AGW is now accepted as real, not a Chinese hoax and a serious problem to address. What I cannot understand is the sheep like acceptance of the misinformation put about by folk in the pay of fossil fuel interests by people here, what is in it for them I often wonder, Don. Fairly recent court cases proved the cash for comment scenario of radio hacks, but what is in it for the rest. For my part I will be gone before the really serious consequences emerge, but I truly worry on behalf of my grand children, some not yet born. So what if our doom mongering is wrong, what if it is right?

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Climate change and AGW is now accepted as real..”

      You mean consensually, without any empirical evidence, stu?

      If you have managed to stumble on any in your travels, don’t be shy, we are dying to see it.

      But if not, please spare us the pseudo assumption blither.

      Did you notice in your absence that we had an election?

      And the proselytisers were rejected?

      So it looks like even your religious consensus is not as great as you thought.

      Oh, well, back to the drawing board!

    • Boambee John says:


      “I have been away, but now back to catch up, and I find nothing has changed, the climate pariahs are still chanting. ”

      Enough of your criticism of Chris!

  • spangled drongo says:

    BTW, stu, check what effect a $122 trillion Global War on Weather will have on the weather:

    Pity our BS didn’t check it out before he came up with his silly policies.

  • Neville says:

    SD I think our religious friends haven’t got any time for data or evidence, so I think they’re hardly worth a detailed response.
    We have asked them how to mitigate any change to fix their so called CAGW and they just refuse to even attempt to answer. In the past Chris has admitted there is little chance to mitigate any change, but then his religious yearning seem to return and again blots out his reasoning .
    Perhaps they could explain what this new emergency is, so we can check it out and offer them some comfort. I’ve looked at the data and find little to worry about. BS Bill and Tania certainly were a clueless pair and couldn’t answer very simple questions about their concerns.

    • spangled drongo says:

      And Neville, they continue to blame everyone [including, especially, Clive Palmer] but themselves:

      “Mr Hirst, who ran the Liberal Party’s campaign out of its Brisbane headquarters, told The Weekend Australian: “Labor is kidding itself. At this election there was a cashed-up conga line of groups campaigning either for the Labor Party or against the government. This included a number of unions, GetUp and even an advertising campaign by the Victorian Labor government.”

      Trade Minister Simon Birmingham said Mr Shorten had shown he was “delusional” while Queensland Liberal senator James McGrath insisted Mr Shorten had lost “because his policies didn’t reflect the values and aspirations of modern Australians”.

      “Palmer’s campaign was Trump-esque in that it was attacking all other political parties. Bill Shorten is having a real lend of himself and the public if he thinks the reason he lost is Clive Palmer and some evil conspiracy involving a bunch of media moguls sitting around some smoke-filled room,” he said.”

  • Stu says:

    You guys really make me laugh. You live in a cocoon with self reinforcing delusions. Get out some time and check the reality not the Murdoch et al fueled deniosphere. You are lucky you are not actually prominent so unlike the big players, Ball, Watts, Trump etc you will not be reviled By history, merely forgotten. Meantime keep up your mutual back scratching and quoting of false prophets (false profits in some cases clearly) as it gives the rest of us a good laugh. None of your sources represent real science.

    • spangled drongo says:

      When you are fact-free and in a hole, stuey-luv, stop digging.

      You’re beginning to sound like little Greta with Asperger’s.

      Get back when you have something to tell us, hey?

    • Neville says:

      Thanks Stu, you’ve just proved you have no data and evidence to add to your religious hysteria. I’ve provided data from every angle to prove my case and it comes from proper data-bases that are used by the UN, Universities, governments, BOM, CSIRO, etc.
      But we know you are fond of your fantasy world, so return there and retreat to your silly fairy tales and let us continue to check real world data. Religious fanaticism is a curse, but I suppose it gives comfort to a proportion of the population?

      • Stu says:

        FFs, “ I’ve provided data from every angle to prove my case and it comes from proper data-bases that are used by the UN, Universities, governments, BOM, CSIRO, etc”, Bullshit, prove that.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Stu, you could argue that Neville puts in too many links, but surely not that he fails to put in links to databases that are widely used. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I can’t remember your using any links that support your own views. If I am actually wrong on this I’m prepared to bet a bob or two that he outlinks you!

          And Neville’s sources are links to real science, but not the kind of real science that you like.

          • Stu says:

            Don, my point is simple. The organisations that he refers to for his data ALL have reached opposite conclusions about that data compared with what he claims. That points to cherry picking of segments of data to justify dodgy outcomes on the part of the people he usually refers to. As for reliable sources I point you to BOM, NASA, NOAA, THE UN IPCC, UK Met Bureau etc, etc all of which follow a line totally at odds with people in this very small cocoon. Check out what they publish. I have thousands of pages of their output which are clearly too numerous to post here but are readily available from those sources.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Stu, Neville quotes official sources. It may be that BoM, for example, has two views about something, or that what it writes here is not consistent with what it writes there. But Neville’s links are to just the sources you rely on. How do you deal with that?

  • Neville says:

    Check out this article from just 7 years ago and start to think. The HOT NT and cold Tas have Australia’s lowest life exp and Canberra the highest. Why is it so? Plus infant deaths per thousand are both higher in Tas and the NT as well, but lowest in SA. I better check the latest update from the ABS for 2018.

    “Tasmanians have the second lowest life expectancy in the country, according to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today. A baby boy born today in Tasmania could expect to live to 78.3 years, according to the ABS, while a baby girl can expect to live to 82.5 years. In 2001, Tasmania’s life expectancy for males was 70 years and 81.2 years for females, the ABS said. Only the Northern Territory has lower life expectancy at 74.9 years and 80.5 years respectively, while the Australian Capital Territory boasts the highest at 81 years for males and 84.8 years for females. Nationally, according to the ABS Deaths, Australia, 2011 publication, the male life expectancy average is 79.7 years and 84.2 years for females. Tasmania’s infant mortality rate has increased since the last figures were released for 2010 from 4.1 infant deaths per 1000 live births in 2010, compared with a rate of 4.5 in 2011. In 2001, that figure was 6.2 deaths per 1000 births. The national infant mortality rate for 2011 was 3.8 deaths per 1000 births. The lowest infant mortality rate in Australia in 2011 was South Australia (2.6 deaths per 1000 live births), while the highest was the Northern Territory at 7.6 – down from 10.7 in 2001”.

    Lowest life expectancy in Tasmania

    “Tasmanians have the second lowest life expectancy in the country, according to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today.

    A baby boy born today in Tasmania could expect to live to 78.3 years, according to the ABS, while a baby girl can expect to live to 82.5 years.

    In 2001, Tasmania’s life expectancy for males was 70 years and 81.2 years for females, the ABS said.

    Only the Northern Territory has lower life expectancy at 74.9 years and 80.5 years respectively, while the Australian Capital Territory boasts the highest at 81 years for males and 84.8 years for females.

    Nationally, according to the ABS Deaths, Australia, 2011 publication, the male life expectancy average is 79.7 years and 84.2 years for females.

    Tasmania’s infant mortality rate has increased since the last figures were released for 2010 from 4.1 infant deaths per 1000 live births in 2010, compared with a rate of 4.5 in 2011.

    In 2001, that figure was 6.2 deaths per 1000 births.

    The national infant mortality rate for 2011 was 3.8 deaths per 1000 births.

    The lowest infant mortality rate in Australia in 2011 was South Australia (2.6 deaths per 1000 live births), while the highest was the Northern Territory at 7.6 – down from 10.7 in 2001”.

  • Neville says:

    This govt link is from a 2018 update and OZ life exp is 5th highest in the world for males and 8th highest for females and combined 5th highest. But OZ has much higher immigration levels and our pop has increased from 17.1 mil in 1990 to over 25 mil today.
    But remarkably our life expect is still very high although we have so many new arrivals every year and many from much poorer countries. Our health services are certainly among the best in the world.

  • Neville says:

    Just for Stu,tropical cyclones OZ region since 1970 from the BOM. Severe and non severe and the trend is down. BS Bill told Bolt that the trend is up and Bolt nearly fell off his chair. That’s the same BS Bill who claimed you could fully charge an EV in about 8 to 10 minutes.
    And the last trop SUPER cyclone hit the nth Qld coast over 200 years ago during the LIA. See links below.

    • Stu says:

      Neville, and the response is “so what”. None of what you have quoted disproves a warming world and changing climate. Don’t continue with the mistaken belief that what happens in Oz is necessarily reflective of the larger global problem. You might want to look at the supporting data for Canada, northern Europe and Russia for more enlightenment

  • Stu says:

    Further to the comments by Don this video is worth watching as it demonstrates very well the gap between misquoted stories by bloggers and others and the real science. It also makes the point about following links to actual papers. Very relevant to many of the posts in this blog quoting bloggers who frequently draw unsubstantiated conclusions from misunderstood science reporting.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Thanks for this link, which is worth watching. But remember that it was the Prime Minister of the Maldives who had his Cabinet photographed underwater as a sign to the world that his nation was in trouble. And remember too that the claim that seas are rising because of CO2 emissions is still a hypothesis, not a scientific fact, and that the journal article authors’ conclusions are extrapolations from the present, not data-based conclusions. Yes, there is a great deal of hogwash put out about climate change, not all of it from those terrified of the future unless we take action against climate change. It is the most interesting issue that I have witnessed in my sixty years of being interested in politics.

    • Neville says:

      The Maldives have grown over many thousands of years and are now considered stable and the Kench et al 2005 study seems to be optimistic about the future. Here’s the abstract and link and Co2 Science link summary to the full study. The abstract’s last sentence says it all.

      BTW that undersea cabinet meeting video was the usual nonsense we should expect from the liars and con merchants.

      “A new model of reef-island evolution, based on detailed morphostratigraphic analysis and radiometric dating of three islands in South Maalhosmadulu Atoll, Maldives, is presented. Islands initially formed on a foundation of lagoonal sediments between 5500 and 4500 yr B.P. when the reef surface was as much as 2.5 m below modern sea level. Islands accumulated rapidly during the following 1500 yr, effectively reaching their current dimensions by 4000 yr B.P. Since then the high circum-island peripheral ridge has been subject to seasonal and longer-term shoreline changes, while the outer reef has grown upward, reducing the energy window and confining the islands. This new model has far-reaching implications for island stability during a period of global warming and raised sea level, which will partially reactivate the energy window, although it is not expected to inhibit upward reef growth or compromise island stability”.
      GeoRef Subject

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu, you somehow fail to understand that there are many “expert” claims from either side of the debate and yet there is one easy way you can convince yourself who is right.

      And it is very applicable to your last link.

      It’s called Sea Level Rise.

      It’s out there for everyone to measure and assess for themselves but there is also the Fort Dennison tide gauge which has risen a bare 65mm over the last century while it has possibly settled an equivalent amount.

      Tide gauges can often show SLR when it is only a rise in low tides or median tides but the only rise that affects land dwellers is the rise in high tides. And this is not happening. Our beaches have never been in better condition and sea levels in Moreton Bay are currently lower than they were when I was young.

      Nils Axel Morner is arguably the most knowledgeable scientist on SLR in the world and he says there is nothing happening with SLR to worry about.

      Observations support this theory.

      For someone who claims to be so concerned yet doesn’t bother to look critically for himself simply smacks of someone wanting to believe in a religion, not someone wanting to factually analyse a science.

      Start checking for yourself and then get back to us.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu, try to raise the level of debate beyond this:

      “I met with a lot of young people who had been counselled by local activists on what to say. Some were so scared about the situation they were moved ­almost to tears, but none of them had actually seen the Great Barrier Reef.”

      “What concerned me the most was that all the kids could do was quote slogans,” he says. “In my view it was almost akin to child abuse.”

  • Neville says:

    Stu here’s life exp for Canada 1921 to 2005 and today is just behind OZ. See below link for EU countries life exp 2016.

    Like all OECD countries there has been steady EU improvement over the last 20, 50 and 100 years. Russian life exp dropped after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but recently has started to improve for both sexes.

  • Neville says:

    Here is interesting commentary about Russia, health and life exp. See graph for both sexes down page.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu (and Chris)

    “You guys really make me laugh. You live in a cocoon with self reinforcing delusions.”

    It would seem that there are two “cocoon[s] with self reinforcing delusions” on display here. You will never accept that there might be any doubt about what you believe. The rest of us listen to you telling us we are deluded, but observe that reality does not always match your beliefs.

    Yet both of you continue with your blind faith.

    The ultimate denialists!

  • Neville says:

    Here is another attempt to calculate SLR and the kriged result is very close to Ole Humlum’s data for the tide gauges. IOW nearly identical to the SLR over the last century.

  • Chris Warren says:


    If “… the claim that seas are rising because of CO2 emissions is still a hypothesis, not a scientific fact,” what is a alternative scientific hypothesis.

    I do not think anyone is denying that seas are rising – most dispute is as to the rate of sea level rising, and whether there is acceleration?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Poor ol’ blith.

      Still can’t see the forest for the trees?

      The good news for the fakery?

      The bleedin’ obvious for the BS?

      The beaches for the blither?

      Please do a little personal research for a change instead of just believing your prophets.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Rate of sea level rise – recently – is 5 mm p/yr.

      Good science here particularly as he starts from 1750’s, except for those the author describes as around 2% of right wingers who have a disposition to be doubtful.

      • Neville says:

        Professor Humlum has checked the latest tide gauge data and found SLR of 1mm to 1.5mm a year or 4 inches to 6 inches a century, or little change compared to the previous 100 years. Satellite’s show about 3.2mm a year after adjustments or about 13 inches per century, but this is not observed at tide gauges.
        Kench, Duvat , Morner and others show most atoll islands or island countries are stable or growing in size as my link above for the Maldives points out and have grown this way for thousands of years.
        Sydney SLR is less than 1mm a yr and Brisbane is about the same. That 5mm a yr claim bloke also says that SLR is unstoppable anyway and I wonder if his claim really is supported by observation or just more FUTURE modelling? Like making it up as you go along?

        • spangled drongo says:

          “…. and I wonder if his claim really is supported by observation…”

          Neville, like blith, there is more SLR in his bed than in the ocean.

          The alarmists may have “experts”, but the sceptics have the data.

        • spangled drongo says:

          And Neville, get this:

          “… the author describes as around 2% of right wingers who have a disposition to be doubtful.”

          Where have we heard that before?

          That’s what the alarmist whackos thought prior to the election, too.

          Some people never learn.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Chris, you left out the key phrase: ‘seas are rising because of CO2 emissions’. My statement stands.

      • Chris Warren says:


        If you look at my post -time stamped
        June 3, 2019 at 7:42 pm

        You will see the key words “seas are rising because of CO2 emissions” were there.

        In the original, were you agreeing with this “because of CO2 emissions” line, or do you still consider it “not a scientific fact”?

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Chris, I beg your your pardon. I don’t know why I missed it.

          To answer your central question. There is no evidence of which I aware that correctly and confidently links rising sea levels to rising CO2 emissions. As plenty of other evidence (Neville has offered the links) indicates, the seas have been rising steadily and slowly for the last thousand years, long before CO2 emissions could have had any effect at all.

          Is the rise accelerating? Too short a time period to be sure, and part of the problem is the difference between tide-gauge data and satellite data. Certainly the Pacific Islands cries that they are being inundated by rising seas are not borne out by the BoM data. Nor is the Maldives cry.

          I think we are trying to extrapolate from far too small a trend. The longer the trend the better.

  • Neville says:

    NOAA has a selection of tide gauge data at the link, but many of the sites are not long enough to provide good data. Humlum and others have chosen sites that have a long history of relative sea level rise measurements.
    RSL data and satellite data are measuring different things and RSL data are concerned with actual measurement as it impacts every individual gauge, or town or city etc. IOW where people actually live.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Relative sea level is relevant for assessing impact on coastal areas.

      Satellite data is relevant for assessing the impact of global warming.

      The difference is caused by land heat expansion and tectonic movement.

      Due to different coefficients of expansion, land may well expand more than water.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “The difference is caused by land heat expansion and tectonic movement.”

    And our blith makes assumptions about assumptions.


    How “scientific” is that?


  • spangled drongo says:

    Fraud in climate science [fakery at the bakery] was made evident 10 years ago in the Climategate emails but it is still rampant and increasing.

    And somehow the “experts” continue to get away with it:

    • Stu says:

      Here we go again. “Fraud in climate science [fakery at the bakery] was made evident 10 years ago in the Climategate emails but it is still rampant and increasing.”
      That whole “Climategate” thing was investigated multiple times resulting in a total rebuttal of the conspiracy idea. It was found (the negative claims) to be a classic case of cherry picking, misquotation and mischief. I agree that Watts does not accept that, but he is not a scientist and has an agenda.

      But of course the article in Watts posting is not about Climategate, you just made that link yourself. It is actually a long puff piece by the guy we thought had fallen off a cliff, the infamous Lord Monckton of Brenchley. You know, the chap who claimed to sit in the House of Lords but doesn’t, and has been ordered to desist. He has dressed it up like a proper published academic paper complete with lots of stats, graphs and charts with references. The papers he cites seem to be on the whole fair enough, but not not necessarily supportive of what he claims or even relevant. So, show me a credible place where this paper may have been published and I will guarantee to be impressed.

      To back up what I say, check out this video which does a much better job than I can of questioning Monckton’s approach. It is worth following to the end, and in fact to the follow on clips which continue the destruction. If you claim to have an open mind you should watch. It is very fair and balanced and relies on facts.

      I am sure Don would not be impressed by the false academic portrayal Monckton puts up. The man is a consummate theatrical performer, I will grant him that.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Try dealing with the specific subject – y’know, the message – for a change, stu, instead of just shooting the messenger in your usual ad hom style.

        And if you believe that Climategate was honestly investigated, I have a couple of big bridges to sell you cheap.

        You don’t even get that this fakery all stems from the same basic source.

      • Boambee John says:


        “The papers he cites seem to be on the whole fair enough, but not not necessarily supportive of what he claims or even relevant.”

        So, a bit like some of the links you post, then?

        • Stu says:

          SD, Did you actually watch the video? I suspect not. It is not ad hominem, it is fact checking.

          Don, did you watch it? As a man who played in the published science space, what do you think about the credibility of what Monckton writes?

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, you ignore the fact that Monckton made very specific points about how his paper was not dealt with in a scientific manner and just criticised Monckton instead.

            IOW ignored the message and shot the messenger.

            That message was a shocking revelation of how religious “science” works these days.

            Here is just a small part of it::

            “We pointed out that, since neither of the reviewers had actually reviewed our paper, the editor had received no indication that there was anything wrong with it, wherefore he should publish it without any further delay. He refused, saying that he would only publish the paper if the reviewers said it should be published. He added that he had telephoned a third party, who had told him not to publish the paper. We asked for that review in writing, so that we could comment on it and respond to any specific scientific points it made, but were refused.”

            And you simply ignored it.

            But heaped more abuse on Monckton.


  • Neville says:

    Contrary to all the left wing’s lies and exaggerations a warmer world actually saves lives and makes us more prosperous. All the data shows that this is the case.

    “A Warmer Earth Saves Lives, and Makes the World More Prosperous”
    By David Simon
    June 04, 2019

    “NASA data show that the earth’s temperature has risen by only 1.01° C since 1880. Yet this very slight warming trend may have reversed or slowed to an even more microscopic pace: 2018 was cooler than 2017, and 2017 was cooler than 2016.

    It may be politically toxic to admit, but we should hope that the earth continues to warm.

    In 2015, the prestigious medical journal The Lancet reported that worldwide, cold kills over 17 times more people than heat. A group of 22 scientists examined over 74 million deaths in the United States, China, Brazil, and ten other countries in 1985-2012. They found that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent. And of these temperature-related deaths, “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent.

    A warmer earth thus saves numerous lives worldwide. Saving lives outweighs any harm that global warming might cause.

    Saving lives, moreover, has economic as well as humanitarian benefits. Saving lives increases population growth. Population growth is a critical driver in raising incomes, pulling people out of poverty, and increasing prosperity worldwide.

    In the short run, population growth crowds our cities and stretches family and government budgets. But over time, population growth produces more innovation and greater economic growth. Paul Romer, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, put it this way: “The virtuous circle between population and ideas accounts for the acceleration of growth.”

    People, as economist Julian Simon explained, are the “ultimate resource.” His work and the Cato Institute’s new Simon Abundance Index developed by economist Gale Pooley and globalization expert Marian Tupy show that as the world’s population has increased, “energy, food, materials and metals … have become substantially more abundant… “[E]very additional human being born on our planet appears to have made resources proportionately more plentiful for the rest of us.”

    Climate alarmists tell a different story about the impact of global warming on human life. Perhaps their most dramatic claim is that a warmer earth means more deadly natural disasters. But the data show the opposite. In 2019, EMDAT, The International Disaster Database, reported that since the 1920s, the number of people killed annually by natural disasters has declined by over 80 percent. This very beneficial trend as the earth has warmed is particularly amazing because the world’s population simultaneously quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion.

    The alarmists also disregard a key point: even the most severe restrictions on carbon emissions will have almost zero impact on the earth’s temperature. Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels, for example, calculated that even if the United States eliminated all carbon emissions – which would require Americans to give up fossil fuels and, indeed, to stop breathing (to cease exhaling carbon dioxide) – it would only reduce global warming by a negligible 0.052° C by 2050.

    Instead of wasting untold trillions on draconian command and control Green New Deal programs that will destroy our economy without materially lowering the earth’s temperature, we should embrace and celebrate global warming. A warmer earth saves lives and makes the world more prosperous”.

    David M. Simon is a Chicago lawyer. The views expressed in this article are his own and not those of the law firm with which he is affiliated. For more, please see

  • Neville says:

    Here is the ABC Catalyst story that includes the fact that just 4,000 years ago sea levels at Sydney were 1.5 metres or 5 feet higher than today. This SLR is a common finding around the world at the end of the warmer Holocene climate optimum, about 4,000 yrs bp. Click transcript button for full story.

    Narration:” This is a story of a most remarkable death, a long time ago, and a very unremarkable location.

    Dr Paul Willis: On this spot 4000 years ago there was a particularly grizzly death. It was a very violent event that is the earliest recorded ritualised killing in Australia.

    Forensic science and modern indigenous culture have combined to work out what happened here at the Octavia Street bus stop.

    Narration: The startling discovery occurred here at Narrabeen on Sydney’s northern beaches in January 2005 when contractors were digging a trench for electricity cabling. In doing so, they unearthed the remains of a skeleton

    After a trip to Glebe Coroner’s Morgue the remains were turned over to archaeologist Jo MacDonald …and a forensic process followed…

    Dr Macdonald: A find exactly like this has never been found before in Australia.

    Narration: The first thing that Jo needed to do was to establish the time of death. A small sample was sent to the Lawrence Livermore National laboratory in California for Carbon dating. And the result was astounding.

    Dr Macdonald: The date came back at about 4000 years ago, which was quite spectacular we were very surprised.

    Narration: 4000 years ago when Narrabeen Man was wondering around this area the sea levels were up to 1.5 metres higher than they are today.

    Paul: So that spit would have been much narrower. The water levels in the Narrabeen lagoon would also have been higher and it would have acted like a saline estuary.

    Narration: And there were aspects of the find that aroused Jo’s suspicions: this was no ordinary burial.

    Dr Macdonald: No certainly it doesn’t appear to be a burial at all.

    Paul: What told you that?

    Dr Macdonald: His posture he certainly looked as though he’d been flung on the ground he had one arm across his neck and his head had been shifted off the top of his veritable column// Most formal burials that you find in Australia are in particular postures and certainly wasn’t one of them.

    Narration: To physical archaeologist Denise Donlon, there were many features that indicated this was the skeleton of an aboriginal man.

    Dr Denise Donlon: The shape of the base of the nose which is particularly Aboriginal and of course the very large teeth and strong tooth ware indicating a traditional Aboriginal diet.

    Narration: Denise helped excavate the skeleton back in 2005.

    Dr Donlon: I estimated from his limb bones that he was 183cm tall, which is about six foot in the old terminology and this is very tall for an Aboriginal man and the average height for Aboriginal men was five foot six.

    Paul: So he really was quite tall?

    Dr Donlon: Yes unusually so.

    Allan Madden: Even when we looked at this guy, this guy seemed to be very thick boned; he was very tall for Aboriginal people that were in this region here in and around the Ku-ring-gai Garrigal mob.

    Narration: And from early in the excavations, it was obvious that Narrabeen Man had met a violent end…

    Paul: So what wounds have you found?

    Dr Donlon: The most amazing wound was found here in this lumber vertebra and it was a spear tip embedded in the vertebra. And you see it actually here in this bag.

    Paul: What does that tell you?

    Dr Donlon: Well that would have actually passed through his abdomen from the front and the side and would have caused immense damage to the abdominal cavity.

    Allan Madden: The most common spear around this area was the fishing spear, you had ceremonial spears here, then you had hunting spears, for different animals that you hunted there were different tips that would penetrate and couldn’t come out and that was the same with death spears.

    And I think this feller got the bloody lot of them.

    Paul: Death spears are of composite construction that is they’ve got a central wooden shaft and along and embedded in resin along two sides of the head would be a number of small sharp pieces of stone like this called backed artefacts; there could be a couple of dozen in the head of a death spear. And Narrabeen man was the victim of at least three of this kind of spear.

    Narration: Richard Fullagar has been taking a close look at the wear patterns and fractures on the 17 backed artefacts found at the grave site.

    Paul: Now these are really tiny little chips of rock how much damage could they actually do to a human?

    Dr Richard Fullagar: Well in this case they killed him.

    Narration: One spear entered from the front, cutting the intestines and a kidney and lodging in the spin. A second spear was thrown from behind and also lodged in the spin. A third spear ricocheted off the skull, which was also hit with another sharp implement. Other artefacts suggest more spears were embedded in the body but they did not do any damage to the bones.

    Allan Madden: He hasn’t been initiated; if he was he would have his front two tooth been removed or knocked out as the case may be. And that was in and around this area in the Sydney basin that was the initiation rituals that a lot of the young boys went through to become men.

    Paul: As you can see Narrabeen Man has all of his upper front teeth and he’s thought to be thirty to forty years of age, so either he’s not from the local area or the practice of knocking out front teeth at initiation had not started 4000 years ago.

    Narration: Perhaps another clue to his origin can be found by examining the contents of his stomach that were recovered inside to the body.

    Dr Donlon: In the stomach region we found these tiny fish bones which must have been his last meal, it’s interesting because this is also consistent with stable isotope analysis which was done of the bone which also showed he had a marine diet.

    Paul: So this suggests he was a coastal dweller?

    Dr Donlon: Yes absolutely

    Paul: So Narrabeen Man was a tall Aboriginal male who lived by the coast but not necessarily in that area and who died a violent ritualised death some 4,000 years ago.

    But who was he and why was he killed in such a horrific manner?

    Allan Madden: He must have done something very bad to the mobs here, for what he would have done that would only be speculation on my behalf, but the way the wounds are and what we see of him it would have been something really bad”.

  • Stu says:

    Here you again. Putting such faith in a paper filled with assumed links of cause and effect with no citation or actual data is classic. One example, “deaths from natural disasters are down” – and this “beneficial trend has occurred as the earth has warmed” means climate change is good, is rabbit out of a hat stuff. It is just the opinions of a lawyer with a beef. Please stick to science. It is ok for you and I to disagree on the meaning of stuff here but it is not ok to quote opinion pieces by a non expert in support of your own questionable positions. When I point you to Peter Hadfield you will note he never claims to be an expert but he does provide all the links to back the case and to debunk the non scientific bloggers he is questioning.

    As the paper says “David M. Simon is a Chicago lawyer. “.

    Have you ever noted how almost all of the denier field blogs are published by non scientists? Meantime the actual scientists are too busy doing real work to even bother to comment on the utterances of Monckton, Watts, Roberts, Ball, Morano,Molyneux et al. The problem is that many of these people are linked to organisations like CATO, Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute, Institute for Public Affairs, GWPF etc that have major funding from groups with a vested interest in delaying policy change in the climate area. At the least this puts a question mark on the reliability of their pronouncements.

    On the one hand you have these fringe outfits and on the other all the global academic and government establishments doing and publishing real science. Thank goodness for the likes of Hadfield and others with the time and knowledge to pull the rug on the light weights.

    And of course we can expect the learned Malcolm Roberts to step back into the ring as soon as the Senate seats are declared. It should be a fun ride. Q&A here we go.

    • Boambee John says:


      “On the one hand you have these fringe outfits and on the other all the global academic and government establishments doing and publishing real science. Thank goodness for the likes of Hadfield and others with the time and knowledge to pull the rug on the light weights.”

      And don’t forget Michael Man and that absolutely brilliant Hockey Stick graph, utter conclusive proof of Goebbels Worming.

      Oh, sorry, a couple of Canadians demolished that one. Sort of pulled the rug on a lightweight?

  • Neville says:

    Dr Spencer and Willis Eschenbach try and school another flat earth cult leader who resorts to profanity, when they try to explain his error. Yet there are always plenty of donkeys who follow these fools.

  • Stu says:

    Re your stuff on Monckton, you left out what an erudite and creative chap he is. He wrote “…demonstrating that a single, elementary, catastrophic error of physics is the sole cause of the absurdly overblown predictions of warmer weather on the basis of which scientifically-illiterate governments have been panicked by downright evil lobby groups and profiteers of doom into causing untold death, disease, educational disadvantage, industrial destruction and financial ruin worldwide.” My dog, I had no idea the problem was so bad and that tens of thousands of scientists could be so easily fooled.

    Just maybe it is stuff like that which makes credible journals wary of publishing his “work”.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Just maybe it is stuff like that which makes credible journals wary of publishing his “work”.’

      Why don’t they let him explain what that “single, elementary, catastrophic error of physics” is.

      Could it possibly be because they can’t refute it?

      If they could refute his work they would like nothing better than to publish it.

      It’s when they think they can’t that they offer pathetic excuses as to why they refuse to publish.

      And the fact that the like minded go along with this very unprofessional conduct, speaks volumes about the alarmist fakery.

      They simply don’t want to debate because they can’t support their “science”.

      • Stu says:

        You overlook the fact he has “published” via his old mate Watts. Presumably therefore someone has considered his evidence for the catastrophic error, but I see nothing. Bear in mind also he has been banging on about this for quite some time. He told the Heartland mob more than a year ago he was going to have the IPCC crowd hauled away to face trial. Oh well, never mind.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Monckton has tried for years to get published by these fakers who keep him out with lies and deception and you consider that details at WUWT of what he has been put through is “published”?

          Don’t look now but your stu-pidity is starting to show again.

  • Neville says:

    Stu if you bothered to click on David Simon’s link I provided above you would’ve found the 74+ million deaths Lancet study and Our world in data link etc. These back up everything he stated in his article.
    We know you don’t like real world data and evidence, but most of us don’t want to live in your fantasy world either. Wake up to yourself.

    • Stu says:

      Not challenging his numbers , just the cause and effect assumptions drawn from those numbers without justification.

  • Stu says:

    SD, in case you had not noticed Monckton is not an acknowledged researcher in any field, let alone climate science, no wonder publishers are wary. Perhaps if he spent some time to get credentials in his chosen field they might take him more seriously. The people who do get published have spent years in the apprenticeship of academia and research to earn the right to be listened to, partly through peer respect.

    As I recall Monckton’s credentials extend all the way out to a Bachelors degree in classics and a diploma in journalism, not quite what a publisher might look to for confirmation of quality work in the field of climate science. But, I hear you say, he is like Galileo so must be heard. Nah, I don’t think he is in quite that league, a polymath he is not, sorry.

    • Stu says:

      And I should have added, he is a great speaker/presenter. He almost had me fooled for a while with his graphs and fancy equations, but then I realised even he does not actually believe his own bullshit, so why should I. Just look at the places that call him to speak, mostly fringe players who recognise his entertainment value. Prove me wrong!

      • spangled drongo says:

        Deal with the message, stu-pid.

        • Stu says:

          That is not very nice, but not surprising.

          • Boambee John says:


            You (and Chris) make a practice of accusing others of cherry picking data, not accepting the interpretations you favour (to use your words, “Not challenging his numbers , just the cause and effect assumptions drawn from those numbers without justification.”), and abusing all who dissent of being “denialists” who are happily condemning their grandchildren to a life of misery.

            Being offended at being called stu-pid is just pathetic.

            Grow up, develop some critical faculties, and make your own judgements, rather than simply parroting the judgements of your (cherry picked) favourites.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “That is not very nice, but not surprising.”

            Dealing with the messenger, stu, is what’s “not very nice”.

            Dealing with the message, OTOH, is what’s known as science.

            Brush up on it.

            Who knows? You might find it interesting.

  • Boambee John says:


    ” The actual result was a major surprise, and a dreadful one for Bill Shorten and his team. So, how did they get it so wrong?”

    A combination of arrogance, stupidity and over-confidence?

  • Stu says:

    BJ said “You (and Chris) make a practice of accusing others of cherry picking data, not accepting the interpretations you favour (to use your words, “Not challenging his numbers , just the cause and effect assumptions drawn from those numbers without justification.”), ”Being offended at being called stu-pid is just pathetic.”

    Interesting that you equate the two, says a lot really. And how does a drop in deaths from natural disasters prove that climate change is a good thing, interesting leap?

    Have a nice day mate, keep your hair on and learn to smile occasionally.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Something more to improve your science philosophy, stu.

      Let’s see if you can comment on the message rather than the messenger:

    • Boambee John says:


      “Interesting that you equate the two, says a lot really. And how does a drop in deaths from natural disasters prove that climate change is a good thing, interesting leap?”

      Well, Gerbil Warmists keep telling us that natural disasters will increase with warming. Surely a decrease in the associated damage caused by the increased number of disasters can’t be all bad?

      Think about what you post, don’t just regurgitate talking points.

      • Stu says:

        I won’t call you stupid, but you don’t appear to be very bright.?

        • Boambee John says:

          Your comment confirms your stu-pidity.

          Not familiar with sarcasm?

          • Boambee John says:


            “Interesting that you equate the two, says a lot really. And how does a drop in deaths from natural disasters prove that climate change is a good thing, interesting leap?”

            Actuslly, the leap was the one that you carefully edited out:

            “abusing all who dissent of being “denialists” who are happily condemning their grandchildren to a life of misery.

            Being offended at being called stu-pid is just pathetic.”

            You carefully omitted to mention that I was linking your habit of insulting others with the insult “stu-pid”.

            As a true cherry picking gerbil warmist, you linked my response to your attempted insults with a separate issue.


        • Stu says:

          That is wonderfully rich piece of word salad coupled with complex mathematics that I certainly can’t follow and I expect you cannot either. And that I suspect is a deliberate ploy on Moncktons part.

          For less scientifically literate people it is generally easier to stick to the kind of explanation of feedback contained in this paper, which don’t rely on fancy maths which really only has relevance within complex computer models of the global climate system, quite a different task.

          As for the first part of Monckton’s piece, he makes lots of broad claims which are open to refutation. For example the issue of smelters closing is more complex than merely energy pricing. Just consider recent changes to import tariffs in USA to protect/revive those industries there from import competition from places that have cheaper labour, lower code standards etc rather than simply energy pricing. Remember this is happening at a time the USA claims to have an abundance of cheap energy but still needs to price the competitors out. Note that Trump has so far given Australia a free pass on that one.

          The issue of life expectancy in sub-saharan Africa is more complex than the availability of light bulbs powered by coal. It is in fact the case that many third world places are jumping from a non electric state (no grid etc) to localised renewable energy facilities and bypassing the expense of creating power grids where there are none. This is also happening in parts of India. Anyhow other factors such as provision of pre and post natal care, availability of drugs and even clean drinking water are very significant also. As for the deaths from particulates from fires one has to also consider the related deaths from particulates emanating from coal and diesel powered plants.

          As for his accusations of fraud, he does not seem to be having much success prosecuting the case. It is several years since he made the threats but so far as I know there have been no cases started. It is probably for show because to take it further would require naming people and organisations which might provide a backlash. We shall see. Of course it could be like the Steyn/Mann and Weaver/Ball cases where the litigants failed because the judge ruled in part that the statements (of the climate deniers) were not defamatory because “no one could take them seriously. In the Ball case the judge, citing a list of careless inaccuracies in Balls article said it lacked “a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory”. A hollow victory. See here for the ref to this.

          I am sure you will find plenty to argue with here so I will leave it there.

          Have a pleasant evening good fellow.

          • Chris Warren says:


            It is not real mathematics.

            Just a schizophrenic living in a fog of cryptic symbols.

          • Boambee John says:


            “It is not real mathematics.”

            As a mathematician, perhaps you could enlighten us on some of the unreal elements discussed?

  • Chris Warren says:

    More science to expose denialists.

    From BBC.

    • Stu says:

      Simple and brilliant.

    • Boambee John says:

      How many ppm of CO2 in the tube?

      The CO2 was expanding as it went from the cylinder into the tube, therefore lowering the temperature in the tube. Effect on the IR camera?

      Simple or simplistic?

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee John

        I do not think the cylinder was meant to model the atmosphere or set the ppm at any particular level.

        It was just to show that CO2 traps infrared. This is the take home message.

        Today, if the atmospheric CO2 could be concentrated as pure CO2 it would be over 14″ thick (half natural, half anthropogenic). The BBC tube is somewhat longer.

        It shows that CO2 is a strong absorber of infrared.

        It is a truely informative video which should get people thinking.

        • Boambee John says:


          I am quite sure that it was not intended to model the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 in that cylinder would have been very high.

          What it demonstrates (assuming that the IR camera was not affected by the lower temperature in the cylinder) is that if you make an obstruction thick enough, it will block the line of “sight”. Yes, CO2 thaps IR, but the real question is what is the effect at very low (ppm) levels. It would take a better designed experiment to do that. The video is rather crude propaganda.

          Repeat it with high concentration water vapour, the effect will be stronger.

          Your reference to a 14 inch thick layer of CO2 is not relevant to the real world. A 14 inch thick layer of solid CO2 would be very cold.

          • Boambee John says:


            PS, how thick would the layer of water vapour be if it were to be concentrated in the same way as your CO2 example? Water vapour is a stronger IR absorber than CO2.

          • Chris Warren says:

            That is not the point. Whether infrared radiation is absorbed is a statistical issue proportional to the number of hits along a path. If the path is 14″ and there are 100 hits, the same result can occur over a much more diverse path – 14 kilometers if there are also 100 hits in that direction.

            This only varies if the concentration is horizontal.

            Water vapour would have a stronger effect, and the amount of water vapour is increasing.

          • Boambee John says:

            “Water vapour would have a stronger effect, and the amount of water vapour is increasing.”

            Does this mean that we must de-waterise the economy as well as de-carbon (dioxide) ise it?

            Ban di-hydrogen monoxide!

          • Chris Warren says:

            Reducing non-water vapour GHG’s is all that is necessary because this will automatically reduce the unnatural water vapour caused by GHGs.


          • Boambee John says:

            A circular argument, no matter what the problem, “carbin” is the answer!

            Broaden your outlook a bit.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Nothing circular – simple cause and effect.

            There is a chain – less CO2 – less temp – less Water Vapour – less temp – less outgassing – less CO2 – etc

          • spangled drongo says:

            Got any evidence of that, blith?

            Or do you just feel it in your water?

            Just because you develop more water doesn’t mean that everyone else does.

  • spangled drongo says:

    I’ve been flat out all week spending long hours in the bush doing annual fauna surveys and have only just finished.

    I am pleased to report that our vulnerable/near-threatened Albert’s Lyrebird numbers are holding up and have even increased slightly.

    Coming home to more cli-sci discussions I notice stu’s response to the moral importance of trying to get the science right particularly WRT the most critical aspect, namely relative sensitivity to a doubling of CO2, is to describe it as “word salad” even though he admits he doesn’t understand it.

    But he describes a kiddy-experiment that has nothing to do with the complexities of real world climate as “Simple and brilliant.”

    Stu, your concept of the real world is seriously shrinking.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu and blith in their confused states consider water vapour [our greatest GHG] to be a positive feedback.

    If we had positive feedbacks of that extent the earth would not be habitable.

    Water vapour absorbs and transports LW radiation as latent heat, away from the surface to the top of the atmosphere.
    Their assumption is that the LW absorbed by water vapour causes GHE warming simply because some so called “GHG” has absorbed it. The truth however is the exact opposite. Water vapour removes LW IR or thermal radiation, if you prefer, as latent heat.
    The effect of latent heat removal is cooling, not warming.

    Water vapour is a negative feedback mechanism.

    Also the cooling caused by clouds during the day is far more negative than the warming by clouds at night.

    GHG cooling.

    • spangled drongo says:

      I should also have mentioned that earth’s climate is highly regulated with strong negative feedback from the oceans.

      Convection physics processes that are substantial players along with radiative physics.

    • Stu says:

      Really! And BTW you left out albedo effects of clouds.

      I am disappointed you guys that think this is all part of a plot for world domination have not yet started promoting the movement to revert to the Imperial measurement system like is happening in USA.

      • Boambee John says:


        When did the US move away from the Imperial measurement system?

        • Stu says:

          It is actually complicated, the US did officially adopt the metric system in the 70’s but has not really pushed it. Many of the industries work in metric and many of their consumer goods are metric eg 200ml drink but also print the hard conversion equivalent in ounces so as not to frighten the animals. And of course they still use gallons US not the imperial kind. And like UK they use miles and temperatures in Fahrenheit. Total balls up really. And of course the whole world uses feet in aviation, something about US dominance.

          The thing is that there is a movement trying to stop any further erosion and wind back the clock where they have adopted metric for sensible reasons. But curiously they dont seem to worry about the dollar and are not promoting a return to the pound. And we wont mention the medical arena and drug quantities etc.

          Why it is funny that is that the clip I saw tried to tie it all to some dreadful world plot resulting from the french revolution. Some of the same language as used by those arguing against the established science of climate change. Hence my expectation you might jump on board if I gave you the info.

          • Boambee John says:


            I suggest a cup of tea and a good lie down. If you want to quote some crazies, please do so. If I thought it might open your mind, I would dig out some of the failed prophecies of the crazier environuts, but I have better things to do in life.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Really! And BTW you left out albedo effects of clouds.”

        Your “grasp” of cli-sci even when I use simple terms says it all, stu.

        What do you think “Also the cooling caused by clouds during the day is far more negative than the warming by clouds at night” might possibly encompass?

        • Stu says:

          There you go again. All I said was you did not mention albedo effect. I did not ascribe any result one way or the other. Perhaps you are hyper sensitive!

          • spangled drongo says:

            What do you suppose “the cooling caused by clouds during the day” is, if not albedo effect, stu?

  • Boambee John says:


    “It is not real mathematics.”

    As a mathematician, perhaps you could enlighten us on some of the unreal elements discussed?


    Stu thinks that I am “not very bright”, but I am twying sooo hard to improve. Your tutorial on the errors in Moncton’s mathemayics would be weeally helpful. When can I expect to see it?

    PS, could you also cover Boyle’s Law.

    • spangled drongo says:

      BJ, stu and blith just worship this sort of “science” that supports their religion:

      • Stu says:

        Yep, the Trump admin had been undermining every area of government work including parks. Do you wonder why their signs change.

        “While not surprising, it’s still troubling that nearly all of the bipartisan experts serving on the National Park System Advisory Board felt compelled to resign in protest over the misguided policies of the Trump administration’s Department of the Interior (DOI).

        The fact that these experts, who care deeply about our national parks, would resign en masse in frustration points to the disfunction and the disrespect this administration has shown our nation’s parks and public lands.

        One council member, former Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles, told Alaska Public Radio that DOI has “showed no interest in learning about or continuing to use the forward-thinking agenda of science, the effect of climate change, protections of the ecosystem, education.”

        This latest blow underscores the administration’s continuing anti-conservation agenda and its strong preference for drilling, mining and logging over recreation, wildlife and conservation values.

        These national public lands, owned by all Americans and managed on their behalf by the National Park Service and other Interior agencies, show off America’s grandeur in glorious and compelling landscapes in every corner of the United States. Protecting our parks, wildlife refuges and waterways for future generations is an essential role of these agencies.

        It’s ironic that the administration carefully planned to keep national parks open in the event of a government shutdown — to avoid the appearance of not caring about parks. But this window-dressing can’t hide the obvious disdain for public lands that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and President Trump have displayed repeatedly over the past year.

        To mention a few of the most egregious examples, President Trump and Secretary Zinke have:

        Supported oil drilling in one of the last truly pristine wild areas on Earth, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
        Proposed an increase of more than 100 percent for entrance fees at some of America’s most popular national parks, which will freeze out some families with modest incomes.
        Rolled back protections for national monuments in Utah to make it easier to mine and drill in these lands.
        Opened the door to uranium mining in 1 million acres of land next to the Grand Canyon and other national parks.
        Budgeted drastic cuts for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which enables Americans in virtually every county in the United States to access public land and enjoy the outdoors.
        Allowed copper mining that likely would pollute the watershed that feeds the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the most popular wilderness area in the United States and home to the beloved Boy Scout high adventure camp, the Northern Tier.
        The mass resignations from the advisory board also illustrate a larger trend. The Union of Concerned Scientists recently released a report that reveals and documents the “unprecedented level of stalled and disbanded scientific advisory committees, cancelled meetings, and dismissed experts” during year one of the Trump administration.

        The National Park System Advisory Board, established in 1935, is supposed to advise the National Park Service director and the secretary of the Interior “on matters relating to the National Park Service, the National Park System, and … the designation of national historic landmarks and national natural landmarks,” according to its website.

        So it’s shameful that scientists and natural resource professionals have been locked out of their advisory role at the agency that manages land on behalf of all Americans.

        Apparently, the only voices that matter are those of the extractive industries that hope to mine, drill and log our public lands so a few private interests can profit.

        For more than a century, Americans have explored the great outdoors through our national parks and public lands. Let’s hope that Secretary Zinke remembers that these places have value for recreation, conservation and the American spirit that we must preserve for future generations.

        Jamie Williams is president of The Wilderness Society. Follow him on Twitter @JWilliamsTWS.
        Yep, two sides to every story. The US parks admin has been under assault by Trump forces like other parts of the administration. This leads to changes in their pronouncements, obviously.”

        • Boambee John says:


          Do you think that the reality that the glaciers will not be “gone by 2020” might have something to do with the signs being removed?

          Or do you continue to deny reality?

      • stu says:

        And I should have added.

        “Glacier National Park is perhaps one of the best places in America to witness the impact that global warming is having on the delicate ecosystems of the world. Once lined with over 150 glaciers, the park only features about 25 glaciers today, and fears abound that even that number may be rapidly declining.
        Even more concerning still, many estimates have the park’s glaciers totally disappearing in the next 30 years.
        Such catastrophic events would mean not only bad news for humans who come to the park to enjoy its natural beauty and stunning views. The loss of Glacier National Park’s glaciers would have wide-ranging effects on insects, wildlife, and ultimately, many people who have never even visited the park.
        Global Warming Effects in Glacier National Park
        The signs of global warming taking place in Glacier National Park are, frankly, undeniable. Not only have the vast majority of the glaciers that existed a century ago ceased to exist, but the remaining glaciers are all steadily melting and retreating.
        Many streams in the area, dependent on the glaciers’ snowmelt, are reaching peak spring flows much earlier than in the past, and are drying up much earlier in the summer than they used to. Such drastic changes threaten the life of fish and insects; the Bull Trout, for example, used to be ubiquitous, but recent declines in populations have forced them into protected status in the park. As you might have read about here, the rare Stonefly is also facing extinction due to climate change.
        But these impacts go beyond the park’s native species, too. Glaciers are essentially large, frozen reservoirs that supply much of the freshwater rivers and streams in the arid, Western USA, and as they continue to melt to the point of disappearing completely, many water supplies will ultimately be threatened. Some of the major water supplies for some of the biggest cities in the USA are dependent on snow runoff from glaciers and permafrost to thrive.
        The problem is not just unique to Glacier National Park, either. Across the entirety of the American West – from the Cascades of Washington to the Colorado Rockies – winters are getting warmer and shorter. This troubling development has been steadily increasing since 1980, with the last “freezing” day of the year occurring, on average, about three weeks earlier than it used to a century ago. This phenomenon pushes what used to be a drawn-out summer melting process into a much shorter summer time frame, exhausting the summer’s water supplies from runoff much more quickly.
        Scientists fear that if this pattern continues, water supplies in major rivers like the mighty Colorado could drop by 10-30% by 2050, spelling trouble for much of the west.
        Global Warming Solutions – What Can We Do?”

        • spangled drongo says:

          What you should have added, that you are in denial of, stu, is that the glaciers are melting and regrowing, which is what they have been doing long before human CO2 emissions.

          But if you admit the oh so obvious fact that nothing different is happening in the way of sea levels you can desist cutting and pasting all this assumptive blither.

          And stick to the real world.

          • Stu says:

            Strangled Drongo,
            I know you don’t like authoritative stuff but these are words from the US Geological Service regarding Glacier National Park.

            “In Glacier National Park (GNP) some effects of climate change are strikingly clear. Glaciers are melting, and many glaciers have already disappeared. The rapid retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. It has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, around the end of the Little Ice Age and most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2015, measurements of glacier area indicate that there were 26 remaining glaciers larger than 25 acres, the size criteria used by USGS researchers to define a glacier.”

            You can find the info here, but of course you think the experts don’t know what they are talking about so don’t bother reading it. Others might though.


            And by the way they still say “USGS still says on its website glaciers could all disappear sometime between 2030 and 2080, depending on how much warming occurs. As recent years demonstrate, however, glacial melt can be slowed by heavy winter snowfall.

            “The overall picture remains the same, however, and that picture is that the glaciers all continue to retreat,” USGS said.”

          • spangled drongo says:

            “The overall picture remains the same, however, and that picture is that the glaciers all continue to retreat,” USGS said.”

            You mean unless we have climate change.

            Did you check how old those glaciers are?

            They weren’t there most of the Holocene.

  • Stu says:

    Oh and by the way regarding water vapour etc.

    “When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn’t a major problem. If CO2 isn’t as powerful as water vapor, which there’s already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn’t be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a ‘positive feedback loop’ in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

    How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

    How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

    The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

    So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don’t mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

    Basic rebuttal written by James Frank”

    Note the last sentence.


    • Boambee John says:

      Septical science, LOL.

    • spangled drongo says:

      The link you supply, stu, is full of so many errors that I wouldn’t know where to start.

      But suffice to say that a site that calls itself “Skeptical” that makes so many evidence-free, assumptive, completely unsceptical claims that it is renowned for, is better left alone rather than used to make a point.

      The fundamental point that Monckton makes is the calculation of ECS for a doubling ofCO2 and how to assess the feedbacks in order to do so.

      If you have anything measurable to contribute please stick to the script.

      • Stu says:

        You say “The link you supply, stu, is full of so many errors that I wouldn’t know where to start.”

        Just try a couple I am intrigued.

        Meantime a meteorologist I consulted says that Monckton’s formulae is just designed to make it look like he knows what he is talking about but actually makes no sense at all. Further this accounts for the lack of official comment on his pronouncements, they have not got the time to waste refuting bullshit. Even researchers don’t bother commenting. His utterances are reserved for the soft core realm of the Heartland Institute, CATO, GWPF etc, where practically all the presenters are like Monckton, unqualified bloggers rather than scientists.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Just try a couple I am intrigued.”

          R U sirrius?

          Click on that link and the first thing that arises is Mikey’s hokey stik.

          And it’s all down-hill from there.

          You probably even believe in the maths behind Cook’s “97%.”

          Say – No – More.

          And maybe your meteorologist friend knows how to calculate ECS?

          Did he offer you anything measurable?


          Just a degree of assumption coated with religionist ad hom, like you hey, stu?

          When are you alarmists ever going to wake to the fact that the only “evidence” you have are exaggerated assumptions?

          As in; correlation hastabe causation especially if it’s consensual.

  • spangled drongo says:

    But if you really want to get “skeptically scientific”, stu, you should read the book:

    • Stu says:

      Oh yes that one. With apologies to Don, Lomborg is another blogger whose science is simply political, literally. I prefer to get my science from scientists.

      There is some interesting follow up. For example the book. “The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight About Global Warming on JSTOR”

      Here is a link for you.

      • spangled drongo says:

        ” I prefer to get my science from scientists.”

        That would be fine if you could, but you are yet to produce any that you have come across.

        And instead of giving me a link with no specifics as usual, stu, why don’t you deal with facts?

        As in how Lomborg deals with superficial lies from alarmists:

        • Stu says:

          “That would be fine if you could, but you are yet to produce any that you have come across.”

          How about CSIRO, BOM, UK Met office, NASA, NOAA, Australian Academy of Science, International Arctic Science Committee, 34 National Academies of Science, the Network of African Science Academies, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, United States National Research council, the IPCC, etc, etc, etc.

          But I forgot it is all a sham and a plot and all the scientists in those organisations are plain wrong I hear you say. And “science is not about consensus” but it is very much about a CONSENSUS OF EVIDENCE FLOWING FROM OBSERVATION AND RESEARCH. Science is very rigorous, the counter examples you keep posting are not.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Poor ol’ stu.

            Still can’t tell the difference between scientific groups and scientific EVIDENCE.

            Never mind, I’m sure another long cut’n’paste on consensual sci will ease your soul.

            But please try to include your EVIDENCE this time, hey?

  • Stu says:

    FFS you drongo, don’t split hairs. Go and look at all those sites, follow the links to all the evidence that has been peer reviewed, published, cited. It is not for me to pick out particular papers to satisfy your craving for evidence. A complex subject like climate science does not rest on a single piece of evidence or research but the summation of a great body of work across a wide range of disciplines, therefore it is unnecessary for me to list individual papers. You sound like a Roberts parrot.

    The stuff you put up, quote, link to, does not amount to evidence either individually or in total and does not refute the great body of evidence cited by and supported by the organisations referenced . Outside the information cocoon you have constructed the world is moving on without you. You poor old fossil, as bad as the organisations that produce the stuff you defend so persistently.

    Have a nice weekend and get a life.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Read and learn, stu.

    “The absence of the hot spot, therefore, provides the physical observation that confirms our theoretical finding that the warming to be expected from our enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 and other greenhouse gases will be small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial.”


    “If, as we find, equilibrium sensitivities are one-third of official climatology’s midrange estimate, then the climate “crisis” vanishes.”

    • Stu says:

      Finally proof that you really are just a troll bot. Fortunately few people of influence apart from Trump accept any of your bullshit and T will be gone soon enough. At least I know that I am on the winning team and that the move for positive action is unstoppable. BTW did you see that Bloomberg has put up US$500 million of his own money to work to close all remaining US coal fired power plants by 2030. That is commitment. Locally one of our richest people(Canon-Brookes) is also agitating strongly. Game over on the argument, a long way to go to mitigate the problem and reduce it’s severity.

      But have fun, loser. Meantime why not try and run some of your crap in the print media. I do concede you will soon have one of your champions back in the Senate, and we will all be in for a fun ride and a good laugh.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Just as I expected, stu, you are impervious to logical maths and science, can’t produce an empirical argument but simply bleat your religion rather than tax your tiny brain with the necessary effort.

        The fact you are impressed that an idiot like Bloomberg is prepared to squander his fortune on his new-found religion sans evidence shows your serious limitations.

        • Stu says:

          This is hilarious, the upside down argument, you are like the fellow arguing black is white, night is day etc. Did you not read what I wrote? “few people of influence ……..accept any of your bullshit”. It is true, just look at any scientific site and see. Not of course one of your troll blogger sites put up by non scientists. Are you sure you are not Tony Abbott writing under a pseudonym?

          And do you really think Bloomberg is an idiot? He actually made his own money not like your associate of ideas Donald, who inherited it and who is demonstrably not very bright.

          Just stick with the earth is flat, vaccines cause autism and the moon landings were a hoax, you might have more luck convincing people.

          And just to help with my survey of attitudes, do you have any offspring and do they have any etc?

          • spangled drongo says:

            You’re not even woke to what this post is about yet, hey?

            The reason Labor lost is because the majority of Australians can see through the garbage you and the rest of the stu-pids spout.

            Like you, they also got it wrong.

            You are in the minority as has just been proved in both Aus and US.

            And since when are rich people immune from stu-pidity?

            It sure takes you a while to wake up but what can we expect from anyone who can’t cope with the message and has to shoot the messenger.

          • Boambee John says:


            ” “few people of influence ……..accept any of your bullshit”. Isn’t that what the phlogiston “true believers” said to Lavoisier about his wacky Oxygen theory?

            Science, despite what cli sci types claim, is not about numbers, it is about falsifiable hypotheses.

            But you cling to your “consensus” security blankie. Just add a cup of tea and a good lie down, and mummy CAGW will tuck you in and tell you a comforting story about the imminent end of the world.

  • Stu says:

    SD writes “The reason Labor lost is because the majority of Australians can see through the garbage you and the rest of the stu-pids spout.”

    Ooooooweeeeeeeee, you had better pass that on to the ALP and all the press. I have read and watched a lot of commentary and no where seen such a simple, single reason for their failure. But of course such a simple conclusion by you is not surprising. And I notice the government is still actively pursuing a positive climate change agenda, not as strong as many hope, but not the head in the sand route you espouse.

    As I said you only have air inside this tiny chamber. Perhaps Don can give us some idea of readership here, but I suspect it is tiny. Certainly few care to comment, probably indicative. I only sail on here because it such fun and you give me so much pleasure, it is a great ride and helps me confirm the correctness of the position. So please keep it up, my followers and I are in stitches.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Poor ol’ stu is in denial that Labor got something wrong at the last election and the MAJORITY corrected them.

    He really thinks Don’s blog is the sole bastion of rational scepticism.

    Where have you been lately, stu?

    Don said in the intro: “Fourth, at the end of his campaign Mr Shorten threw everything he had into his ‘climate change’ policies, having proclaimed early in the campaign a fifty per cent by 2030 target for EVs and alternative energy sources for electricity generation.”

    But the country didn’t buy it and Labor actually lost seats.

    I know Labor refuse to live in the real world but at least the smarter half of them realise they made a stu-pid mistake for going down the leafy-green pathway and are trying to cover their backsides.

    But I thought by now the penny would have dropped in your tiny mind of CC Religion.

    What’s the name for doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result….?

    And what do they advise when you are in such a deep hole as you now are….?

    • Stu says:

      Priceless, your distorted reality is amazing. Not even Don says climate was the only issue. Elections are complex with many issues and differences place to place. For example do you think Abbott lost because of climate, which would be counter to your view of the election as a whole or because he is a dick head past his use by date. If it was climate, then why not elsewhere. In any event in many places, the bigger self interest factor of taxation was the dominant issue, helped by a strong solo campaign by Scomo. Elections are rarely won on a single issue nationally.

      As for the rest, you are brazen at interpolating all sorts of intent into other peoples words, and wrong. Don’t do it.

      And so I assume from your non response that you have no offspring with skin in the future game. Or if you have, you are a callous arsehole only concerned with the value of your fossil based shares and not their future welfare. And if you do you should at least consider Pascals wager in case us nutters are correct. But no, I fear you are so set in incredulity that you are immobile and beyond help. Poor you, poor them if they exist. They will say “never mind grandpa thought he was right, how could he have been so fixated”.

      • spangled drongo says:

        My offspring are ALL scientists, stuey-luv, who are slightly more rational than the average.

        But it’s you who are priceless. Not getting that your new-found crisis-religion is precisely why Tony Abbott lost an inner city seat populated by well-to-dos who, like you, simply don’t live in the real world.

        The ones that do are still in the majority.

        They are smart enough to realise that Pascal’s wager is like house insurance. You don’t spend ten times the value of your house on a yearly premium when the “problem” may likely be non existent or even an asset.

        Particularly when you have no empirical evidence of that “problem”.

        Unless you are seriously stu-pid.

        And brainwashed.

        Time to get real and grow up, stu.

      • Boambee John says:

        “And so I assume from your non response that you have no offspring with skin in the future game. Or if you have, you are a callous arsehole only concerned with the value of your fossil based shares and not their future welfare.”

        You know that Stu has run out of arguments when he reverts to “Won’t you think of your children (sometimes grandchildren)!

  • Stu says:

    SD and BJ, god bless you both, may you have long and happy lives and get the therapy you need.

    Meantime here is a really interesting video with some relevant stats on CO2.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu, the PETM caused a higher degree of CO2 in the atmosphere,

      Not the other way round.

      Please stop with the blither and grow up.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Yes the PETM gives us some warning as to the track we are on. Azolla has been cited as a means of sequestering carbon.

      The future injection of a similar amount will produce a similar warming effect. Then CO2 emerged slowly, and flora and fauna could adjust – today’s release is a spike and our biosphere will not be able to adjust.

  • Stu says:

    “today’s release is a spike and our biosphere will not be able to adjust.”. I am so pleased you agree we have a problem, but these guys will have an obtuse view. They dont like scientific fact.

    • Boambee John says:

      No objection to scientific fact, just need to see a few that do not rely on failed computer models, GIGO.

      • Stu says:

        No part of that video relies on computer models, just facts about burning of carbon etc versus historical (geological) analysis. Did you pick up the part about the much higher rate of emission of CO2 now? As I keep repeating, you guys live in an information cocoon, devoid of real world information about emissions, temperature, ice degradation etc, but no matter, just promise me you will recall these conversations in ten years or so and recant. If proven wrong I would be deliriously happy to admit to being wrong. That is very different to the converse position for you, eh?

        • Boambee John says:


          Any sentient being is aware of the higher emission rates. China and India are leading the way with their increases, and parts of Africa will soon follow, regardless of the bleating of you and Chris.

          The key question is what the real effect will be. Some computer models foretell disaster, but many of those models have what might tactfully be described as less than perfect records.

          So far, the temperature increases are less than estimated, and the effects have been broadly beneficial, increased crop yields and greening of the planet.

          The real damage so far has been to world food supplies, as large quantities of grain have been diverted to become motor fuel. Look your children in the eyes tomorrow, and tell them that you supported this, and the effect on world temperature has been immeasurably small.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Denialists often claim models are wrong – but they just cite wacko comments from dirty websites.

        The facts are:

        Hansen 1981
        Hansen 1988
        IPCC 1990
        IPCC 1995
        IPCC 2001
        IPCC 2007
        IPCC 2013

        Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

        Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

        Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

        • Boambee John says:


          “Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.”

          So, once the models are re-run with the actual real world conditions, rather than the initial assumptions, they reflect what actually happened? Seems prediction is hard, particularly about the future.

          If only we could so easily retrospectively adjust the stupid decisions taken after overblown predictions have been adjusted to reflect reality.

  • spangled drongo says:

    What caused the PETM is unknown. Scientists can only speculate with ideas like the methane burp hypothesis.

    But when we have climate histories of warm and cold it is very easy to make assumptions that suit your argument.

    And develop GIGO climate models from these assumptions that have shown themselves to be 90% wrong.

    To equate this alarmist logic to todays climate and ban debate is a sure sign of religion, not science.

  • Stu says:

    SD, BJ, It is time you guys sat quietly and had a rethink of your position. You claim to be the righteous ones, the keepers of the knowledge, and that the other side are a bunch of loonies.

    You should appreciate that you might have more credibility (although not success) if you stuck with the line of the Roberts/Ridd/Nova crowd and claimed martyrdom, the Galileo defence etc. in other words come from the angle that you are the outliers with the true belief facing persecution by the dogma of the entrenched forces, but that like Galileo you will eventually rewrite the laws of science. And of course once successful will share in a Nobel prize.

    It will still all be a pipe dream but you will back in the “mainstream” of denialism and not sticking with the ludicrous position that the other side has no enormous preponderance of evidence supporting its position and that your spot is unassailable.

    And on that score I have not seen any further earth shattering news regarding Monckton’s great take down of the entire modelling world. Can you enlighten me as to the acceptance of his challenge? It has been quite a time now since he first promoted his “brilliant” discovery, over 18 months by my reckoning.

    And Don or whoever it is that is following the discourse here as some exercise in the sociology of media interchange must be having a great laugh.

    It looks like another magic day has dawned, go out and enjoy it and have a rethink while walking slowly. And read some of the weather data coming in from around the world. The trend to abnormally warm conditions in strange places is continuing. If that keeps up there will soon be enough weather data to confirm a change in the climate in many places. Which will take us back to the “one degree” is nothing position and we can start the circle again.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu’s theme song:

      “Wishin’ and hopin’ that I really am right” and that he really didn’t support economically and socially ruinous policies that, at least as far as Australia is concerned, will have no measurable impact on global temperature. That’s the advice of Australia’s Chief Scientist, by the way.

      Remamber what I said last night:

      “The real damage so far has been to world food supplies, as large quantities of grain have been diverted to become motor fuel. Look your children in the eyes tomorrow, and tell them that you supported this, and the effect on world temperature has been immeasurably small.”

    • Boambee John says:

      June 11, 2019 at 7:43 am
      SD, BJ, It is time you guys sat quietly and had a rethink of your position. You claim to be the righteous ones, the keepers of the knowledge, and that the other side are a bunch of loonies.”

      No, Stu, you and Chris are the ones making that claim.

      Typical leftist projection, accuse others of what you are yourself doing.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Please refrain from making out you are an expert on the past as well as the future, stu, and stick to the tiny bit of real world facts you are capable of quoting as any sort of evidence.

    And you have already demonstrated how miniscule that is, many times.

    “It looks like another magic day has dawned”

    You mean you actually went outside and noticed?

    Things are looking up. There’s hope for you yet.

    But please, just stick to the measureable science, hey?

  • spangled drongo says:

    “So , you agree Monckton has not got a leg to stand on.”

    Wow! stu, On what evidence did your tiny mind arrive at that?

    Oh, I forgot. Another clear example of your stu-pid evidence.

    And the way you arrive at any evidence-free conclusion.

    Surely your obs of the magic weather has some influence on your thinking?

    No? Oh, well.

    But if you ever come across anything measurable to support your bed-wetting conclusion for ECS, don’t forget to drop in and inform us.

    In the meantime, as the penny continues to drop, even the bed-wetting sci agrees that it is getting smaller as their computers are getting wronger.

    • Stu says:

      There you go again. So where is the groundswell of support for the Monckton bunckom? And where do you get your info that all is good with the world, climate wise? What ever that source, it is surprising they have not by now achieved some special recognition for such brilliant work overturning the entire field of science. Dream on deary, come back and see me in a decade and we can have a good laugh, at your expense. Meantime be careful to keep breathing in that cocoon you inhabit, the CO2 must be rising in there, or is it in fact a vacuum? Remember the people you rely on, Jo, Tony, Mal etc are not scientists at least not in this field and some not at all.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Give up with the blither and give us a break.

      • Boambee John says:


        “Remember the people you rely on, Jo, Tony, Mal etc are not scientists at least not in this field and some not at all.”

        Flannery? There are others among the highly regarded warmists who should be subject to the same criticism, if you take it seriously.

        Forget the ad homs, look at the data they present, on both sides.

        Or just stick to your pseudo religious beliefs, whatever.

        PS, Jo Nova’s husband held a high position in the Australian Greenhouse Office until he saw the light.

  • Stu says:

    Oh I forgot you want evidence. How about this mob, they put men on the moon and man the ISS, they know science and in spite of the denier in chief in the White House are sticking with the facts.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Stu, Neville, SD, Chris et al., I am beginning to get emails saying why can’t I shut you all up, since you seem to use this site as a boxing ring. Suppression of comment is not at all my preference. But can I urge you all, again, to be more civil, and to stop using names, yes, even words like ‘denialist’, which remind one more of little boys yelling at each other in the playground than of serious adults arguing.

    I don’t have the time to do everything that commenters suggest I do to show how right they are, but I do occasionally try a link, usually without learning much. For the record, inasmuch as I understand the mathematics, I have not been profoundly impressed with what Monkton has written. I am cheerful whenever the monthly readership of this site approaches 10,000; it hasn’t passed that total in the past year, but I have been ill for all that time. But in round figures about 100,000 seem to be the readership for any calendar year. Most readers don’t comment at all, but I do get some email from people who can’t or don’t want to publish what they say, save to the person who wrote the essay in the first place. I try to have a factual basis for what I write, and I don’t always get things right. And I have (along with my lady) nine children and sixteen grandchildren and great grandchildren, so I do have a horse in the race, and feel pretty confident that the ‘climate change’ alarmism (not a bad word, because ‘alarm’ must surely be the keynote word of so much of the orthodoxy) of the last few years will be seen by them in time to have been a great exaggeration.

    If anyone would like to suggest better words than ‘alarm’ and ‘alarmism’ I will be pleased to learn of them.

    • Boambee John says:


      Thank you.

      For my part, I am happy to avoid the name calling and other ad homs, but I hope you will not mind if I bite back (or perhaps just bark) when slandered with abusive terms like “denialist”.

      Much better to focus on discussing actual facts and debating what they mean.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks, Don. Yes, we could improve our civility.

    • Chris Warren says:


      I have said many times that these people only get paid back in their own coin.

      You know that words such as “fraud”, “hoax”, “alarmism”, “religion”, “fake” and so on, can not be let through without balancing comment.

      Surely denialism from one point of view is the equivalent to alarmism from another point of view.

      There is considerable literature concerning “denialism”, but not so for “alarmism”.

      • Boambee John says:



        I have said many times that these people only get paid back in their own coin.”

        An eye for an eye leads to universal blindness.

  • Boambee John says:

    PS, Thank you also for providing this forum. It enables a wide range of opinion to be discussed. This is not always possible elsewhere.

  • Stu says:

    Thanks, I did wonder when you might step in. A couple of points. People don’t have to read if they don’t like the debate. Regarding name calling, I have on occasion resorted to something fruity but only in response to repetitive references to me being stupid.

    As for the use of denial, denier and denialist I am not in agreement about it being perjorative, but accept your guidance. There is an interesting paper on the whole issue (name calling) here.

    Something that has not been canvassed but is worth studying is the apparent strength of the campaign against climate action in the USA, which could have something to do with it being home to the biggest of the energy players on the globe with the most to lose from possible government action. Certainly the climate debate has been politicised, most particularly right now in the USA.

    For my part I am quite happy to be labelled a warmist or alarmist because that well describes how I see the big problem.

    It has been suggested that warmists accept the science of climate change while the bulk of players across the fence embrace mostly pseudo science but I guess saying that will be viewed as perjorative also.

    One thing I do hate is being called a “believer” and “religionist” when there is no issue of belief to accept published science as factual. On the other hand to outright reject the huge weight of research and opinion on the subject as wrong does require a great degree of belief, faith, call it what you like.

    To coin a phrase from a well known ABC show “back to you Don”.

    Finally, I hope your health and happiness is progressing ok, all the best.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “It has been suggested that warmists accept the science of climate change”

      You forgot to write science as “science”, stu

      Consensus is not science [or evidence].

      GCMs based on assumptions is not science [or evidence].

      When will you admit and acknowledge this lack of science?

  • Chris Warren says:

    2019 (by itself) is the hottest year in Canberra since records began based on number of days minimum temperature was 20C or over. The warming trend, in minimum temps, is dramatic. Data grouped into decades shows an alarming trend.


    BOM ACORN Data Station 70351 mins – by decade.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Denier and denialist are interesting insults hurled at sceptics when there is never any claim to what is being denied. There is no aspect of the climate that is denied by sceptics other than catastrophic, man-made, warming [CAGW] predicted by those of the warming persuasion who have no evidence to back their prediction and base it on numerous assumptions.

    The assumptions and the warming predictions are growing at a considerable rate and the mainstream media is feeding handsomely on it all.

    The small amount of warming to date is well within the natural climate variability of the recent past which indicates that ACO2 could be having as little as no [or even negative] influence on our temperature.

    But guess who is in strident denial of this?

    Honesty and open debate is sorely needed.

  • Boambee John says:

    Well, that didn’t last long!

    This is Don’s blog, his rules apply. Those who don’t accept those rules should revert to observer status, or start their own blog.

    • spangled drongo says:

      BJ, discussing the actual insults and explaining why they are used is not contravening Don’s rules.

      This sort of analysis, as with climate analysis, is part of the essential open debate.

      It is the psychology, taking over from facts, that is by far the greatest part of the problem.

      But I must congratulate you for your restraint.

      • Boambee John says:


        I think that Don would prefer that there be no insults, just open discussion, rationally based. I share that preference.

  • Stu says:

    Nuff said really, make your own minds up.

  • stu says:

    I should have added that I have participated in the dialogue on this site fully in the knowledge that its creator, Don, is a noted “questioner” of the theories about AGW from way back. Therefore I fully accept that the main followers and the leader are on that track. Never the less I have participated openly because it has helped confirm my own position as it has forced me to do further reading. The volume of published work says a lot about the case.

    I note that Don as far back as 2008 and before has been an ardent questioner of conventional wisdom on the subject. It is therefore not a surprise that I should encounter vigorous, though not always rigorous, opposition to my views on this site. Strong debate is a key component of a healthy democracy. Fortunately Don has called for a halt, to reconfigure, and resume debate based on mutual respect for differing opinions and courtesy.

    The interchange has beeb vigorous and I have enjoyed it immensely, it is always nice to be the underdog and have to fight tenaciously. Fortunately there are many other sites where the debate is more balanced and one is not called stupid for backing the increasingly proven conclusions of science research. But I have enjoyed the time here.

    Hopefully a moderate debate can continue here on one or other of the threads.

    Don, I will be back down that way shortly to catch up with family. If you have spare hours in that place you now call home and would like to waste an hour with an infidel I would be happy to call by for a chat. It would be a pleasant change from typing. Meantime all the best.

Leave a Reply