My last ‘climate change’ essay, for a while at least

By January 28, 2020Other

I started becoming interested in climate change in 2005, when I was writing a speculative book about the next fifty years in Australia. It was plain I would have to do a chapter on the environment, which forced me to come to terms with global warming, then the widely used term. I knew that Ian Castles, the former Australian Statistician, had written a piece on some aspect of it, and we began talking. He suggested that for the orthodox science I read the IPCC reports, and then talk to Bob Carter, the most prominent scientific sceptic. I knew Bob Carter well, because he had been an outspoken (and highly successful) scientist who had served on the Australian Research Grants Committee when I was its chair. He got me to read other articles, from both sides of the domain. I became increasingly more sceptical myself. The data were rubbery, the arguments too confident. The media loved the scary stories, which encouraged more and more assertions. In 2008 I gave a public presentation of my views to the Royal Australian Institute of Planning, of which I was an honorary Fellow, and that led to my becoming a public figure in the debate.

All that began fifteen years ago. What has happened since? The highpoint of alarmism was probably the year leading up to the Copenhagen COP in 2009. Governments were following one another in inventing carbon taxes and the like, while the learned academies which had not already done so were issuing statements approving this global initiative and ‘confirming’ the science behind it. Luminaries of all kinds, like Prince Charles, film stars, authors and celebrities were imploring us to wake up. We had only five years or some other figure to save the world. John Howard set up the Australian Greenhouse Office (he felt he had to do something). The science was said to be settled. All scientists agreed, and so on. Predictions of catastrophe, plotted on alarming graphs, were available to shock and horrify the public. What scarier news could there be?

Copenhagen was given a wintry blizzard for the duration of the conference, which wasn’t an example of global warming but could be turned into an assertion of ‘extreme weather’ caused by greenhouse gases, the wickedest of which was that nasty CO2 molecule.

After that it was mostly downhill for the alarmists. Predictions weren’t followed up by Nature. Carbon dioxide emissions went up, as they had done for half a century before, but temperature ceased to rise in the same linear way. Governments found that carbon taxes were unpopular. The Greens everywhere, and their supporters in the environmental NGOs like Greenpeace and WWF, made a great deal of fuss, but their share of the vote stayed much where it had been. The electorate did not buy the message. In part the reason was the collaboration of the major parties in saying ‘me too!’, and delivering their own anti-climate-change messages. 

Their doing so had a awkward effect, since having committed themselves to policies that were intended to ‘combat’ climate change, political parties soon found that real action was almost impossible, and they began only to talk the talk. That has been the case for a decade. Those who want ‘action’ not ‘talk’ (because the science is said to be settled) began to talk and yell even more loudly. Media outlets started censoring those who didn’t follow the alarmist script, but that didn’t make any difference. The five years that were all that were left to save the world passed by, as did the ten years that the more conservative alarmists had settled on. The weather remained as it had been in human memory.

Was the science really settled? Not at all. ‘Climate sensitivity’, without which there is no AGW scare at all, and is an invented concept, is still where it was thirty years ago, and the most recent estimates (they are all estimates) are on the low side of the 1.5 to 4.5 range that is still what the IPCC claims to be the case. Assertions that 97 per cent of (all) (climate) scientists agreed that human activity in burning fossil fuels was raising global temperatures which would lead to catastrophes of all kinds were quickly exploded as rubbish. There was no such consensus. The apparent iron control that alarmist scientists though they had over the journals weakened to the point that there are now thousands of refereed articles that do not buy the alarmist script. Nonetheless, what we have is a sort of stasis. The learned academies have not really weakened their support for what they see as the political position of the major parties, which in turn go on talking the talk. There are no public debates, no commissions of inquiry, no round tables, though Angela Merkel of Germany has suggested that alarmists and sceptic talk to one another. Alas, not now.

Electricity prices are going up, and one bank has said that it will not lend money to assist the opening of coal mines. No doubt other banks will fill the gap, and if they don’t the Chinese will. It’s a bit like boards ‘divesting’ themselves of equities that involve fossil fuels. Others will take the equities up. What do the shareholders think about this political act? They weren’t asked… But I can’t see anyone soon rallying to the alarmist banner other than some of the young, who will change their mind when they realise that high energy costs affect everything that is important to them on a day-to-day basis.

My own guess is that nothing much will happen in the short run, and for that reason I am not going to write any more about ‘climate change’ or ‘extreme weather’ unless something quite extraordinary happens. There are other interesting topics to explore.

My core position on climate change is based on dozens of previous essays ln this website, each of them supported by what I regard as good data and argument. It goes like this:

There is nothing unprecedented about the warming that may have occurred in the past century (there is abundant evidence of warmer and cooler episodes in the past few thousand years).

There is no reason to suppose that warming is dangerous for humanity, in fact the contrary is the case. (The catastrophic  predictions are based on climate and economic models, all of them, and the models are just that, incomplete versions of reality.)

Global warming and CO2 are not the cause of bushfires, or of so-called ‘extreme weather’. (There are other much more potent causes.)

Alternate sources of energy cannot supply grid power without covering the country with hundreds of square kilometres of turbines and solar arrays, and I doubt very much that people will put up with them much longer. (Even if the ‘unreliables’ were able to do so, they would need extensive back-up from gas, at least.)

Sooner or later a government, or an electorate, will insist that there is some kind of Plan B that does not keep electricity prices going up. I don’t see it now, but it could come quickly. If it happens in one country, it is likely to be copied elsewhere.

So what would be ‘something extraordinary’, and make me want to write again? Some really good data and argument that seemed almost incontrovertible would do, whichever side of the net they fell on.

Finally, I will moderate the website to ensure that comments are relevant to the subject under discussion. Irrelevant comments will be excised, with a short explanation.

Join the discussion 1,064 Comments

  • Stu says:

    Don, you conclude with a collection of core position statements of which I disagree with all (except the point on fires). My disagreement is based on the sources that I trust and which many others do also, including practically all of the global science fraternity.

    I note you have reverted to the pejorative description of people with my views as “alarmists”. A more acceptable term would be “warners”. In any event I sincerely hope we all live long enough to see clear signals proving our point of view on the science to settle the argument. Of course I hope that is a long way off because early proof could mean we are in very serious trouble. And it should be no surprise that younger members of society are more motivated by the issue as they clearly have more skin in the game.

    BTW have you looked at any of the serious data about the Arctic situation? Remember or perhaps acknowledge, that this is a global problem and not about Canberra or in your poor example Copenhagen.

    • John says:

      Stu, please tell us your academic credentials and your experience that’s pertinent to climate science. By my estimate less than 1% of the population in developed countries have the appropriate tertiary education to understand the issues and pass judgement on the various claims. Not only do they not have the skill to evaluate things for themselves but they even lack the skills to determine the real experts from the wannabe experts and the self-proclaimed experts. And yes, almost all journalists fall into the same category.

      Despite this lack of knowledge everyone seems to have an opinion, mind you it’s usually based on the distorted information found in the media.

      • Stu says:

        Your point is silly. Don has no science quals, political science does not cut it. He made statements of his understanding of the current position. He is quite entitled to do that, and as an acknowledged person of academia deserves respect. While lacking that qualification of Don I am still equally entitled to say I do not agree with those points of view. Don did not not provide evidence for his point of view, and I do not need to either, I am stating a fact, my opinion. And I think reasonable people would concede that the bulk of scientific opinion supports my view, even if not quite 97%.

        Regarding the media, the fact that the climate ignoring Murdoch empire controls over 70% here I think you lose the argument about the media being the source of your angst.

        • John says:

          Your point is silly.

          Don points out that he’s learnt from Bob Carter and as chairman of the Australian Research Grants Committee Don would have to have some knowledge of what people were asking for grants for. Don is also capable of looking at someone’s predictions and saying whether they failed miserably.
          Further, Don’s reasoning behind each point that he makes shows that he’s very familiar with the issues.

          But what I don’t understand is how the question of Don’s qualifications for making statements about climate matters somehow absolves you from stating your education and experience.

          “But he didn’t have to” is the kind of argument that I’d expect from a five year-old.

          • Stu says:

            “Don would have to have some knowledge of what people were asking for grants for.”. And your point therefore is?

            I don’t need to justify my knowledge with you or anyone else in this forum.

            BTW, I think your one in a hundred figure is probably far less.

        • Stu says:

          I should have written “climate misleading” Murdoch media.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      When you say “practically all of the global science fraternity”, you would be more accurate were you to say “practically all of the global CLIMATE science fraternity.”

      The “climate science” fraternity is an extremely small subset of the global science community.

      Given your previous use of the perjorative term “deniers”, and your willingness to atribute venal motives to those who disagree with you, and also to suggest that they allow those venal motives to over ride their concern for their grandchildren, it is a bit (OK, a lot) precious of you to complain about ther term “alarmists”!

    • Mike Dinn says:

      I have similar views to Don. I was sceptical about various “climate” assertions from the beginning, but it wasn’t until I heard Don’s “Ockhams Razor” in 2008 that I realised for the first time I was not alone. So have listened and empathised with his views for years.
      One additional related topic, though, is that I think “Climate emergency etc” belief is now more like a cult or religion than a scientific position. So logical debate is now impossible. This is what’s made me finally switch off.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Stu, I have edited the original essay to deal with your point, at least to my satisfaction. If you want to dismiss my position it would be useful to show where I am wrong. Searching ‘global warming’, ‘climate change’, ‘climate sensitivity’ and ‘other writings would be a good start.

    • Aert Driessen says:

      Stu, I suggest that you go to the Global Warming Policy Foundation website (and subscribe to their intermittent gratis news bulletins) to see why Arctic ice in this particular location is melting — sea floor volcanoes, not just one, but a string of them. The BBC knows about them but didn’t mention them in their alarmist report. Absolutely dishonest.

    • PeterS says:

      Gobbledegook. The test of the integrity of the process will be if it can be independently replicated. That is the normal scientific process. In this instance that simply hasn’t happened.

  • Andrew says:

    The Arctic Stu? Spend 20 seconds researching the reality, next! https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index

  • Dr Howard Brady says:

    I note comments arguing against Don’s position on climate change etc. I know nothing of the qualifications of these critics as they never stated their qualifications! Don may not be a scientist but he is well read. For those of you looking for simple evidence of benign global warming there has been no acceleration of sea level rise in the last 130 years. The only acceleration found turned out to be higher readings due to resolution problems with the Jason satellite series -problems that NASA now fully admits. However even there though the readings are higher than tide gauges there has been deceleration in the last decade (2008-2018). This lack of acceleration agrees with the tide gauge trends so that articles about accelerating ice loss in Greenland and Antartica cannot be true as any accelerating ice loss due to that extra water would be seen in the sea level rise data sets (Liverpool PSMSL data) (NOAA data) (Uni Colorado sat data). For those of you who see as dramatic photos of rapid glacial retreat (eg Pine Island, and Thwaites glaciers in Antarctica or Jakobnshavn-Greenland) that ice loss is real but not enough to cause dramatic sea level rise as you need 360,000 cub kms to raise sea level one meter (i.e. an ice berg 3600 km by 100 kms by 1 km deep)!! The other problem for those who think warming is getting faster and faster is that global warming trends are real but those warming trends in warm periods during the last 160- years (e.g. 1910-1945, 1975-2000) etc. have been steady around 1.6ºC/decade whether C02 levels were rising at 3ppm/decade, 6ppm/decade, 15ppm/decade, or 30 ppm/decade (cf Hadley Centre UK). The historical problem for those panicking about rising C02 is that life has flourished at much higher C02 levels ( e.g. 1500-2000 ppm) in the Mesozoic (cf age of the dinosaurs) and over the last 500 million years C02 levels have varied but have been been statistically higher than at present; and in those periods the Earth has been warmer but has not fried.The words of James Lovelock (the environmentalist who wrote the Gaia hypothesis and changed his mind) are worth noting:
    The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included– because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened. The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world by now. The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time … it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that (Lovelock, 2014).
    Finally–do not talk about modern global warming as unprecedented. The Earth was warmer after the last ice age 8000 years ago. Greenland was much smaller and did not collapse. The Arctic Ocean was often ice fee. The Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers in Antarctica retreated even further than they have today.
    Dr Howard Brady 28 Jan.,2020.M.Sc. and Ph.D in Antarctic science.

  • John Quiggin says:

    You have done great harm to humanity and Australia, in the service of your own self-conceit. As the country burns, you should consider whether you want to salvage your reputation while you still have time

    • Stu says:

      Not sure who you are referring to but I can’t see anybody here on either side qualifying for that outburst. Please explain.

    • Andrew says:

      Hey John,

      It appears you are the fount of all wisdom?

      Perhaps you missed Byram’s Fire Intensity Equation…. if you can’t work that out, speak to a few fire fighters on the ground.

      And then apologise unreservedly to Don.

    • BB says:

      If you refer to Don’s comments this is quite an insane thought. I know there are many others in the asylum there with you who seem to lack any rational consideration. Let us suppose we had closed all coal-fired power stations. To do this we would have to reduce our electricity consumption by 77.5%. Easily are replaced by renewables you would say not so we would need to expand the current wind installation 10 fold at least and even then it would never give a stable power without backing it up with the same capacity of natural gas. But if we had done that do you really think there would have been no fires? Throughout our recorded history Australia has had fires the first being recorded in 1851. Are you would say just because there were fires in the past is does not mean that the current ones are not caused by man-made climate change. This denies any sense of history. It says nothing can be learnt from history. Before you get onto it yes we also had droughts very severe droughts throughout history.

      • Stu says:

        As usual we go down the rabbit hole. Where is anyone here suggesting shutting everything down tomorrow? The standard Murdochy response is to change the discussion, throw in crazy ideas, exaggerate and try to generate negative emotion. You do that well. Meantime economics, pure and simple, is driving change in power generation. But it wont all happen by tomorrow. Time to get on board fossil. And go and buy your generator, it will help the economy, if not you.

    • Boxer says:

      As an economist, I suspect your qualifications as a climate scientist are a little weak JQ.

      My qualifications are not in climate science either, but I was taught earlier in life that:

      – Scepticism and science are closely integrated. Without scepticism, scientific progress slows, or even stops for a period.

      – Scientific (semi-) consensus is typically followed by an unconventional view overturning the status quo – these are the times when science takes great leaps forward.

      Scientists are human, and they tend to go through the motions of hypothesising and then testing their hypotheses. Some people clearly demonstrate nothing more than lip service to this principle, and some are unaware that they are ignoring it altogether. Good scientists struggle to avoid the innate human failing of approaching an issue with a preference for a particular result. Psychology tells us that we make decisions almost instantaneously and then seek rational justifications for the foregone conclusion. Re-read the terms of reference for the IPCC – it clearly specifies the investigation of “human induced” climate change. The whole kerfuffle started with a foregone conclusion in the back of their mind, and they were so confident of “the truth” as they saw it, they made no attempt to conceal their preferred outcome. Science must remain grounded upon diversity of opinion and scepticism. To think otherwise strongly implies that we think we are approaching some ultimate state of knowledge, which is extraordinary hubris.

      Experience also taught me the power of modelling – the power to actually make the modeller prefer, at an emotional level, the modelled results over the real world. Encountering empirical evidence that contradicts the model triggers the feeling “that can’t be right …” and it takes conscious effort to accept that the model must be at fault. A modelling exercise played out in public view, with high personal and political stakes, would make this problem extremely difficult to confront for those who built the CO2 models. Hence the private and public denigration of anyone who critiqued them.

      Models are valuable tools to explore which variables may play a role, but it appears that climate models are being used to “prove” that CO2 is the atmosphere’s temperature control knob. To do this was the strongly implied objective of the IPCC. Of course CO2 is a factor, but we need the whole answer, not just the CO2 part of it.

      I suspect most of the 97% of scientists privately have grave doubts about how this has panned out, but all of us suffer more from being rejected by our peers than we suffer from being wrong. Strong advocates of the CO2 dominance of climate change, at an emotional level, fear being proven wrong by the sceptics far more than they fear the impending apocalypse. This is not climate science, it’s the irrationality of humans.

      • Aert Driessen says:

        Well reasoned ad articulated Boxer. I would add (and this is my main concern) that what is happening here changes the whole nature of the Scientific Method, which hitherto, has been driven by evidence, evidence backed by data. The whole global warming thing does not even rate as an hypothesis because there is no data, and certainly no evidence that 420 ppm CO2 (or whatever, pick any number below 6000) drives climate change. It may cause mild warming, which is good, also because it greens the planet. Climate change as presented by the alarmists is a thought bubble, a dogma, which the Scientific Method cannot deal with because there is no data, no evidence. Science will only progress when the veracity of data and evidence can be argued. Instead the alarmists base their whole case on flawed and incomplete computer models around so-called ‘climate sensitivity’ which Don explains.

        • Kneel says:

          My concerns about models are simpler: is it really true that radiative physics is dominant? In the troposphere, that is. I mean: conduction (surface to atmosphere), convection from that heating, advection (think “forced air cooling”) and latent heat transport clearly dominate where we live.

          Boundary layer (surface to atmosphere) makes the first 50-100m temperature profile show much more significant change than the next 100m – again, this is where we live, this is what we experience, this is what we measure.
          We know that these effects are real.
          We know they are significantly more important to what we experience than a CO2 “blanket”.
          We know that cloud cover changes that are undocumented (due to lack of instrumentation) could have easily caused the late 20th C warming.
          Need I go on?
          That is why I remain unconvinced – though I’m still willing to listen… are you?

    • Neville says:

      JQ who are you referring to and what do you mean?

    • Boambee John says:

      This looks like a direct, and highly offensive, crack at Don.

      The self appointed “guardians” of the narrative always attack those they regard as heretics or apostates. This is just another example of the foul genre.

    • dlb says:

      JQ on the Y2K “problem”

      “It seems clear that the response of English-speaking countries to the Y2K bug was based on gross overestimates of the seriousness of the problem and an excessively hasty dismissal of the ‘fix on failure’ solution,” Professor Quiggin said in an analysis published in 2005.
      He said “the episode highlighted significant problems with the way governments make decisions, including a bias toward defensive policies that minimise the risk of blame and a pronounced tendency to conform with prevailing views.”

      Yet when it comes to anthropogenic global warming “problem”, not an ounce of scepticism.

      Go figure?

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      Quiggin obviously has a ‘history’ with Don.

    • Chris Warren says:

      I tend to agree (except for the ‘self-conceit’ jibe) with Quiggin who probably has never studied science beyond high school.

      However senior high school science is sufficient to understand climate science.

      NASA has done sterling work providing accurate material that all intelligent 15 year-olds can use.

      There are aspects of our current AGW trends that are cause of alarm. Some people saw this clearly before others.

      So we need more science-based alarmism – which is the realisation most sensible people are coming to.

      All denialists and faux-skeptics have done the damage Quiggin refers to.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris once again does his (very good) impression of a slightly pompous, but not over-bright, tutor trying to impress a first year/first semester tutorial group with his erudition.

        By the beginning of second semester, they will have worked him out!

        Chris

        I suspect that most commenting here will have at least high school science, but many will have more. Now that you have acknowledged that we are all capable of understanding climate science, perhaps you might engage in productive debate rather than pontificating from on high. You do not have a monopoly on knowledge.

        You might start by providing clear evidence that the present low rate of warming will have catastrophic (as in disastrous) consequences. Please do not use the output of computer models, which even their users, such as NASA, have acknowledged are inadequate to make useful projections. We need clear, unadjusted, empirical measurements.

        Thanks in anticipation!

    • Don Aitkin says:

      John Quiggin, I take it that your remark refers to me. I have no particular interest in salvaging my ‘reputation’, which rests overwhelmingly on what I have written. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. But I see no evidence that you are a fount of wisdom in the matter of reputations. I am too old to care about that sort of remark anyway.

      • Peter S says:

        Well said Don. It must be something to do with age and experience. Although I am at least a decade younger your views on this matter are almost coincident with mine. And I am scientifically trained in the “hard” sciences of physics, chemistry, mathematics and statistics. After 26 years in an animal agricultural industry you can add genetics and metrology into the list too. Thanks for you thoughts.

  • BB says:

    I would gladly dump the whole discussion about the minutiae of those things that are supposed to affect weather/climate. The real problem is the response to the so-called emergency. It is far more dangerous than anything else and seems to be part of a general attack on Western Civilisation. I am so much concerned about the state of our electricity system that I have recently installed a backup generator at considerable cost. People who should know better talk about we should just go ahead and do it replace fossil generators with renewables so-called. Principally coal stations are closing but renewables are not expanding at all quickly. The reason being really that it is incredibly difficult. If you look at the aneroid site you will see that wind power stations are in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. They are all connected to the eastern grid. In 2019 they generated 8.3% of our electricity. The same as Bayswater in the Hunter Valley that’s right one coal station is the equivalent of all the wind stations the whole 56 of them at a cost of about $14 billion. On average they are the same in practice nowhere near it. Let us suppose you want to buy a generator to supply your household electricity you calculate that you need 10 kW. Do you take the renewable one? It has this feature there when you switch it on you may get 0 kW or then again 8 kW and anywhere in between. Once is going will vary in its output by the minute. Overall renewables last year expanded by 2% and after all these many years renewables supplied 22.5% fossil supplies the rest. We are never going to be able to change the climate but if we allow it the idea that we can is quite capable of destroying our economy.

    • Stu says:

      Have you not heard of storage?

      • Boxer says:

        But storage would cost far more than the wind farms themselves. Given wind and solar are only surviving because of the subsidies, where will the even greater subsidies for storage come from?
        CAPEX is a cost, even if the taxpayers pay for it.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Your faith in the future development of batteries is touching, but until a major technical breakthrough occurs, that faith is misplaced.

        • Mike Dinn Dinn says:

          I have felt for years that until or unless there are major breakthroughs in energy storage (technical and economic), the status quo will hardly change. And cannot be changed. Until or unless nuclear is embraced of course. Why is there zero discussion on this latter?

  • Andrew says:

    The latest word on climate sensitivity?

    Challenging the Greenhouse Effect Specification
    and the Climate Sensitivity of the IPCC
    Antero Ollila

    DOI: 10.9734/PSIJ/2019/v22i230127

    0.6 was his number….

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that Wiki co2 graph AGAIN and I’d like anyone to please tell us what they don’t understand about it?
    It clearly proves that there is nothing that the developed world can do to change co2 levels or the climate or temperature or anything else.
    This shouldn’t be very difficult to understand but we still have silly fools who want to ignore the last 30 years and demand that the OECD countries should reduce our co2 emissions even further.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

    • BB says:

      Thanks Neville I took that on board a long time ago. The futility of the actions in this regard are astounding. Yet is continued without rationality for many. I think it is a complex subject in the human psyche many years ago Michael Crichton spoke of the religious aspects of it. The “solution” that has been grasped is a non-solution and it is quite evident that the facts of it are not looked at. It is because that this doomsday cult are self reinforcing. You cannot as one of the group admit even to oneself any doubt. They focus on the solution being the reduction in greenhouse gases principally CO2. On the east coast of Australia we already have nearly 6 GW in plate capacity in wind. This must’ve costs something like $14 billion in today’s terms and we are spending over $5 billion on Snowy Mountains 2.0 in an attempt to provide backup. If you model that against actual data it would support about 4 GW no more. I’m not sure how quickly hydroelectric comes online do you need enough batteries to support 6 GW? You might get stable power the same as you get from a coal-fired power station. You could do without Bayswater in the Hunter Valley but that is just one and about 16 TW hours per annum out of the 204 TW hours that we consumed in 2019. So a replacement at about $20 billion where are we going to find any pump storage on the scale of Snowy Mountains 2.0 again. How long would we be paying for an investment of about $250 billion.

      But here in Australia there is a solution to this we could build nuclear power stations which are emission free far cheaper than that and they do it overseas but not here. For the Greens and the many global warming activists this is like proposing sex with your mother! But why not they would have you believe we are doomed if we don’t but is there another reason?

      In recent times I have come across this lot https://deepgreenresistance.org/en/who-we-are/faqs/green-technology-renewable-energy they are quite aware of the practicalities of “renewable energy”. They condemn it and they are Deep Green I ask how many of the green movement are the same. My middle brother who I argued with the years and now deceased was very much of this mind. A member of the New Zealand Greens party so I ask how many of his friends are the same. More than that how many of the whole movement?

      We focus on this aspect of “climate change” but be aware it is only one string to the bow of those that wish to bring down Western Civilisation. Ask yourself how many aspects of our society are in fact under attack. Those that campaign to change Australia Day to probably the 30th of February are the same group that demonstrate against fossil energy.

      Let us transfer control of bush fuel loads to the federal government everyone seems to think it’s there already. Aim aim to bring back the world temperature to what it was in Roman times. Let us raise the level of CO2 and build a big Brown coal HELE power station on the site of Hazelwood. Also let us proceed with building some very large nuclear as well. Their only problem is they don’t generate enough CO2 that invisible odourless gas that is essential to life. Also offer counselling to those that have a problem with getting on with life.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      You are totally confused and rambling on about stuff that has no bearing on the substantial issue.

      Developed countries MUST develop lifestyles and technology such that their own (individual) emissions do not exceed their own capacity to sink or sequester.

      You will not understand this because you have never understood a single point of any real relevance.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        “Developed countries MUST develop lifestyles and technology such that their own (individual) emissions do not exceed their own capacity to sink or sequester.”

        You continue to ignore the giant elephant in the room. The major sources of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere are the “developing” countries, particularly China and India. Until they stop increasing their CO2 emissions (assuming that CO2 is actually driving climate, something yet to be proven) nothing the developed countries do will have any practical effect.

        I am astonished that you continue not to understand this very important point. It is almost as if your lack of understanding is deliberate!

  • Mike Burston says:

    We live in a carbon universe, there’s no way we can cause climate catastrophe by emitting CO2. The only way that could happen is if the Sun put out moot light in sympathy with our increasing emissions.
    Yet the scare keeps going because Climate Change scratches a lot of backs. Politicians need to control people, the environmentalists want us to eat lower on the food chain, the banks want Cap and trade. Elites and graduated everywhere want employment telling us what we can’t do.
    The whole thing is a very sophisticated subsidy scheme. Remember farmers were excoriated for much less

  • Karabar says:

    Yet again we read of the stupid argument that a person’s opinion is not credible if he is not a “climate scientist”.
    There are no ‘climate scientists’ because there is no such thing as ‘climate science’. The notion is as ignorant as reference to ‘rocket science’ and ‘rocket scientists’.
    SCIENCE is neither a Deity nor an authority. It is a process.
    The process embodies logic, reason, rational thought, observation, replication, and empirical verification.
    Many who consider themselves ‘scientists’ are ignorant of the intricacies of the process. And many who are competent in the use of the process are not labelled ‘scientists.
    There is no more reason to suggest that anthropogenic activities have any effect on the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to that in the sea, than there is to suggest that we ‘live in a warming world’, or that sea level rise is inordinate, or that bush fires are ‘unprecedented’.

    • Aynsley Kellow says:

      My definition of a ‘climate scientist’ is someone who agrees with the alarmist position! So Tim Flannery is in, Michael Mann is in – even though their credentials have little to do with the physical atmosphere, and certainly fall well short of those of sceptics like Richard Lindzen, William Kinninmonth or Garth Paltridge. Someone told me yesterday of a dendrochronologist downplaying the significance of the Indian Ocean Dipole, which is all too typical of climate science: someone with expertise on one area then declaims on other aspects of climate on which they have no expertise.

      But Don (or any other person with a rational and analytical mind) is able to judge science against its predictions, and Don is correct, in my view, in reaching a ‘lukewarmer’ position on the evidence.

      What is more interesting is how and why some reject tis position despite the modest warming of about 1.2°C over the past century or so, which is consistent with the basic science sans positive feed back from water vapour, which (as Paltridge has shown) there is little observational evidence.

      I have an essay in Quadrant this month that tries to make sense of the recent sociological and political phenomena surrounding climate change at present:
      https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2020/01/the-lure-of-the-apocalypse/
      I would probably add to my examples of apocalyptics the rather bizarre statement by Michael Mann that it is ‘conceivable’ that Australia could become uninhabitable and we all become refugees.

      I have noted before that both these statements and journal articles reaching similar conclusions always seem to include the word ‘could’ and its similes. They are, in Popperian terms, conjectures without refutations.

      I am afraid that John Quiggin’s rather intemperate comments above qualifies him as an apocalyptic. He might wish to consider recanting.

  • Stu says:

    My dog, recent postings make such outlandish claims that it is reasonable to assume it is no more than blatant trolling. Either that or some people really have lost the plot. (I am not accusing Don of trolling, but some of his core points are off the chart)

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Indeed, some of your posts have been “off the planet”. Might I suggest a cup of tea and a good lie down?

      Some of Don’s core points are “off the chart”. Please explain, in full scientific detail, your reasons for this assessment.

  • Neville says:

    So Stu, can you list those outlandish claims for us?

    BTW here’s here’s another interesting and very accurate post from Jo Nova. I just love it when the fat pigs start to squeal.

    Solar energy is about as stupid as we can find and of course ZERO change to the weather, climate or anything else. How have we descended to the belief in this silly nonsense?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/abc-outrage-solar-in-australia-no-longer-a-licence-to-steal-money/

  • Neville says:

    Meanwhile coal use continues to rise in Asian developing countries.
    At least Asians seem to understand the benefits of reliable, cheap energy + full base-load power.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-23/coal-demand-holds-steady-from-africa-s-biggest-export-terminal

    • Boambee John says:

      Neville

      China is a source of much of the solar and wind generation equipment installed here. Will their manufacture of these items be affected by the epidemic?

      OTOH, international air travel seems likely to take a major hit, so Stu can console himself with those reductions in CO2 emissions!

  • Stu says:

    Neville, too many to chase all the rabbits. But for a start here is a response to the Ian Plimer article in the Australian back in November. Many of his claims seem to be the same as those proffered here.

    “This op-ed in The Australian by Ian Plimer, titled “Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears”, makes many claims: that polar ice is not melting, that human-caused CO2 emissions can’t cause climate change, that all life on Earth would die if CO2 levels dropped to half of current levels, and so on. None of these things are true.

    As was the case with three other op-eds written by Plimer that we evaluated previously, reviewers unanimously rated the scientific credibility of this article “very low”. In their comments below, the scientists identify a large number of inaccurate or incorrect statements about the way Earth’s climate system works, how climate has changed during Earth’s history, and what we know about the impacts of continued climate change.”

    You can find the full report here.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/ian-plimer-op-ed-in-the-australian-again-presents-long-list-of-false-claims-about-climate/

    Another quote here “The data show a strong correlation since 1959, with temperatures being higher when cumulative human emissions are higher. It is simple for anyone with basic maths training and an internet connection to check this, and it is false to claim that “in our lifetime, there has been no correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature” as the Australian’s article does.

    Correlation doesn’t prove that one causes the other but this is a good example of how the Australian’s article is inaccurate, relies on falsehoods, and will mislead readers.

    1- Feldman et al (2015) Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature
    2- Richardson (2013) Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim, Global and Planetary Change
    3- Soden and Held (2006) An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models, Journal of Climate
    Peter Landschützer, Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology:
    The entire article is just a list of inaccurate and false claims made by the author, contradicting the best scientific evidence (e.g. from measurement records) we have today.

    Twila Moon, Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder:
    This article is a laundry list of falsehoods, misleading examples, and facts taken out of context. It is appalling that such a blatantly false article can be published in any credible news outlet today.

    Martin Singh, Postdoctoral Research fellow, Harvard University:
    This article is a mixture of misdirection, misleading claims, and outright falsehoods.

    The author attempts to paint a picture of current climate change as simply a continuation of natural changes that have occurred in the past. But this neglects the clear evidence that climate change over the last two centuries has been shown to be largely man-made, that it is much more rapid that anything we have seen in the last two thousand years if not longer, and that it is occurring in the context of a globe with more than 7 billion human inhabitants.

    The author makes incorrect claims about climate models failing (against what metric?), that climate change cannot be driven by a trace gas (how did we get out of the ice covered state called “snowball Earth”, not to mention the role of carbon dioxide in many examples of climate change over Earth’s history?), that carbon dioxide concentrations were higher at the beginning of the last ice age (they weren’t).

    Interspersed with these falsehoods are various long interludes about how carbon dioxide is essential for life and helps plants grow. This doesn’t change the fact that the planet is getting warmer, and it doesn’t change the fact that most studies expect agricultural yields to suffer as the world becomes increasingly warmer in spite of the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect.

    The facts are that human activity has increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to levels not seen for close to a million years. Multiple lines of evidence from observations, modelling, and theory shows us that this increase in greenhouse gas concentrations leads to warming of the globe. As this warming continues, it will lead to sea-level rise, changes to rainfall patterns, and, for higher levels of warming, it may render parts of the world essentially uninhabitable for humans without air conditioning. To deny this strong and robust evidence is irresponsible in the extreme.”

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      The standard alarmist pile on against any and all heretics. The narrative must be maintained!

        • Boambee John says:

          One of the greatest contributions you have made to the climate change debate, keep up the good work!

        • Stu says:

          It earns a yawn because of your blatant disregard for the science I put in front of you. Logic does not work with blatant contrarian illogic and refusal to acknowledge facts. But never mind the reality of the change will overwhelm you in time, assuming you last more than five to ten years. I say that as it is becoming accepted that climate change denial is an age related condition.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            You are quite correct that “Logic does not work with blatant contrarian illogic and refusal to acknowledge facts”. Please smarten up your act.

            Act drop the pseudo-medical philosophising. Go back and look at all of the failed “predictions” of imminent disaster by alarmists, and tell us again about “refusal to acknowledge facts”.

          • Andrew says:

            So you and your ‘experts’ took homage to Plimer suggesting: “This op-ed in The Australian by Ian Plimer, titled “Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears”, makes many claims: that polar ice is not melting, that human-caused CO2 emissions can’t cause climate change, that all life on Earth would die if CO2 levels dropped to half of current levels, and so on. None of these things are true.”

            1. Polar ice – https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/category/daily-image/

            2. Anthropogenic CO2 and climate change – well, for one, no one has proven the current ‘warming’ (and let’s leave the widespread data tampering aside) is unprecedented. Before AGW theory turned up 50 years ago, no one ever questioned the existence of the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and other Optimums (they were called optimums for a reason).

            We did emerge from a Little Ice Age in the late 1800s – what is wrong, logically, for warming of (say) 1.5C in 150 years since then? More folk die from cold that heat. Many, many more.Civilisation thrives in ‘warm’ times.

            The rate of warming from 1910 – 1940 (with a zip increase in CO2) was the same, or more, than the post 1980s period and the 1940s to 1970s anomalous cooling (which they’ve also tried hard to erase) was in a period of rapidly rising CO2. Debunks AGW entirely.

            3. A lack of CO2 – lots of ‘experts’ concur that levels of 150-200ppm is starvation levels for plant life – and therefore, likely us too. https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-018-1243-3

            Some even suggest the claim that CO2 levels pre industrialisation at 280ppm is bunkum and that levels were intermittently much higher than 280ppm in recent times. Beck’s stellar 2007 paper raises a lot of questions. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830507780682147

          • Stu says:

            BJ, nah why should I bother, you reject all efforts to educate you. As for the “imminent disasters” you speak of, once again you and fellow travellers distort the case. The immediacy relates to taking action now to prevent disaster in the future. Sure there have been extremist nutters, on both sides, pushing silly arguments, but mainstream science is much more nuanced. I point you back to suggestions, including by Don, that the climate models have failed. That is total rubbish. And further the evidence for AGW is much stronger than the models and stands on its own. Don’t as for directions to it. If you were serious about finding the facts you would do it yourself, I won’t waste my time for you to just ignore.

            And I note the ARC is in the news with a letter regarding climate change by 80 of its top grant recipients. Interesting reading.

            https://laureatebushfiresclimate.wordpress.com/

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “As for the “imminent disasters” you speak of, once again you and fellow travellers distort the case. The immediacy relates to taking action now to prevent disaster in the future. Sure there have been extremist nutters, on both sides, pushing silly arguments, but mainstream science is much more nuanced.”

            One simple example. The UN forecast that there would be 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010. Do you regard the UN as “extremist nutters”?

            As for your statement rejecting “suggestions, including by Don, that the climate models have failed”, we have been through this before, and you continue to reject the simple graph that plots model “projections” against later measured (albeit homogenised) reality. It shows that 97% run too hot.

            Does it worry you that after how long you have posted here on this subject, you seem to have convinced no one? Seems that everyone is out of step except you and Chris!

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Not sure why I bother, but on the subject of the “Laureates” letter, a reminder.

            “In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned that the pursuit of government grants would have a corrupting influence on the scientific community. He feared that while American universities were “historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery,” the pursuit of taxpayer monies would become “a substitute for intellectual curiosity” and lead to “domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment…and the power of money.”

            Eisenhower’s fears were well-founded and prescient.”

            The vast Australian “grants” industry has corrupted everything it has touched.

  • Neville says:

    So Stu have a look at that graph again and then tell us how to get the developing countries to use just S&W.
    But also tell us why everything is so much better for the average person all around the world?
    They live much longer lives and the average life expectancy is now about 72 while in China it is about 76 and about 82 in the OECD countries.
    And wealth and health has also increased for Africans although they are still the poorest continent.
    Humlum finds SLR of about 1 to 1.5 mm yr at the gauges or slightly less than the 20th century. Adjusted sat data is about 3.1 mm year, no warming in Antarctica for 41 years, Greenland still holding up well according to Vinther studies for thermometers and paleo studies and they (Ant+ Gren) hold 99% of the planets land ice.
    Eastern OZ SLs today show little change since 1914 and SLs were about 1.5 metres higher just 4,000 years ago.
    Island states now show 87% are either stable for SLR or they are growing in size over the last 30 + years.
    And the Antarctic peninsula has been cooling since 1998, see Turner et al.
    And of course the deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by 95%+ in the last century. Pop 1.8 bn then and today 7.7 bn. Just think about that stat for a minute.
    OZ droughts were much worse over the last 1,000 years ( Vance) and 500 years. SD linked to 500 yr study from the Conversation.
    Also check out 2019 Ashcroft study of rainfall over SE OZ since 1839.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    I went to read the alarmisttheletter. Unfortunately, it started with a deception, calling itself the “Laureates Open Letter” (no apostrophe).

    The deceptive implication that the writers are all Nobel Laureates discredited all that follows. You have said that you don’t need to be a climate scientist to give us the benefit of your brilliance. They have so little confidence in their own brilliance that they must exaggerate their magnificence!

  • Stu says:

    BJ wrote “ Does it worry you that after how long you have posted here on this subject, you seem to have convinced no one? Seems that everyone is out of step except you and Chris!“

    Not at all mate. Chris and I know we are playing in the colosseum with savages. It is good to be pointed at all the dodgy sites and data out there by you guys, it saves us time, checking out the science denial. It is way more than skepticism. And it gives us the incentive to keep abreast of the actual science to throw back at you. We know you don’t seriously check it and certainly will never be convinced by it because of your serious case of cognitive dissonance. But that is ok. The bit that really makes me laugh though is the attempt to label people who accept the science as being religious when it is your side that display the most nauseating dogma out there. You are the cultists, not just by the small scale of your numbers but by your fanatically held beliefs.

    • Andrew says:

      We must “accept the science” (sounds awfully Gretaesque….)

      What you’re saying is we must buy into the BS.

      The models have been proven wrong time and time again, for years.

      We see:

      1. No unprecedented warming nor an unprecedented rate of warming
      2. that polar ice, north and south, is doing just fine
      3. that the rate of sea level rise has not increased (indeed falling now in many locales)
      4. that the oceans are not acidifying (a misnomer in any event) – oceans are strongly basic and will remain strongly basic
      5. that Polar bear numbers are on the up and up.
      6. Natural ‘disaster’ events are, in fact, falling.

      The theory that was AGW was put up (fair enough), but empirical testing ie against observational evidence has shown it to be a major fail. That is the scientific method.

      Next!

      • Stu says:

        Andy says no warming. Here is what NASA says.

        “The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans—thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. (Click on bullets above to step through the decades.)

        According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

        But why should we care about one degree of warming? After all, the temperature fluctuates by many degrees every day where we live.

        The global temperature record represents an average over the entire surface of the planet. The temperatures we experience locally and in short periods can fluctuate significantly due to predictable cyclical events (night and day, summer and winter) and hard-to-predict wind and precipitation patterns. But the global temperature mainly depends on how much energy the planet receives from the Sun and how much it radiates back into space—quantities that change very little. The amount of energy radiated by the Earth depends significantly on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, particularly the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

        A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.

        The maps above show temperature anomalies, or changes, not absolute temperature. They depict how much various regions of the world have warmed or cooled when compared with a base period of 1951-1980. (The global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 14°C (57°F), with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree.) In other words, the maps show how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that region from 1951-1980.

        Global temperature records start around 1880 because observations did not sufficiently cover enough of the planet prior to that time. The period of 1951-1980 was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years was 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today’s adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember.

        The line plot below shows yearly temperature anomalies from 1880 to 2014 as recorded by NASA, NOAA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the Met Office Hadley Centre (United Kingdom). Though there are minor variations from year to year, all four records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades, and all show the last decade as the warmest.

        Annual Temperature Anomoly
        To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from 6,300 meteorological stations around the world; ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer analysis program—available for public download from the GISS web site—that calculates trends in temperature anomalies relative to the average temperature for the same month during 1951-1980.

        The objective, according to GISS scientists, is to provide an estimate of temperature change that could be compared with predictions of global climate change in response to atmospheric carbon dioxide, aerosols, and changes in solar activity.

        As the maps show, global warming doesn’t mean temperatures rose everywhere at every time by one degree. Temperatures in a given year or decade might rise 5 degrees in one region and drop 2 degrees in another. Exceptionally cold winters in one region might be followed by exceptionally warm summers. Or a cold winter in one area might be balanced by an extremely warm winter in another part of the globe.

        Generally, warming is greater over land than over the oceans because water is slower to absorb and release heat (thermal inertia). Warming may also differ substantially within specific land masses and ocean basins. The graph below shows the long-term temperature trends in relation to El Niño or La Niña events, which can skew temperatures warmer or colder in any one year. Orange bars represent global temperature anomalies in El Niño years, with the red line showing the longer trend. Blue bars depict La Niña years, with a blue line showing the trend. Neutral years are shown in gray, and the black line shows the overall temperature trend since 1950.

        Annual Temperature vs Average
        Since the year 2000, land temperature changes are 50 percent greater in the United States than ocean temperature changes; two to three times greater in Eurasia; and three to four times greater in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula. Warming of the ocean surface has been largest over the Arctic Ocean, second largest over the Indian and Western Pacific Oceans, and third largest over most of the Atlantic Ocean.

        In the global maps at the top of this page, the years from 1885 to 1945 tend to appear cooler (more blues than reds), growing less cool as we move toward the 1950s. Decades within the base period do not appear particularly warm or cold because they are the standard against which all decades are measured. The leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s may be explained by natural variability and possibly by cooling effects of aerosols generated by the rapid economic growth after World War II.

        Fossil fuel use also increased in the post-War era (5 percent per year), boosting greenhouse gases. But aerosol cooling is more immediate, while greenhouse gases accumulate slowly and take much longer to leave the atmosphere. The strong warming trend of the past three decades likely reflects a shift from comparable aerosol and greenhouse gas effects to a predominance of greenhouse gases, as aerosols were curbed by pollution controls, according to GISS director Jim Hansen.”

        You can’t be serious surely in sticking to the standard “one degree change is not significant” of the counter culture. Or are you?

        • Aynsley Kellow says:

          Here’s my problem: NASA uses a temperature record commencing in 1880; the BOM starts its in 1910 because the earlier data are unreliable. Who’s right? You can’t have it both ways.

        • Andrew says:

          Stuy,

          Don’t overrate yourself.

          1. Of course it has warmed, no one disputes that but it is NOT unprecedented. And UAH satellite data suggests 0.56C in the most recent 40 years – whooppee do.

          2. NASA GISS data – almost laughable… https://realclimatescience.com/understanding-noaa-us-temperature-fraud/

          3. The high res ice core data shows repeated CO2 lagging of temperature – 800 years dd. Irrefutable really.

          3. Thanks for the history lesson – again, you presume too much. But likely, that is your way.

          If the scientific method is applied fairly and equally to AGW – it fails. Dismally.

          I’ll leave it at that. You should apply the KISS principle to your facile rants. People have better things to do.

          QED

          • psd says:

            Andrew, I suggest that you read the paper “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation”, by Shakun et al (Nature, v484, p49 (2012)), before proclaiming that “[t]he high res ice core data shows repeated CO2 lagging of temperature – 800 years dd”.
            As these authors note, “…temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation.”

            I think you have been misled by the fact that Antarctic ice cores measure local (Antarctic), not global, temperatures.
            Shakun et al: doi:10.1038/nature10915

          • psd says:

            I am amused that you consider the paper by Humlum et al (2013) to be an adequate proof of your claim that “CO2 lags temperature”. This paper is riddled with errors of fact, methodology, and logic, as the critiques by Richardson, and Masters & Bennestad, also published at the journal’s website, indicate.

          • Andrew says:

            Really, it’s one of many, which no doubt you know….

          • psd says:

            Your response is obscure.

      • psd says:

        I’ll take issue with you again, Andrew. You claim that the oceans are not acidifying, and that that term is anyway a misnomer. Well, as it happens, I’m a chemist by profession, and I can tell you that you’re dead wrong. The process of acidification involves adding an acid to another solution. Even if that other solution is still basic, you are acidifying it. Adding CO2 (or carbonic acid) to the oceans (the oceans are a sink for the anthropogenic CO2, by the way) is a process of acidification. Why don’t you stop wasting people’s time with this nonsense?

        • Andrew says:

          psd, you’re a Chemist? good on you. Here’s a definition, you know – from a dictionary:

          acidify:

          “verb
          make or become acid.”

          So you tell me how lowering pH nominally (and that is highly debatable) of something basic ()and nowhere near even the neutral zone – given the log scale) – and something that everyone knows will remain strongly basic is “making or becoming acid”?

          “Adding acid” means jack.

          Even under RCP 8.5 (heard of that?) they suggest a 0.3 drop in pH – and that’s an impossible make believe scenario….

          The current alleged drop is 0.1 – which I would argue is likely to be statistically insignificant.

          So how about you go and practice your comprehension skills and don’t waste my (and others) time. And cut out the scare mongering BS because that’s all it is. Like all those recently debunked JCU studies – scientists are becoming less credible than politicians….

          Not much good knowing some chemistry if you can’t understand basic English.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Andrew

            You really are a very crude petty soul aren’t you?

          • psd says:

            Here’s another definition of “acidification”, from the internet, since you like these: “the action or process of making or becoming acidic”.
            Get it? The solution does not have to be acidic in the first place. Acidification is an action, a process, of becoming acidic. E.g., by adding acid!
            I think that you are the one who needs to develop some basic English comprehension skills.
            And you can save the supercilious tone attached to your known-nothing pronouncements for somebody else, sport.

          • Andrew says:

            still wrong.

            Are you denying that the ocean will remain strongly basic? And that’s even with venturing into the veracity of the lowering pH claim.

            There is no process of becoming acidic if you know it will not (or cannot) become acidic.

            Try again.

          • psd says:

            By the way, you assert, without any real evidence, that a decrease in pH of 0.1 units is “…likely to be statistically insignificant”. Why? Statistical significance has to be assessed in relation to the uncertainty in the measurements that are used to deduce, or hypothesize, any trend. But you do not know what those uncertainties are. It is true that accurate measurement of pH to deduce trends is very difficult. However, I can tell you- without letting on too much, perhaps- that there is work underway in at least one Australian university to develop a highly accurate pH measurement device, one capable of very level levels of uncertainty (e.g., +/- 0.01 pH unit). We’ll see who’s right then, chum.
            And, not to forget, but a change of -0.3 pH units means an increase in hydronium ion concentration of 100%. That does not appear impossible to me. Everything depends on how effectively the sinks for CO2 can take up the excess CO2.
            Which brings me another comment for you. You’ve previously claimed that “CO2 lags temperature” (or temperature leads CO2), implying that the well-documented increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to outgassing from the oceans. Is this what you think? Because if it is, then perhaps you’d like to explain where the CO2 actually added by humans (and we know how much of that there’s been, quite accurately) has gone? Where has the anthropogenic CO2 gone?

          • Andrew says:

            Last comment.

            Haven’t read the paper that asserts the 0.1 drop but I’d have two major concerns:

            1. What is the data set and over what time scale and geographic spread? Since Argo started? There’s one Argo buoy for every 92,000 sq. km. ffs.

            We all know pH can vary markedly from location to location (for a variety of reasons) and even at the one location (vis a vis night v day, episodal events and seasonal changes).

            2. Let’s assume the global average drop of .1 is correct – what are the error bars? +/- 0.3.

        • The oceans are flywheels for temperature and CO2. Temperature goes down, CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. Released as they warm up. The lag is witnessed y the Vostok Ice Cores. As for acidifying, well yes, but seawater has a large buffering capacity against dramatic changes of Ph. Best to say “slightly less acid”

          • Andrew says:

            less basic/alkaline Michael?

            The point is making an (already) acidic solution more acidic is starkly different to making an (already) basic solution less basic (alkaline).

          • psd says:

            “The point is making an (already) acidic solution more acidic is starkly different to making an (already) basic solution less basic (alkaline).”
            This just shows how totally out of your depth you are.
            One is doing the SAME thing in both cases! That is, the pH is decreasing in both cases, as acid is added. *THIS* is acidification!
            You ignore the FACT (already explained to you) that this is how professional chemists use the term “acidification”. When you do a titration at school, or at uni, by adding acid to a basic solution, you are given an acid to use and told to acidify the base. That causes the pH to drop and the use of a suitable indicator will tell you when the end-point (usually near neutral pH) is reached. Oh, buy I forgot, you didn’t study chemistry at school or uni, did you? I guess that might explain the fake respect indicated in “good for you”. (It’s actually hiding envy, isn’t it, Andrew?)
            I guess I should have expected this kind of response from you, Andrew. You strike me, from these posts, and others on this site, as a smart-alecky kind of guy, the sort is not man enough to own up and say “Well, I guess I might’ve been wrong….”.
            The more you post this kind of guff, Andrew, the more of a twat you appear.

          • Andrew says:

            psd, you never learnt how to use a dictionary?

            And titration in a school lab is not the ocean (think real world).

            No one here has denied that adding sufficient acid to a basic solution can result in that solution ‘acidifying’- becoming acidic – (duh) but that is not the case with our ocean systems…..

            Your adding acid analogy misses the mark – badly.

            For the last time, a DECREASE in an alkaline system that is – and will remain (and strongly at that) alkaline – cannot, be said to be acidifying.

            At no stage are you changing from one to the other, nor will you (you know the “make” or “become” bit in the definition). Nor are you even getting close for that matter.

            So, yeah, it is a scare mongering tactic – nothing more, nothing less.

            Is it really that hard to comprehend?

            Apologies if English is not your first language (seriously).

          • psd says:

            Oh, Andrew, Andrew…. You’re just incorrigible, aren’t you? Nothing can be explained to you, except what you want to hear. I do feel sorry for those around you.

          • psd says:

            “The oceans are flywheels for temperature and CO2. Temperature goes down, CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. Released as they warm up. The lag is witnessed y the Vostok Ice Cores.”
            This is dangerous territory, and it has led many people to claim that “the ice cores prove that CO2 lags temperature”.
            No!
            What the Antarctic ice cores showed was that, at glacial termination, “…the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation” (from the abstract of Caillon et al., Science, v299, p1728 (2003)). The conclusions of this paper have been widely mis-interpreted (by contrarians) to claim that “temperature leads CO2, as shown by ice cores”, or the like.
            However, Antarctic ice cores sample ANTARCTIC, not global, temperatures, whereas CO2 changes, from the cores, are global, due to the rapid mixing between hemispheres. At the last deglaciation, Antarctic temperatures led global temps. When a full analysis of global temperature changes at the last deglaciation (Termination III) was made, the result is that temperature is seen (generally) to lag CO2. This is the conclusion of a later paper by Shakun et al (Nature, v484, p49 (2012)), who stated: “Global] temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation.”
            The mechanism, as explained to me in private email correspondence with one of the authors of the Caillon et al paper, is that the orbital (Milankovitch) increase in insolation warms the southern ocean first, causing some outgassing of CO2, which then participates, through feedback, in warming the rest of the globe. The orbital changes can only account for some 4 C of the global 6 C increase at termination, leaving another 2 C due to CO2 and its amplifying effect.

          • psd says:

            Don Easterbrook.
            Willis Eschenbach.
            LOL

          • Andrew says:

            Ah, let’s resort to the ad hominem! (when the argument is lost)

            My 5yo knows better than to play that card.

          • psd says:

            WUWT!?
            Is that the best you can do?
            Unless any of these so-called “refutations” are published in reliable, peer-reviewed journals, don’t waste my time by linking to them.

          • Andrew says:

            Ah he (or she) swings to the ‘peer review’ card.

            The latest on peer review?

            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html

            keep it up psd (maybe time to try golf or swimming or croquet or the like?)

          • Andrew says:

            And this from naughty Mikey’s nemesis:

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/empirical-evidence-shows-temperature-increases-before-co2-increase-in-all-records/

            You may diss the wuwt site, but a lot of well credentialed folk opine there (or I’m informed in several private emails)…..

          • Here’s another insight from those pesky ice cores. Apparently Co2 a bit of a slouch following temperature down too
            The Vostok Ice Core and the 14,000 Year CO2 Time Lag | Energy Matters

          • Boambee John says:

            “psd
            March 6, 2020 at 2:59 pm
            Oh, Andrew, Andrew…. You’re just incorrigible, aren’t you? Nothing can be explained to you, except what you want to hear. I do feel sorry for those around you.”

            I think that this comment should have been addressed to Chris. It describes his “debating” technique perfectly!

          • Boambee John says:

            “WUWT!?
            Is that the best you can do?
            Unless any of these so-called “refutations” are published in reliable, peer-reviewed journals, don’t waste my time by linking to them.”

            OK, very similar to the standard Chris response on “august scientific journals”. Seems we might have a sock puppet!

          • Chris Warren says:

            Michael Burston

            It is entirely reasonable that CO2 lagged temperature during ice ages because the change in temperature was caused by orbital changes. Heat variations first – CO2 variations second.

            We see this today when increased temperature produces “out-gassing”.

            But there is also a completely different mechanism when CO2 emissions from fossil fuels then produce a lagged temperature outcome. Bringing more CO2 from fossil fuels is different to bringing more CO2 through orbital changes. One lags – one leads.

            The entire ice-age mechanism has no relevance to the problems we have today.

        • Chris Warren says:

          psd

          You are right.

          Increased CO2 in solution with water forms carbonic acid and the ph values moves from the basic end of the scale to the acid end of the scale (a fall in ph).

          This is schoolboy chemistry.

          • Andrew says:

            You illuminate the world with your vast knowledge Chris. Kudos.

            A few days ago I said to my 6yo son: “don’t be like Stu”.

            When I see him later today I’ll amend that to “don’t be like Stu or Chris”.

            Simply terrible, tragic exemplars of wisdom.

            And some nice (but obvious) obfuscation.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Vast knowledge compared to Andrew.

            Andrew is better off sticking to 6 year olds and if he wants an appreciative audience – best keep his views inside his family.

          • Peter S says:

            I have been watching this discussion about “acidification” with wry amusement. Having some idle time I thought I would add my two bob’s worth.

            I believe I am moderately qualified to do so, as aqueous chemistry was the focus of my research activity for twelve years.

            When I first saw the expression “ocean acidification” I too thought it was a deliberately chosen expression to colour postulations/predictions/observations about/of pH in the ocean.

            My first engagement on the topic was with a young researcher at a certain University north of me who was about to commence a research project on the effect of “ocean acidification” on a specific species of fish. Over time it has been demonstrated that this researcher actually falsified data in her published papers. Also over time it has been demonstrated that there is a replication crisis in research published by other researchers at this University.

            What the exchange taught me though was that the use of the term “ocean acidification” was based on a gross misunderstanding of the pH of aqueous systems, and perhaps a reflection of unconscious bias.

            Lets us be very simple about the chemistry. pH is a (negative) logarithmic scale of H(+) concentration ranging from 0-14. Values less than 7.0 represent solutions that are acidic. Values greater than 7.0 represent solutions that are basic. Reduction in pH below 7.0 signifies increasing acidity. Increasing pH above 7.0 signifies increasing basicity.

            I think we can all agree on this.

            Now I think I may be become contentious.

            If you add a base to an already acidic solution but do not increase its pH above 7.0, then you are decreasing its acidity, not increasing its basicity. By definition an acidic solution is not basic. Conversely if you add an acid to an already basic solution but do not decrease its pH below 7.0 then you are decreasing its basicity, not increasing its acidity. Again, by definition, a basic solution is not acidic.

            By definition then dissolution of CO2 in the ocean is not increasing its acidity (or acidifying the ocean) but it is certainly decrease its basicity.

            The term “ocean acidification” is a misnomer, born of fundamental misunderstanding of aqueous chemistry.

            The pH of surface waters is largely but not wholly determined by the equilibrium of the chemical species H2CO3, HCO3(-) and CO3(–). Water chemists use a term “alkalinity” to describe this because “alkalinity” in this context can be measured by a simple titration. The “akalinity” is measured by titrating an aqueous solution with a strong (but diluted) acid, HCl. The endpoint of the titration is the pH of a solution in which all the carbonic ions are converted to H2CO3. The occurs around pH 4.3. The amount of acid required to achieve this is express as CaCO3 equivalents. Alkalinity is fundamentally a measure of the “buffer capacity” of aqueous solutions.

            H2CO3 is a very weak acid. It just so happens that on average ocean pH is close to but slightly less than the pH of a solution of NaHCO3 (pH 8.4). There are logical reasons for this. Surface waters such as rivers and lakes can have a pH as low as 6.6 i.e. acidic. There are logical reasons for this too but I will not digress to enunciate them here.

            The outcome is that the term “ocean acidification” misrepresents the process that is occurring. There is no chance at all for CO2 to reduce the pH of the ocean below 7.0, unless some other drastic change in geochemistry occurs. The ocean will not acidify.

            The process of increasing the amount of CO2 dissolved on the ocean via increasing the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is more correctly described as decreasing or reducing its alkalinity.

            Here endeth the lesson!

          • Andrew says:

            Normal service has resumed.

            Thank you.

          • Andrew says:

            I would add one further comment, I disagree with this:

            “The term “ocean acidification” is a misnomer, born of fundamental misunderstanding of aqueous chemistry.”

            Why?

            Because there was no misunderstanding by those who coined the term.

            It was by design. For a reason.

          • PeterS says:

            Andrew,
            I think you left a phrase off the end of that sentence

          • Andrew says:

            Sorry Peter, fill me in please?

            I don’t get it (a few reds under the belt) ….

          • Peter S says:

            My mistake. But further up in the comment:

            “What the exchange taught me though was that the use of the term “ocean acidification” was based on a gross misunderstanding of the pH of aqueous systems, and perhaps a reflection of unconscious bias.”

            My science training makes me cautious in attributing an understanding that I believe but can’t prove.

          • Peter S says:

            Andrew I think I have replied to your request for clarification, but I can’t find it, so let me know if you didn’t see it.

          • Andrew says:

            All good Peter – and yes, you did reply. Cheers

          • psd says:

            Your “lesson” strikes me as an exercise in whimsy. And, I daresay, it’s sophistry masquerading as expertise.
            In the first place, I asked a couple of former colleagues about “acidification”, one being a former uni academic (associate prof) in chemistry, who responded succinctly that in his understanding, it’s “the lowering of pH in a medium”, and the other, also a chemist by training, who responded similarly that it’s “…any process or occurrence that…lowers the pH”. So, by that we understand that it’s the process of lowering the pH, regardless of whether you reach an endpoint or not and whether the medium becomes actually acidic (pH<7.0) or not. That is pretty much what we chemists (though not you) understand by the word.

            Second, no less a scientist than the geochemist Wallace Broecker (have you heard of him?) used the term “acidification”, in the context of the oceans, in published work more than 40 years ago. (See W. Broecker and T. Takahashi [1978], “Neutralization of Fossil Fuel CO2 by Marine Calcium Carbonate”, in The Fate of Fossil Fuel CO2 in the Oceans, eds. N.R. Anderson and A. Malahoff, Plenum, NY, pp.213-248.)
            Broecker's scientific achievements and reputation far exceed those of the (largely) anonymous crowd of keyboard-bangers at WUWT.
            If there is any “gross misunderstanding”, then no less a scientist than Broecker “grossly misunderstood”.
            [It is a pity that Broecker passed away last year, for I would have been most interested to hear how you would have gone in questioning him about the aptness of his use of the term “acidification”.]

            You claim that “There is no chance at all for CO2 to reduce the pH of the ocean below 7.0". Perhaps this is correct, in relation to anthropogenic influences on the oceans. However, it not clear to me that significant drops in pH can be ruled out. Ocean chemistry and acidification (there! I've said it!) represents a complex issue. Raymond Pierrehumbert presents a hypothetical scenario in his book Principles of Planetary Climate, assuming the rapid release of a trillion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere (“rapid” relative to the time scale for dissolution of calcium carbonate), corresponding to the burning of a significant fraction of the fossil fuels remaining in the earth's crust, and calculates a decrease in ocean pH of about one unit, to 7.07.

            As for the rest of your "lesson", I will pass, thank you.

            This is a holiday weekend for me, and there are too many other things to do. My music collection and piano beckon.
            Good day.

          • Peter S says:

            I trust I will not distract you from you music collection and piano. But I was rather flattered that you spent so much effort addressing my “lesson” in aqueous pH terms and definitions.

            I really don’t want to disparage your former colleagues “one being a former uni academic (associate prof) in chemistry, who responded succinctly that in his understanding, it’s “the lowering of pH in a medium”, and the other, also a chemist by training, who responded similarly that it’s “…any process or occurrence that…lowers the pH”.” I have no knowledge of the context of your question, not of their particular expertise in chemistry.

            Acidification is not “the lowering of pH in a medium” nor “…any process or occurrence that…lowers the pH”. They are wrong and I am sure in any discussion I could convince them of that. Mind you I am aware that in modern lexicon for many it has assumed that meaning, for reasons I suspect that are really about politics and ideology. English is after all is a “living” language and words assume new meanings overtime which are not related to their original meaning.

            It amuses me that the “alarmists” ( I hate that word, so perhaps I should say the acolytes of climate change theory) so strongly defend their misuse of the word “acidification”. I suspect it is because it adds to the message of impending doom they are continuously proselytizing.

            I know of Wallace Broecker. Whether or not he used the term “acidification” in the context we are discussing is irrelevant. If the context is the same then I would happily point out he is wrong. Perhaps you are aware of the writings of J J Morgan and W Stumm (Aquatic Chemistry – Chemical Equilibria and Rates in Natural Waters, 1st Edition, Wiley Interscience, 1970 and 3rd Edition, Wiley Interscience, 1996). I don’t have the 2nd edition but the first was my learning manual for aqueous chemistry. To the best of my knowledge the word “acidification’ does not occur within either of them, but the word “acidity” occurs frequently and in the correct context.

            Mind you, the literature on aqueous chemistry is quite extensive and probably if I searched enough I will find “acidification’ in the context we are discussion and I will still say it is misused. Just call me a pedant.

            To be accurate, in saying “There is no chance at all for CO2 to reduce the pH of the ocean below 7.0” I did add a qualification that you have conveniently ignored. Something to the effect that if this did occur it would require a major change in the planet’s geochemistry. In your own words “Raymond Pierrehumbert presents a hypothetical scenario in his book Principles of Planetary Climate”. Hypothetical and speculative and highly unlikely.

            However, I am content to offer a more likely scenario – a massive volcanic event releasing billions of tons of sulphur compounds. I am sure you are aware that sulfur compounds can oxidise to H2SO4 which is a very strong acid, streets ahead of H2CO3. I am sure you are also aware that acidic environments (i.e. below pH 7.0) already exist in the oceans in the environments around ocean-floor fumeroles. If my memory doesn’t deceive me such environments exist in relatively shallow waters off New Guinea, as well as in the oceanic trenches. Mind you such a scenario might well turn the earth back into a snowball too.

            And frankly, I don’t really care if you pass on the rest of my “lesson”. It remains, nonetheless, relevant.

            It has been fun chatting to you. I really don’t expect to alter your thinking or that of some of your fellow travelers here. Perhaps, in a small way, I might make a few others think a little more rationally, and learn to be more precise in their terminology.

            Enjoy your music and your piano.

          • Andrew says:

            Excellent piece Peter. Thank you.

          • Boambee John says:

            Peter S

            “Mind you I am aware that in modern lexicon for many it has assumed that meaning, for reasons I suspect that are really about politics and ideology.”

            Tactfully phrased. I would have referred to the work of Eric Blair, aka George Orwell.

            Far too mantly younger moderns appear to have taken 1984 as a “How to” guide, rather than the warning he intended it to be.

          • Peter S says:

            I try to be tactful

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      Funny that the Pacific Nations, that have been ‘sinking’ for at least the last 20 years, have, in the absence of the requested billions of dollars in ‘reparations’, remained above the waves.

  • Neville says:

    Gosh now we’re supposed to be the cultists and yet I’ve asked him to explain my links to so much of actual data or studies and he doesn’t respond.
    Clearly we are living under the best conditions since humans fully evolved and yet we have these fools trying to tell us how terrible the world has become.
    And the world continues to improve for the much larger 7.7 bn pop than 30 years ago, 50 years ago or 100 years ago. When are they going to wake up?

  • Neville says:

    Much more data and evidence for the silly religious donkeys to take on board.
    Roger Pielke jnr recently looked at the latest data for extreme events and found that the poorest people are now receiving the most benefit from a wealthier world.
    Over the last few decades their lives have improved significantly, yet our religious donkeys always seem to turn away and ignore this good news.
    Here’s his article from a month ago quoting the latest studies and the graph trends make this easy to understand.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/12/14/why-climate-advocates-need-to-stop-hyping-extreme-weather/#63dded3a7f0a

    • Stu says:

      “the poorest people are now receiving the most benefit from a wealthier world.”. Classic twisting of the story. Yes the world is wealthier and the benefits spreading around. But that has nothing to do with the climate change debate except in so far as gorging at the banquet might feel great at the time but the payment comes later. And a question for you, can the world cope with a population all living at our (Oz) current standard of living? The resource consumption would be enormous and the consequences heavy.

      To put that another way, so what? What if that improved living is at the expense of downgraded quality of life through severe climate effects some time in the future?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “And a question for you, can the world cope with a population all living at our (Oz) current standard of living? The resource consumption would be enormous and the consequences heavy.”

        So, the options for the future that you see seem to be:

        A dramatic technical breakthrough (actually, at least two) in battery (essential), and either wind or solar technology;

        Extensive use of nuclear power;

        Significant reductions in living standards in developed nations; or

        Significant reductions in world population.

        Despite the expenditure of many billions, there is no sign of the first.

        Strangely, most alarmists adamantly oppose nuclear power.

        Good luck with the third in democratic countries.

        I shudder to consider how alarmists might go about reducing world population, though some of the more radical have made some revolting suggestions.

        Does that sum up your position?

        • Stu says:

          In case you have been sleeping in recent decades might I remind you the solution to the population problem lies in the education of women, reducing infant mortality and generally raising health and welfare standards. You always seem to take the doomsday version of outcomes. These are all problems the world can address, but first we have to shut down the self promoting greed of the oil, gas and coal cartels. The future is bright but not if your approach wins the argument.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Once again you display for all to see the narrowness of your vision.

            As you write, the “solution to the population problem lies in the education of women, reducing infant mortality and generally raising health and welfare standards.” You ignore, however, that those desiderata coincide with rising living standards based essentially on the availability of affordable, reliable, continuous power. At present that system is based on fossil fuels, hydro, nuclear, and a miniscule amount of solar and wind.

            Until there is a viable alternative, the current system must be maintained, not destroyed by a combination of not very benign neglect and active opposition.

            You wish to first “shut down the self promoting greed of the oil, gas and coal cartels”, but have no current viable alternative except nuclear, which you have opposed in the past. Madness!!

            You might wish to destroy civilisation in order to save it. I do not wish to join you in societal suicide.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Boambee

          Do you have any evidence showing:

          “…though some of the more radical have made some revolting suggestions.”

          or was this a deliberate lie?

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            If you have not seen suggestions by radical environmentalists that humans are a plague on the planet, whose numbers must be radically reduced, then you have been keeping your eyes wide shut in recent years.

            Wake up!

          • Chris Warren says:

            So no evidence, so it was a lie.

            This is not the first time.

            Classic denialist trick…

          • Andrew says:

            You keep running with the “denialist” agenda….

            Yet, it is the alarmists who deny the reality – wrt rate of temperature change, polar ice, sea level rise, ocean acidification, natural disasters etc. – it’s all fine and dandy right now.

            And that simple reality destroys the myth that CO2 drives anything (well aside from more & quicker greening).

            You deny the irrefutable data and put your faith in these highly expensive, yet highly flawed GCMs.

            Feel free to put up one piece of real world evidence that currently supports the alarmist agenda.

            End of the day, the jokes on you.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            There is plenty of evidence, but you do not want to look for it for fear of finding it.

            Try the Twitter sewer.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Usually I would leave you to wallow in your own ignorance.

            But since even Wiki seems to be too hard for you, here are a couple of names for you to follow up. You should be able to find more without difficulty.

            “Omnicide is human extinction as a result of human action. Most commonly it refers to extinction through nuclear warfare or biological warfare,[46][47][48] but it can also apply to extinction through means such as a global anthropogenic ecological catastrophe.[49] Given the omnicidal nature of human civilization, some philosophers, among them the antinatalist David Benatar, animal rights activist Steven Best and anarchist Todd May, posit that human extinction would be a positive thing for the other organisms on the planet, and the planet itself.”

            No need to apologise for calling me a liar, I recognise that you are so arrogant that your apology would be worthless anyway.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee

            Not one of the people you named has made any revolting suggestion.

            It is entirely arguable that if humans had never existed, or if humans became extinct, that other animals would be better off. People are free to argue this line without being slandered as “revolting” which is what you did.

            Your status, as stated, is confirmed.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            And in closely related news, 47 is the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Andrew Bolt on Australia’s wild fires:

    “ACTIVISTS are exploiting these terrible bushfires to whip up an astonishing fear of man-made global warming and hatred of sceptics like me.

    But know what makes me sure, even after this fiery devastation, that the global warming menace is exaggerated? It’s warmist scientist Andy Pitman, who has once again confirmed exactly what I’ve been saying. How horrified he’ll be to hear it

    You may remember Professor Pitman, the director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes. He last year was recorded admitting to fellow warmists that droughts — like this severe one that’s fed the fires — are NOT caused by global warming. “As far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought,” he said. “There is no reason a priori why climate change should make the landscape more arid.”

    Indeed, despite the drought, Australia’s rainfall over the century as increased, not fallen.

    Pitman and the ABC were naturaily mortified when I and others started to quote him. Pitman is now furious that former rime Minister Tony Abbott last week quoted his admission, too, in the Australian.”

    More in the Courier Mail 27/1/20.

    • Stu says:

      SD, as usual you are very selective. “Indeed, despite the drought, Australia’s rainfall over the century as (sic) increased, not fallen.”. Once again, so what? In case you have not noticed, a warming world increases the amount of moisture in the system. As a result some places are getting more rain and some less, that is one of the predictions proving correct. In Australia some places are getting more while others, particularly during the current drought, are getting much less. Your figures for average rainfall for Oz therefore don’t hold water (pun intended).

      • spangled drongo says:

        Please don’t blither, stu. When you can’t quantify any of your claims they are meaningless.

        Nothing is happening wrt droughts and fires that has not happened in the recent past when your “climate change” had no bearing on the situation but when you add the later factors of huge numbers of tree-changers, less farmers and considerably less hazard reduction, what is happening today is a natural result of those factors.

        There is no need to make stuff up and at least Andy Pitman is enough of a scientist to be aware of that.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Denialist prediction (via Jo Nova)

    “Main Message

    Global temperatures will come off the current plateau into a sustained and significant cooling, beginning 2017 or maybe as late as 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3 °C in the 2020s, taking the planet back to the global temperature that prevailed in the 1980s. This was signaled (though not caused) by a fall in underlying solar radiation starting in 2004, one of the three largest falls since 1610 when records started.”

  • Chris Warren says:

    This is why denialists are real laughing stocks…

    Jennifer Marohasy – 16 February 2005.

    “It is my assessment that global temperatures will start to cool some time soon – but for mostly unrelated reasons. Indeed there has never been a period in the earth’s long history when climate was constant.”

    • Boambee John says:

      And this is why alarmists are real laughing stocks …

      In 2005 the UNEP predicted that there would be 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010.

      One was accepted by a New Zealand court. Only 49,999,999 to go, but already 10 years past the predicted timeframe!!!

      • Chris Warren says:

        Another dirty trick by our damned denialists.

        The UNEP never, never made this prediction.

        They merely included a publication in their resources library.

        The claim was made in 2005 by a completely different source; namely:

        Norman Myers, ‘Environmental refugees, An emergent security issue’, 13. Economic forum, Prague, OSCE, May 2005 ; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 ; Liser, 2007.

        All that Bombee has done is simply plagiarise stuff from otehr denialist websites pretending that he has any knowledge or any competancy at all.

        What a drone.

  • Graham Young says:

    The saddest thing about the JQ comment is that no mathematically or scientifically literate person could have honestly made it. As JQ’s professional reputation rests on his econometric prowess, we know he is at least not mathematically illiterate (or is that innumerate?), and he seems to know something of science.

    Australia is not burning up because of climate change. I commissioned fire expert David Packham to calculate the change that one degree Celsius increase in temperature would make to the MacArthur Forest Fire Danger Index. He calculated it would make 3% difference, which would be unnoticeable given the magnitude of measurement error in some of the other measures.

    There are plenty of other assessments that come to the same conclusion, including on by CSIRO IN 2007 which projected a 3 to 10% difference compared to 1999 by now, but that analysis assumes a one degree increase in the last 20 years when the increase has been half that.
    So this is the modern academy. A senior academic – a Federation Fellow no less – screams insults at a more senior figure in the academy, using a statement that he must know to be utterly wrong. Quiggin will get advanced, but more sober, rational and reliable scientists, like Peter Ridd, will be discharged.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Here is another denialist predicting cooling …

    http://archive.is/3w2CM#selection-2553.980-2553.1108

    Only denialists listen to denialists.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Back to the ever reliable drive-by posting formula, I see.

      Snide comment about “denialists/deniers”.

      Link to alarmist site.

      Rinse and repeat!

  • Chris Warren says:

    Of course Anthony Watts being an inveterate denialist, is well and truly on the “global cooling” bandwagon. Watts says:

    “…Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3-5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3-0.5° C until ~2035. The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/

    Really, these denialists are arrant fools.

  • David Brewer says:

    For what it’s worth, I agree with Don’s argument on the whole. Qua bushfires, global warming itself could only have had a trivial impact, whereas lack of forest management, and prevention of land-clearing – both done in the name of reducing our “carbon footprint” – are major contributors to today’s super-fires.

    The only point of Don’s that I would qualify is this:

    “There is no reason to suppose that warming is dangerous for humanity, in fact the contrary is the case.”

    This is true, but only up to a point. All the large-scale modelling exercises (of which Don is rightly sceptical) agree that mild, slow warming (say up to another 1 degree C by the end of the century) would be beneficial on net. The benefits come from longer growing seasons, less frost damage to crops, opening up previously frozen land to agriculture, the “fertiliser effect” of additional CO2 itself on plant growth, transport savings from reduced sea ice, lower heating bills, reduced deaths from cold, and other factors. However, warming beyond an extra degree or so is likely to produce more negatives, including sea-level rise and some other nasties.

    Even without models it’s not difficult to identify potential effects of warming, but many factors other than greenhouse gases are at work and the actual timing and magnitude of future climate changes are virtually impossible to predict. That would still be true if we were sure of exactly how much warming extra greenhouse gases would produce. But we are very far from sure of even that point, as Don observes. In fact, the range of guesses on “climate sensitivity” has not narrowed for 41 years – rather than 30 – as the Charney Report of 1979 already guessed 1.5-4.5 degrees C of warming for a doubling of carbon dioxide.

    I recently found an instructive debate on the whole issue between two scientists who know what they are talking about here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY Nothing much has changed in the ten years since, and, with the above qualifications, and given the large remaining uncertainties and gaps in knowledge, I think Don is justified in waiting for some more evidence before shifting his position on this.

  • Chris Warren says:

    More crazy stuff from denialist Jo Nova

    “BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling” [June 2014]

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/

    So when denialists criticise models – why do they ignore denialist models????

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Because, like all models, they are a waste of time and effort.

      When the model makers start demanding that we upend society on the basis of their models, as alarmists are currently doing, these models will also be criticised.

      And stop wailing like a baby!

  • ianl says:

    Quiggles flies again. (the Quiggin comment above)

    Don Aitkin does not deserve the empty nastiness of a Quiggles. I don’t mind disagreeing with Don A (or he with me) but the distilled nastiness of the hysterics, amplified by the Quiggles comments, has shown me the depth of rancour is now too deep to resolve with discussion.

    The only circuit breaker I can see now is the misery of intermittent but continual load shedding. Even then, with the State Govts in charge of that, the shedding will not be evenly spread. Victoria just 12 months ago showed exactly that.

  • Neville says:

    I see our resident donkey is off on another silly tangent.
    Here’s a few more ignorant rants from the silly extremists to think about.
    Don’t forget Flannery told us that “even the rains that fall will not fill our dams”, also see above for millions of climate refugees, we’ve been told repeatedly that the world has only, 5 years, 10 years, 12 years etc before it’s too late.
    Upside down Mann now tells us that Aussies could become climate refugees and we must reduce emissions to stop his CAGW.
    His extreme POV was castigated by fellow scientists and they allowed Steyn to write a best seller using their quotes to fill the pages.
    I don’t agree with anyone that is sure that the world will start cooling by X date or will end by another silly forecast, but I do agree that certain trends are likely over time.
    I’m reasonably sure that the AMO will switch to the cool phase soon or probably by 2030 and that some cooling could occur in the Arctic for a period after that time.
    We know that the IOD neg phase will likely bring more rain to SE OZ and La Nino can see higher rainfall and floods as well to eastern OZ.
    These are fairly sensible predictions, but predicting the end of the world is another matter entirely.
    The nonsense in Gore’s AIT was challenged by a father in a UK court and he won the case. And the judgement was that kids should also receive the alternative POV as well.
    But I see our resident donkey STILL can’t add up simple sums or understand where most of the emissions of co2 were sourced over the last 30 years.
    To argue with such a fool is indeed a fool’s errand and we should have better things to do.
    Just look at the evidence and data since 1989 to understand how much better lives are for even the poorest people on the globe and I’m sure their lives will also improve in the coming decades.
    But I suppose the big daddy of them all was Robyn William’s claim that SLs could rise by 100 metres in 100 years. But Geeezzzz he’s only the ABC’s science guy and he held that position for decades.
    So far he has a lot of catching up to do if we look at global SLR showing 1 to 1.5 mm a year at the gauges or even the adjusted sat data of 3.1 mm a year.

  • Neville says:

    Another last chance to change our sinful ways in Glasgow COP 26.
    Also total BS and what do you think the developing , super emitters will do when asked to reduce their so called pollution?
    But more likely the dopes will demand that OZ reduce our 1.1% back to ZERO ASAP and stop coal mining + gas exports. And if we did they would happily go away and be sure that our sacrifice actually helped to save them from some looming apocalypse.
    These fools are about as good at very simple maths as our resident donkeys.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/27/glasgow-cop26-yet-another-last-chance-to-prevent-climate-crisis/

  • Chris Warren says:

    Just because neville does not know what he is talking about;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYtCkoELP5I

  • Aert Driessen says:

    Thanks Don, an outstanding historical summary of the whole debacle. I’m keeping a copy as a reference for the time when my grandchildren are adults. As I see it, we are in this mess because this country right now has no politicians with balls to call this out. I realise that leadership can cost, even one’s life in particular circumstances, but the worst a politician can lose is a parliamentary seat. Very disappointing. You mentioned engaging with other issues. One of the things that used to bug me with the climate change issue is the abuse and manipulation of language, often for political purposes. Take climate change for example. What I learnt about it is that it means both getting warmer and/or cooler, even ice-age cold. It means the climate is changing whichever way. I realise that at the moment, as you have explained so accurately, it refers only to warming. So what word will we use to describe cooling when it comes? And I think that cooling change has commenced. What words do we have to describe that? I hold the BoM responsible for this. Anyway, that leads me to another issue that has a dreadful language around it – euthanasia. It is so crass and the only meaning that I attach to it is being ‘put down’. A friend said that when your time comes, don’t go to a hospital because all they try and do there is try to keep you alive, which may not be what you want. Go to a vet. Apologies for being so cynical. Anyway, I see that social issue as one that would also benefit from a clean-up of its language. Just a thought and keep writing, on whatever. Always interesting and informative.

  • Chris Warren says:

    “So what word will we use to describe cooling when it comes?”

    Godot

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the Conversation summary AGAIN of OZ droughts and rainfall since 1500, just for our ignorant donkey.
    The last 100 years (including rainfall) is by far the best time to be alive over that long history, just look at the study.
    And as I’ve tried to school this hapless fool before, the average OZ rainfall has increased after 1950.
    Some states much more than others, but overall nobody would want to swap the last 100 years for any of the previous 400.
    And ditto for the 1,000 year Vance study for eastern OZ, that included a 37 year drought in the Med WP.
    But never fear this silly donkey wouldn’t wake up, however we tried to educate him. He’s a rolled gold mission impossible and not worth the time of day.
    Oh and the wettest year in the 500 was in 2011, well after silly Flannery’s yapping about droughts etc.

    https://theconversation.com/500-years-of-drought-and-flood-trees-and-corals-reveal-australias-climate-history-51573

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    “Go to a vet”. Good point. We are very true to our dogs.

  • Stu says:

    There are many spurious arguments here by the naysayers. But one in particular stands out, calling for questioning. If rising CO2 (which is proven to be from burning old sunlight) is not to blame for the ongoing rise in temperature then please explain what has caused that temperature rise. It has been shown not to be the sun and other ideas, so what is the cause please? And don’t rely on the disproven “there has been no warming” BS.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      At least part of is due to unsuitable locations of weather stations affected by UHI. Another part follows from the use of electronic thermometers that measure instantaneously any temperature change. Transient temperature changes that would have been under the reaction time for mercury thermometers and so not recorded now appear in the record. These affect daily peaks, feeding into the average of averages so beloved of weather bureaux around the world.

      Then there is the magic process of “homogenisation” as practised in Australia. This process is used to “estimate” temperatures in locations without weather stations. Some of the estimates are made for locations hundreds of kilometres away. In the true spirit of scientific transparency, the BoM refuses to open the algorithms to outsiders.

      I doubt that it is now possible to untangle this Gordian knot, short of another Alexander the Great coming on the scene.

      • Stu says:

        With respect that does not answer the question. But I am surprised you did not resort to “natural variation”. And I will throw in that you guys have conceded on the carbon thing given you rave on about the output of China versus little Oz. Also I refer here to the global picture so don’t bring up the rubbish about BoM

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Because you have an incorrigible propensity to either ignore or misinterpret what I post, I will again, for your benefit, repeat here what I posted towards the end of the bushfire thread. Please, this time, read, think, and try to understand.

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

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

          This general statement applies world wide, but does not, of course, negate my Australia specific post above.

          As to the issue of CO2 (not carbon, as you continue to say, again displaying your scientific ignorance) emissions in China, India and other developing countries, if you had bothered to read carefully my many earlier posts you would have noticed that I caveat my comments on the lines that if YOU genuinely believe that CO2 (not soot) emissions control the temperature then YOU should take your campaign to the major sources of increasing CO2 emissions. I am not yet convinced that CO2 controls the earth’s temperature.

          I find it hard to believe that you are as obtuse as you seem to be, but it is increasingly difficult not to come to that conclusion.

      • Kneel says:

        “…what is the cause please?”

        Despite your insistence otherwise, natural variation is enough. Do the math yourself – a very slightly “pink” noise series can show a “random walk” accumulating significant movement away from the mean. Almost all climate variables are “pink” not “white” (that is, they show “memory” or “persistence”) – temperature most certainly is “pink”.

        To paraphrase: radical change requires radical proof. I do not see sufficient evidence to suggest radical change is required immediately. Better to spend our money wisely by researching & developing alternative energy sources, rather than subsidise what we already know doesn’t produce the desired results and leaves us with insufficient resources to make any required adaptations to whatever changes occur.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “…. please explain what has caused that temperature rise.”

      What BJ said plus the fact that the LIA which ended 150 years ago was the coldest prolonged period during the Holocene and our warming of around 1c since then is mostly Nat Var.

      After all stu, which way is the temp most likely to naturally head after record long cold?

      During the Holocene there were far hotter periods as witnessed by physical evidence of higher sea levels and tree lines closer to the poles.

      The fact that we are still in or around the bottom quartile of Holocene temps should convince even a religious warmer like you, stu, of the possibility that currently, we could be naturally even warmer still but for the fact that ACO2 is actually cooling us to some degree.

      • Stu says:

        Ah yes you never disappoint, so predictable in hanging on dodgy claims based on very limited data from the past. But to throw in “but for the fact that ACO2 is actually cooling us to some degree.” really surprises, you are in small company there. How do you justify that statement?

        • Possibly ice ages happen when a continent drifts over a pole. Milanckovic worked out how the periodical variations in the Earths orbit around the Sun are mirrored in the ebb and flow of the Ice Ages.. There’s nothing we can do about that. Best guess for the next ice age 1000-3000 years.
          CO2 can’t have much additional radiative effect at present levels. We’d have to persuade the Sun to emit more light for that to happen

        • spangled drongo says:

          As usual, stu, to support your religion you are in denial of the history of the Holocene that is based on so much observational evidence.

          And choose a mannufactured Hockey Stick instead.

          Gutter science, anyone?

          And please read again what I said about ACO2 cooling.

          And stop quoting selectively.

          But I suppose when you only think and observe selectively……

          • Stu says:

            That is hilarious guys!

          • Boambee John says:

            “That is hilarious guys!”

            Rough translation “Hmmm, not sure I understand that. I will dismiss it as a joke until I can find something from an alarmist website that sounds as if it is a coherent response!”

          • spangled drongo says:

            In order to broaden your little mind, stu, you need to be aware that in just 2019 alone, more than 440 scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.

            Did you get around to reading any of them, perchance?

            It’s amazing what’s out there in the real world for you to check up on.

            Along with falling sea levels.

  • Neville says:

    Here is the Albanese donkey in parliament yesterday. Just think that there are plenty more donkeys out there who are happy to vote for this dope or the clueless Greens. And all for a ZERO return on this stupid investment???? and at a waste of many more billions $ flushed down the drain if Albanese became PM in 2022.

    We know that new technology has already led to a 95%+ reduction in deaths from extreme weather events since 1920, so Morrison is absolutely correct on that score.

    We also know that a reduction of 26% or 40% or 100% won’t change OZ droughts, rainfall, SLR, extreme events, heatwaves, cold spells, GBR, the IOD, ENSO, SAM or anything else. And yet these ignorant fools get away with their yapping every week, month and year. Are our MSM really this stupid?

    https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/6605528/pm-wrong-on-technology-and-emissions-alp/?cs=7576

    PM wrong on technology and emissions: ALP

    Rebecca Gredley

    Politics
    Labor Leader Anthony Albanese has challenged the PM’s claim technology is key to cutting emissions.
    Labor Leader Anthony Albanese has challenged the PM’s claim technology is key to cutting emissions.

    The prime minister is wrong to suggest technology is key to cutting carbon emissions, Labor leader Anthony Albanese says.

    Scott Morrison used his first major speech of the year to downplay the importance of international climate change agreements and caution against imposing new taxes to curb emissions.

    “He’s wrong. We’ve seen the impact of climate change. We’ve seen it, we’ve felt it, we’ve smelt it,” Mr Albanese told ABC radio on Thursday.

    “It has had a devastating impact over the summer.”

    Labor’s shadow cabinet will travel to the bushfire-devastated Batemans Bay on the NSW south coast next Friday when the first week of parliament for the year wraps up.

    Mr Albanese said he wants his colleagues to see the devastation first-hand.

    Batemans Bay sits in the Labor-held seat of Gilmore while the neighbouring electorate Eden Monaro – also hard hit by bushfires – is also an opposition-held seat.

    Mr Morrison used his speech to continue defending the government’s emissions reduction efforts, repeating his mantra of “making and breaking” an emissions reduction target of a 26 per cent cut by 2030.

    “If legitimate carryover credits are not necessary, then even better,” he said.

    Mr Albanese said the prime minister was wrong to suggest pollution was going in the right direction.

    “The government continues to just come up with a whole lot of words and no action,” he said.

    “Our emissions are not going down.”

    The Australian Conservation Foundation says Mr Morrison’s desire to increase the nation’s gas exploration will not help the climate.

    “If serious action is not taken to tackle the root cause of climate damage – the digging up and burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas – the federal government will oversee a future of far worse bushfire seasons and more extreme weather events.”

    Australian Associated Press

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, like you say, these donkeys are unbelievable.

      But my next door neighbour put an end to that climate change problem yesterday.

      He started burning off!

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the Young IPA podcast and an interview with Matt Ridley at about 16 min 45 secs.
    And Young James Bolt seems to be learning the trade quite nicely.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/young-ipa-podcast-why-is-the-left-panicking-about-this-brilliant-decade/news-story/09fe13bd7bd4e84f9fdd8514e72f7703

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu,

    More specifically, the science papers I mentioned above support four main sceptical positions which question the climate alarm popularized in today’s headlines, ie;

    The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible, and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation.

    If you find that hilarious please explain the joke.

    • Boambee John says:

      SD

      The joke is Stu.

      Like the person who doesn’t know about art, but knows what he likes, Stu has admitted previously (explicitly) and on this thread (implicitly) that he doesn’t know much science, but he knows what he likes.

      Stu is utterly committed to CAGW, and I doubt that a glacier a mile thick outside his front door would convince him to change that position.

      As I said, the joke is Stu!

        • Boambee John says:

          SD

          He has previously assured us that solar cells are adequate for his boat. Perhaps his house also has them. I wonder has he gone off-grid, or has he kept a lifeline to eeeevil fossil fuels? Probably the latter.

          • spangled drongo says:

            BJ

            I’ll bet his boat has a f/f engine and a generator as well.

            But if he goes off-grid and forsakes the eeeevil f/fs then he is trying.

            Deluded, but trying.

            I’ve been down that path and you need a stand-by generator plus a lot of expensive batteries.

            People who had to do this were happy to pay electricity generating cos many thousands to have the grid extended to their place.

            And then guarantee those EGCs payment far in excess of their consumption.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            You cherry picked by ignoring the 30 years “rule” of the climate scientists.

            Are you really such a hypocrite, or do you have a memory problem?

            Your routine resort to slanderous assertions of “lies” shows the weaknesses of your intellect.

            Found any “revolting” proposals yet, or is that beyond your research skills? I might have to post a few to demonstrate your failure.

          • Chris Warren says:

            So it was a lie – I never ignore the 30 year method when it is relevant. Many trends are cited as per decade.

            I will ignore all your silly slanders and fakery.

  • Stu says:

    The similarity of approach here and everyday conspiracy theory sites is startling. Meantime you guys have still not explained the cause of the warming through the 20th century up till now. I recall one of you seemed to think it was continental drift or Malenkovitch cycles etc.

    And your wonderful compilation of negative research papers by CFACT (of all groups!) might have more cred if it was looking at all science papers published on the subject and providing some comparative comment, but of course no.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      You really are obtuse. Go back and read my posts. I have said many times that I have no doubt that human action, demonstrated by the UHI effect, is having an effect on temperature.

      The issues are the scale of such effect (trivial so far) and the impact (beneficial so far). You persistently fail to respond on these points, probably because it would contradict your panic-merchant philosophy to do so.

      I (once again) remind you that IR absorption by CO2 reaches a saturation point.

      The best thing about your presence here is that responding to your silly bleating provides useful opportunities to educate lurkers, who have ample opportunities to observe the narrow minded silliness of alarmists.

      I note that you reject the papers to which SD referred because you do not like the organisation that compiled the list. Very open-minded (NOT)

      PS, unlike alarmist papers, which seem to be written in 5 tonne batches, you might consider looking at sceptical papers. Quality beats quantity, it actually determines scientific outcomes.

      • Stu says:

        “I note that you reject the papers to which SD referred because you do not like the organisation that compiled the list. Very open-minded (NOT)
        PS, unlike alarmist papers, which seem to be written in 5 tonne batches, you might consider looking at sceptical papers. Quality beats quantity, it actually determines scientific outcomes.”

        I did not “reject” them but you, as usual miss the point. And your PS indicates clearly how you view the alternate viewpoint. Once again, get real please.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Yet another fake denialist canard.

        Scientists say that only radiation near 15 micrometres is near saturation but there are plenty of other wavelengths that are not saturated.

        In this context, with increasing CO2, they specifically state:

        “However, more energy is absorbed in the weaker bands and in the wings of the strong band, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to warm further.” [ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-8/ ].

        This is the exact opposite of Boambee’s denialist dogma which I assume he plagiarised from noxious websites.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “The similarity of approach here and everyday conspiracy theory sites is startling.”

      You really must avoid those alarmist sites. No wonder you fear conspiracies!

      • Stu says:

        Sorry mate but it is your side that bears the closest resemblance to moon landing hoax, 9/11 conspiracy and Kennedy assassination sites, not to mention flat earthers. The latter certainly requires a complete dismissal of proven science, rather like your position. You should step outside this small echo chamber of support and at least read up on the alternative (mainstream) view, you might learn something.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “The latter certainly requires a complete dismissal of proven science,”

          You really do not understand science. Science is always open to new evidence. Climatology, by your account, is not.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Still hand waving, hey, stu?

      When are you ever going to deal with the message rather than the messenger?

      Why is it you can’t supply any response at all to those four points I mentioned?

      When are you going to reply to specific questions and scientific data that if we are in the lowest half/quartile of the Holocene temperature range, where is the proof that there is anything abnormal about global temps?

      You never get that when we keep supplying you with science contrary to your belief that you are the one who needs to come up with evidence that your theory is anything more than that.

      And of course you can’t and never will.

      Other than silly consensual science and predictions where you have to move the goal posts regularly.

      When are you going to admit you have no real evidence?

      • Stu says:

        “Why is it you can’t supply any response at all to those four points I mentioned?”. Simple answer. Because it is pointless when dealing with closed minds. The major thing Chris and I can agree on is that we are hear debating with you folk on the fringe, not just participating in the real world of facts on copious other sites.

        • Stu says:

          Here not near obviously. Small keys, big fingers, wine!

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Because it is pointless when dealing with closed minds.”

          Funny how that sort of answer just comes across as another dodge from someone who never addresses the message, just shoots the messenger.

          How is it that those on one side of the argument who put up multiple points and facts to be debated as well as measureable evidence to support their arguments have “closed minds” yet those who claim they are ” participating in the real world of facts” not only continually shoot the messenger and ignore all the facts but also refuse to offer any response at all, let alone evidence?

          You are showing all the signs of a real shonk, stu.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “Simple answer. Because it is pointless when dealing with closed minds.”

          And yet, despite all the evidence that your mind is closed, we still try to help you to open it up.

  • Peter E says:

    When people call for someone to show more leadership, they really mean that the would-be leader should fall in and follow the trend. Real leadership was put into words by Rudyard Kipling who put several tests including ‘if you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you…’ Your list of statement about where the problem is currently at is fully convincing. Thank you for your leadership in relation to this debate Don.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Let’s hope Don succeeds in ridding the site of the robotic idiots, both for and against climate change.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Did you just write your own suicide note???

    • Neville says:

      So Bryan can you tell us who doesn’t believe in climate change? At least the people who contribute to Don’s blog and I’m puzzled by your assertion.
      Just asking?

    • Boambee John says:

      Bryan

      Neville makes a good point.

      I doubt that there is anyone posting here who does not believe that the climate has changed and will continue to change. The points at issue are the extent of human influence, and whether the current changes will be harmful or beneficial.

      Having decided those points, we then need to discuss what, if anything, should be done.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      I have done Geology at undergraduate level, have seen marine fossils well above sea level, and am capable of rational thought. I doubt that either Thunberg or AOC have any concern whatsoever about their impending demise at the hands of a threatening climate, and I am equally convinced that humanity is deluding itself if it believes that anything can be done about it. I am of an age when I could not care less, and I am sure the children will be well able to look after themselves. If not, the world will not miss them. It is called evolution.

      Thank you for your thoughts, but I do not resile from my comment. There have been no novel arguments on either side for at least a couple of years. It is time to write finis.

      • Boambee John says:

        Bryan

        Indeed it is time to write “finis”, which is what Don is doing in this post. Hallelujah!

        My point was the not particularly subtle difference between “climate change”, which happens continuously, and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change, the subject of this and many preceding threads here.

      • Neville says:

        So Bryan, what would you consider to be a “novel argument” on either side of the ledger?
        I think it’s reasonable to point out that there has been a 60 ppm increase in co2 levels over the last 30 years and also name the source of those emissions.
        It’s also reasonable to show that the SH has only 10.5% of the planet’s population and just 7% of the co2 emissions.
        It’s also accurate to say that Aussies could have stopped all emissions in 1989 and the difference today would obviously be ZERO and ditto for the entire SH.
        But we also have so called EX fire chiefs telling us that to mitigate our dangerous bushfires we must further reduce our co2 emissions. And no mention about decades of neglected fuel loads and not a peep from the MSM about their stupid statement.
        Apart from Bolt etc and from Sky News etc.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          Neville, if I had a sensible argument, it would indeed be novel. But I don’t, and to be frank, neither do you, or anybody else.

  • Neville says:

    More wonderful news from the Morrison govt and insures that Aussies will have more safe, reliable base-load power to further guarantee our electricity grid.
    Of course the left wing dopes call this the start of a new dark age, but the Coalition should refuse to even acknowledge these ignorant fools and sensible Aussies should be celebrating.
    We can only hope that these wise decisions keep on keeping on and we don’t end up with clueless Labor/Greens after 2022 who definitely will plunge us into a new dark age relying on the S&W idiocy.
    Of course none of this will make the slightest difference to temp or climate etc at all.

    https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6607363/what-the-frack-pm-gas-plan-new-dark-age/?cs=14231

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a short informative interview with Michael Shellenberger talking about clueless S&W and Nuclear power.
    S&W are an environmental disaster and will never be able to replace coal, gas or nuclear power, yet the Labor/Greens would foist this disaster on Australia ASAP if we are stupid enough to vote for them in 2022.
    And Shellenberger is from the left and was once a strong believer in the S&W idiocy. Another is Dr Richard Tol who has lost trust in the IPCC process and conclusions.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Why did practically every denialist predict global cooling????

    Why do they cherry pick????

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      As I am certain you know, “climate” is measured over 30 years (at least, that is what alarmists say to any mention of a “pause” in gerbil worming).

      Stop cherry picking, and come back on this in a few more years.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee

        Where did I cherry pick?

        Is this ANOTHER lie?

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          You cherry picked by ignoring the 30 years “rule” of the climate scientists.

          Are you really such a hypocrite, or do you have a memory problem?

          Your routine resort to slanderous assertions of “lies” shows the weaknesses of your intellect.

          Found any “revolting” proposals yet, or is that beyond your research skills? I might have to post a few to demonstrate your failure.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris posted earlier

          “Chris Warren
          February 1, 2020 at 11:32 am
          So it was a lie – I never ignore the 30 year method when it is relevant. Many trends are cited as per decade.”

          So a 30 year period is important except when Chris decides it is not important!!! If it is decided by Chris not to be relevant, then ignoring the 30 year period is (according to Chris) not “cherry picking”!!!

          I might have to concede on this point. It is not picking cherries, but rotten tomatoes!!!??

          Still, it will be useful to be able to cite temperature trends per decade rather than wait for 30 years.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Dr Jennifer Marohasy caught out misrepresenting the work of others.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/19/scientist-says-rightwing-thinktank-misrepresented-her-great-barrier-reef-study

    Why cannot denialists tell the truth?

  • Neville says:

    Saudi Arabia has been enduring perhaps a record cold snap and the videos are impressive.
    Just imagine the screams there would be if a normally cold US city or the UK had a warmer period for a week or two?
    Of course this is just unusual weather whenever it occurs anywhere on the globe. But still very interesting.

    https://watchers.news/2020/01/30/severe-cold-wave-grips-northern-saudi-arabia-meteorologists-fear-strongest-cold-snap-ever/

    • Chris Warren says:

      TYPICAL CHERRY PICKING!

    • spangled drongo says:

      Can you believe our blith, Neville?

      When some alarmist scientist cherry picks some remote [mainland coastal] corner of the GBR and claims it has no specific type of coral, that’s fine honest science.

      But using a whole country to demonstrate a temperature anomaly is {SCREAM}…… CHERRY PICKING!!!!!

  • whyisitso says:

    I am now a convert to global warming. It has been pointed out to me that Sydney’s average daily maximum temperature has grown by 9 degrees C in only six months. This is a catastrophe.

    • Chris Warren says:

      When you grow up, maybe your Mummy or Daddy will explain to you that this happens every year as winter moves into summer.

      • whyisitso says:

        When you grow up you might develop a sense of humour. I won’t hold my breath however.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Please do. The world will be better for it.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            I believe that, pointless though it might be, alarmists should all lead by example when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions.

            After all, they want Australia to do so, even though it would be equally pointless!?!?!?

  • like Don, I have, and continue, to read extensively on this contentious topic. I have some basic questions for which I have never seen discussed.
    I am being asked to accept that mankind now has the tools to control the climate, just one as it happens. The basis is for this premise is a lab experiment that. indeed, dies show CO2 has the properties to act as a partial one way passage for the suns energy. The idea that the atmosphere can be replicated in a large glass vessel with totally dry air (no water vapour) is ridiculous. That this translates into the demonisation of CO2 is preposterous.
    I presume from the hysterical greenshirts (green is the new brown) that the current level of CO2 is too high. To what level do they wish to be? bearing in mind that we are at a historically low level of atmospheric CO2. If it falls to <250ppm than the planet may well go into a death spiral.
    Please explain why glasshouse operators increase the CO2 levels to between 800-1000ppm as it materially increases green growth and reduces transpiration This phenomenon is reflected in the global greening with a large amount of land moving towards health. Treelines are advancing – how is this a bad situation.
    What is the percentage of atmospheric CO2 is anthroppogenic? What percentage of the annual increase is anthropogenic?
    When I get some sensible answers I may start to listen to facts not silly scares.

    • In considering global warming we need to follow the money. I know it’sa bit of a cliche. There’s a massive Climate Industrial Complex that would dearly like to see us pay more for energy. They use very sophisticated appeals to our love of the natural world and making us feel guilty. Compare this to farmers who often get mocked when asking for subsidies after a natural disaster.
      CO2 is an ideal candidate for commercialisation since we’re all dependent on it
      Politics, economics and science all intersect. The politicians want to control people. A good way is to lead them clamorous to safety from a crisis. Then there’sa huge contingent dependent on the community teat Climate change really does scratch a lot of backs.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Climate change solutions for woke folk;

    No fuel reduction to prevent bushfires,

    New plague virus reduces emissions:

    “Wuhan. No automobile traffic. No air flights. The only city on the planet that will meet its GHG reduction targets.”

  • Neville says:

    SD the donkey is a waste of space.
    BTW here’s a good article from the GWPF regarding drought and global crop production, calories per day etc.

    The GWPF looks at the latest trends for global drought ( since 1950) and the number of deaths from drought over the last 120 years. The graph from Our World in data tells the story.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/are-droughts-getting-worse/

    Also global crop production has increased 3 fold since 1970 and calories per day per person continues to increase.

    http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/178138/icode/

  • Chris Warren says:

    Here is denialist trickery writ large…

    Bolt claiming correctly in 2009 that there had been no warming since 2001.

    This is cherry-picking as this period was merely a small variation on a much longer continuous rise since 1980.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhTwMiI4M1A&t=75

    You can find other periods when there were short pauses, but the long-run trend is now obvious.

    Bolt would have seen all the previous data, so his comment was devious.

    But worse was to follow – Bolt then claimed there would be 50 years of cooling.

    See: https://archive.is/Zwk8v

    This is why any continuing denialists are laughing stocks.

    They really do need to shut up shop now.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      How do current temperatures compare with those in the 1890s/1900-1909 period? I’m sure you have the data to hand
      BoM cherry picks 1910 as its start date to accentuate a perceived trend.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Bolt then claimed there would be 50 years of cooling.”

      Do stop telling blatant lies, blith.

      They simply undermine the validity of everything else you produce.

      Which is always suspect, of course.

  • Neville says:

    I see our silly Donkey doesn’t understand simple English. Bolt was linking to what a scientist had forecast and nothing about what Bolt himself thought at the time.
    Why do these fools read more into something than they should. I notice Bolt also said “if he is correct” etc.
    So stop making stuff up you silly fool.

  • Neville says:

    Dr Spencer uses his simple model and latest data from the EIA to find that there may not be a doubling of atmospheric co2, to 560 ppm.
    It seems natural sinks are increasingly sequestering more co2 as more co2 emissions have increased.
    He finds that it may not be possible for co2 levels to reach 560 ppm and may level off before that level is reached. Who knows?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/will-humanity-ever-reach-2xco2-possibly-not/#comments

  • Neville says:

    Willis Eschenbach also looked at the question of Roy’s post above about 3 years ago and found that it would be difficult to double co2 by 2100.
    He also tested the available data and found that global temp would only increase by 0.5 c and at most about 0.75 c.
    So what are we worried about, even if we could make a difference? Also just think of all the extra greening of the planet by 2100 and no apocalypse.
    We could possibly have all those benefits and save the endless trillions $ we are now wasting for a guaranteed ZERO return. IOW it’s a win win.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/24/apocalypse-cancelled-sorry-no-ticket-refunds/

  • stu says:

    “ He also tested the available data and found that global temp would only increase by 0.5 c and at most about 0.75 c.”
    So how sure are you that it would be inconsequential to have the average temperature increase by “only” half to three quarters of a degree?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      As sure as you are of your heating projections.

      That is, there are indicators but no definitive answers.

    • Neville says:

      I’m not sure stu, but please tell us how to reduce co2 emissions and temp and what difference it would make by 2050 or 2100 or…..
      And please don’t forget the Wiki graph AGAIN and the SUPER emitters from the developing world.
      They’re just like us and want to be even healthier and wealthier ASAP, just like the wealthy OECD countries.
      You may not understand any of this but most people do.

  • Neville says:

    Interesting data from Lomborg etc from the Catallaxy files.
    That fire graph is interesting and has the red dot at right to almost bring it up to date.
    And data from global fires is also linked etc.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/01/19/another-climate-roundup-19-jan/

  • Chris Warren says:

    Global warming since 1880.

    http://www.climatedata.info/impacts/sea-levels/files/stacks-image-4fdf1c4.gif

    It would have commenced earlier.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      “It would have commenced earlier.”

      Indeed. About 60 years earlier, as the world began to recover from the Little Ice Age!!!!

      • Stu says:

        BJ wrote “ Indeed. About 60 years earlier, as the world began to recover from the Little Ice Age!!!! ”

        But the LIA was not a uniform global phenomenon.

        “Information obtained from “proxy records” (indirect records of ancient climatic conditions, such as ice cores, cores of lake sediment and coral, and annual growth rings in trees) as well as historical documents dating to the Little Ice Age period indicate that cooler conditions appeared in some regions, but, at the same time, warmer or stable conditions occurred in others. For instance, proxy records collected from western Greenland, Scandinavia, the British Isles, and western North America point to several cool episodes, lasting several decades each, when temperatures dropped 1 to 2 °C (1.8 to 3.6 °F) below the thousand-year averages for those areas. However, these regional temperature declines rarely occurred at the same time. Cooler episodes also materialized in the Southern Hemisphere, initiating the advance of glaciers in Patagonia and New Zealand, but these episodes did not coincide with those occurring in the Northern Hemisphere. Meanwhile, temperatures of other regions of the world, such as eastern China and the Andes, remained relatively stable during the Little Ice Age.

        Still other regions experienced extended periods of drought, increased precipitation, or extreme swings in moisture. Many areas of northern Europe, for instance, were subjected to several years of long winters and short, wet summers, whereas parts of southern Europe endured droughts and season-long periods of heavy rainfall. Evidence also exists of multiyear droughts in equatorial Africa and Central and South Asia during the Little Ice Age.”

        This is sourced from

        https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          You’re not real good on this science stuff, are you?

          Put aside the weaknesses of proxy records, particularly where different proxies are used in different parts of the world. Put aside also that proxies extended into the modern era might not match measured empirical data when it becomes available (“Hide the decline” anyone?).

          What remains is that, for your objection to have value, then you must show that gerbil worming has proceeded uniformly everywhere around the world. If it has not, then the differing starting points for recovery from the Little Ice Age around the world do not invalidate the “recovery” theory.

          I look forward to your thesis, based on measured empirical data, demonstrating uniform rates if gerbil worming.

          • Stu says:

            Oh I forgot, proxies are only useful when you quote them in support of your temperature record of the Holocene, silly me.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            I have worked out why some of your responses are incomprehensible. You do not look at whom you are responding to before you put fingers to keyboard. Silly you!! Sloppy you!!

            Show me where I have discussed Holocene temperatures. It is not a subject that interests me.

            Meantime, you might try to address the substance of my comment. Hint: the words “Put aside the weaknesses of proxy records, particularly where different proxies are used in different parts of the world” might suggest to you that it is not proxies.

  • Neville says:

    More from their ABC and 270 so called scientists.
    IF OZ had reduced co2 emissions to ZERO in 1989 it wouldn’t have made any difference to the temp or climate at all.
    And ditto for all the SH countries and their co2 emissions.
    But I’m sure our silly donkeys will believe this delusional nonsense and demand that we must do more to fight their CAGW.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-03/scientists-sign-letter-demanding-climate-action-in-australia/11922808

    • Boambee John says:

      Scientists demand climate action.

      Disconnect their homes, universities and laboratories from the grid. Provide solar power and batteries instead.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Useful source for tide gauge data, including land vertical movements.

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

  • Chris Warren says:

    Don also appears to have with gone along with the cooling crew … Mike Lockwood, Horst-Joachim Luedecke, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Anastasios Tsonis.

    All based their projections on sun-spot analysis, and while they were not all saying the same thing, they claimed that serious cooling is in prospect.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      I don’t know why you think so. At best/worst I have said from time to time that the IPCC and the alarmist scientists seem to take no notice of the solar physicists. I think that is true. If you think otherwise you might say why you think so, and where I have ‘gone along with the cooling crew’. That periods of warming have been followed by periods of cooling is plain from the historical record. So I expect the same to be true in due course. But I haven’t any idea when. It his not a field in which I have any competence.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Well it all boils down to Herschel’s efforts to show that sun spots cause good and bad harvests – ie influence Earth’s climate.

        This is a basis for today’s cooling concept and, as the number of sunspots has fallen, necessarily concludes that “serious cooling is in prospect”.

        It seems reasonable that someone who, in this context, concludes “I am beginning to suspect that there might be something to the notion that the Sun’s effect on our climate is both great and poorly understood” is traveling along the same lines.

        Needless to say – serious cooling is not in prospect – and never was.

        • Andrew says:

          “Needless to say – serious cooling is not in prospect – and never was.”

          And such certitude is based on the concentration of a trace gas in the atmosphere increasing by 120ppm over a century or so!

          Now that’s funny.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Andrew

            The word “trace” lacks rigor. The concentration is enough to constitute a sphere 14 inches thick if all CO2 could be concentrated.

            This is a minute thickness compared to the 40,000 metres of atmosphere but it still provides enough long wave absorption to raise the Earth’s temperature.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Mixing different measurement scales (14 inches vs 40,000 metres) lacks rigour.

            Perhaps resolve the weaknesses of your own terminology before commenting on others?

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          “Needless to say – serious cooling is not in prospect – and never was.”

          Gutsy call. Particularly given your arbitrary decision that the “30 year rule” applies only to those who challenge the alarmist consensus.

          Perhaps you might offer some evidence for such a confident assessment (GCM outputs does not qualify as “evidence”).

  • Neville says:

    More great news for our silly donkeys to think about. The German wind energy disaster is on the verge of collapse and the public have had gut full of these habitat and bird destroying machines.
    We can only hope it does collapse very soon and serve as a warning to other countries that voters eventually wake up to these disasters and the con merchants who make a fortune from the poor bloody taxpayers.
    And of course ZERO change to climate or temp at all.

    https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/01/german-weekly-focus-german-wind-energy-on-the-verge-of-collapse-protests-booming/

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that GWPF fact sheet on global drought again. Of course there’s been a big increase in food production over many decades.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/are-droughts-getting-worse/

  • Neville says:

    Another very accurate article from the Spectator about the clueless con merchants and Doomsday cultists. Silly fools like the Ehrlich and Monbiot donkeys. All these stupid predictions over the last 50 years and they’re always wrong. Yet they never wake up and the compliant MSM forgive them every time.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/climate-doomsayers-keep-putting-sell-by-dates-on-their-credibility/

    NO SACRED COWS
    Climate doomsayers keep putting sell-by dates on their credibility
    Toby Young

    Toby Young

    1 February 2020

    9:00 AM

    I was slightly surprised when Greta Thunberg announced at Davos that we had eight years left to save the planet. As long as that? Admittedly, that’s four years less than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who put it at 12, although, come to think of it, that was last January, so presumably she now thinks we’ve got 11 years left. But some doomsayers have been much less optimistic. According to Peter Wadhams, a Cambridge professor interviewed in the Guardian in 2013, Arctic ice would disappear by 2015 if we didn’t mend our ways, while Gordon Brown announced in 2009 that we had just 50 days to save the Earth. Then again, playing the long game can also catch up with you. In 2004, Observer readers were told Britain would have a ‘Siberian’ climate in 16 years’ time. We’re supposed to be in the midst of that now.

    On the face of it, we should be grateful that these gloomsters make such oddly precise predictions. It’s like putting a sell-by date on their credibility. After all, when the soothsayer in question is proved wrong, they just shuffle off with their tail between their legs, never to be heard from again, right? In eight years’ time, when the planet hasn’t disappeared in a cloud of toxic gas, presumably Greta will throw up her arms and say: ‘Sorry guys. Looked like I was wrong about you ruining my childhood. I’m now going to become a flight attendant.’

    But, weirdly, that never happens. No matter how often these ‘experts’ are shown to be no better at forecasting than Paul the Octopus — worse, actually — they just carry on as if nothing has happened. Take Paul Ehrlich, author of the 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb. ‘We must realise that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years,’ he told the New York Times in 1969. Ehrlich also predicted America would be subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980. Ehrlich’s ‘bomb’ failed to explode, but his career didn’t. On the contrary, he’s now the Bing Professor of Population Studies at Stanford and the president of Stanford’s Center for Conservation Biology. All I can say is, it’s lucky he didn’t become a bookmaker.

    The fact that Ehrlich is still an eminent environmentalist — and Prince Charles can pose alongside Greta Thunberg in Davos in spite of claiming we had eight years left to save the planet 11 years ago — helps explain why these Mystic Megs have no hesitation about making these forecasts. It’s a great way of drawing attention to their cause and there’s literally no cost to getting it wrong. The panjandrums of the mainstream media forgive them for spinning these yarns because they know they’re doing it ‘for the right reasons’. They’re not peddling alarmist nonsense — no, they’re just exaggerating the risk. In any case, they might be right and doesn’t the ‘precautionary principle’ dictate that we should change our behaviour just in case? Oddly, these same secular humanists don’t apply the logic of Pascal’s Wager to believing in God. That would be unscientific.

    But is there also something else going on? I’m generous enough to think that these activists are not cynics trying to grab headlines, but are sincere in their prophecies of doom. For instance, when George Monbiot predicted a ‘structural global famine’ in as little as ten years’ time if we didn’t start eating less meat — this was in 2002 — he genuinely believed it. And when that famine failed to materialise, he didn’t abandon his apocalyptic environmentalism, but doubled-down, as readers of his Guardian column can testify.

    It’s a textbook example of cognitive dissonance — of not abandoning your beliefs when they run aground on the shore of reality. I am reminded of the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult who believed there was a spaceship flying in the wake of the Hale-Bopp comet that would beam them up and transport them to a distant planet. When the comet came and they remained on Earth, they didn’t conclude they were wrong about the spaceship. No, it must be concealed by some clever cloaking device, and the way to get on board was to commit suicide so their spirits could float upwards through the atmosphere. Sure enough, on 26 March 1997 the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department found 39 bodies in the cult’s headquarters in Rancho Santa Fe.

    I’m not wishing a similar fate on the current crop of doomsday cultists. But I do wish we would take them a smidgen less seriously when they turn out to be wrong — as they always do.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Neville

    Greta could be wrong. We may have had 8 or 12 years to act, some time ago, but as we failed we are now seeing the destroyed planet, bit by bit.

    There is now no time and any action must be now.

  • Neville says:

    So tell us how and what difference it would make and when we would see a change in co2 levels and a lowering of global temp ? Here’s ALL countries emissions graph AGAIN since 1970 and 1990.
    I presume you’ll be taking your protest to China etc for the next few decades so best of luck.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

    • Chris Warren says:

      It may be too late as the requirement is to have GHG emissions no greater than the Earth’s capacity to re-absorb or sequester GHGs.

      This means there has to be a level playing field between all nations as to per capita emissions and therefore population is relevant.

      So once you realise that GHG imbalance has existed since the 1850’s you realise there is no easy answer – but this is no excuse for denialism.

      We need first movers to set new standards and this responsibility rests on nations with the greatest per capita emissions. They need to establish a practice that can then be preached.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        Perhaps you could be a “first mover” and “set new standards” for your fellow Australians? Change your lifestyle so that it matches the current global per capita CO2 emission level.

        Once you have reached that objective, tell us what personal changes we all have to make.

        Or are the changes only for the little people? Are members of the “elite” to be exempt?

        • Neville says:

          BJ I’m sure that Flannery, all the Greens, Turnbull, the ALP, the ACF, Gore, Price Harry, Attenborough, all the EU, all the US DEMS, etc etc etc will all be happy to cut their YETI size co2 footprint back to a tinkerbell size and retreat to the caves and freeze every winter and swelter every summer.
          And piggies might fly too.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Neville

            That is all in your head.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            As is your belief that “There is now no time and any action must be now.”

            Please lead by example, on a personal level, as you wish Australia to do at a national level.

            Tell us how you get on. If you have time, that is, subsistence living is very time consuming.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            If indeed “There is now no time and any action must be now”, then it is too late for mitigation. The only sensible actions, if you are correct, are to increase our water storages, build a reliable, continuous, power supply, and take drastic action to reduce the fuel load in iur forests, to reduce the scale of future fires. This will enable us to adapt to the changes you claim are inevitable.

            But somehow, I do not think that you will advocate any such actions.

          • Those people you list want to control us and take our money. Tax really is the wind under the politicians wings. What better than to tax something we’re all dependent on. CO2. The political class won’t debate because they know the sceptics are right.
            Australia and the rest of the world are are a drop in the ocean. We live in a carbon universe. Climate change is crap. Tony Abbott was right

  • Stu says:

    Why is no one even mentioning the Q&A program last night and the splendid performance of Senator Jim Molin, “I’m not relying on evidence….”?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Too busy responding to Chris’ belief that we are all doomed unless we take (unspecified) action immediately perhaps?

      • Boambee John says:

        PS, I never watch Q&A.

        • Stu says:

          “PS, I never watch Q&A.”. I don’t like the format much, but this one had an interesting topic. And the audience just laughing at Molin is something to behold. It would appear to show that your claims of major support (for your view) is not supported, at least as when poorly presented by Molin. He kicked a major own goal.

          • spangled drongo says:

            So stu

            Do you believe that those bushfires as discussed by Q&A were unprecedented?

            And were caused by “climate change”?

            Or do you possibly think that the following might apply:

            Summary
            •All-in-all the bushfire season in Australia is not abnormal
            •Consider Australia to be a continent of fire.
            •Most ecosystems in Australia are ecologically adapted to the fire and will even require it.
            •The only way to manage the fire hazards in Australia is to manage the fuel loads.
            •Natural Indian Ocean Dipole events (and ENSO events) has and will have the effect on droughts in Australia.
            •Hazardous volume of fuel loads together with abnormally positive Indian Ocean dipole and the associated drought are the prime reasons for extreme bushfire season in Southeast Australia and especially in New South Wales during this season.

            And do you possibly think that as fuel load management is a State responsibility and was not even mentioned by Q&A, these old methods of control should be brought back?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Speaking of “evidence”, it’s Molan, not Molin!

            And anyone who believes that the Q&A audience is representative of Australian society needs treatment!!

        • Neville says:

          BJ I never watch Q&A either, because the usual nonsense and stupidity is so obvious that I just have to turn off.
          But this time I read the transcript and believe me, U S Down Mann didn’t disappoint and the silly fool still thinks the way to fight bushfires is to reduce our co2 emissions.
          No mention by him to reduce fuel loads and that we must do this every year until we have a much cleaner and healthier forest floor.
          He is the last USD donkey that we should ever listen to about mitigating change in the Aussie bush.
          Perhaps we should send him the Wiki graph to look at?

          • Stu says:

            How did you miss the statements by knowledgable people that in the end the fuel load was inconsequential? The current conditions are such that even areas prepared by reduction burns have been violently consumed. As for arson, apparently wildly overstated as a cause, the issue is not what starts the fire but why are they then so intense. I have just visited Canberra and the desiccation of the landscape there is staggering. This is not normal. Severe fires in every state at around the same time is new. As Fitzsimmons says these fires started back in June, July. Things are changing. And if you argue 1 degree is nothing, how will 2.5 or 3 be in 2100?

          • Stu says:

            Neville, by the way, I recall you have quite a thing about ad hominem attacks so perhaps you could be a bit more respectful of Prof Mann, currently a guest in this country. You may not agree with him but you might admit he knows a hell of a lot more about climate than you do. Or do you have better qualifications?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Anyone who says that “the fuel load was inconsequential” is not knowledgeable.

            There are very few wildfires in hot deserts where there is minimal fuel load.

          • Andrew says:

            A fire can’t burn (with any intensity or longevity) without fuel load!

            Do the maths.

  • Stu says:

    Andrew says “A fire can’t burn (with any intensity or longevity) without fuel load”. Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. Surely nobody denies that fact. The issue now though is that fires once they get going in the current weather period with a very dry landscape are burning fiercely through the tree tops, and through orchards and vineyards no matter the degree of fire preparation. As NSW fire commissioner says, hazard reduction is no panacea in the circumstances. But I guess, once we turn this land into desert there won’t be a problem. Current land practises and continuing global warming may push us in that direction sooner rather than later. Then again the drought will end with rain, they always do, and everyone will forget till next time.

    • Andrew says:

      Yet you appear to have little or no cognisance of that (very) basic fact.

      You come out with:

      “The issue now though is that fires once they get going in the current weather period with a very dry landscape are burning fiercely through the tree tops, and through orchards and vineyards no matter the degree of fire preparation.” and

      “As NSW fire commissioner says, hazard reduction is no panacea in the circumstances.”

      Well, you can’t have it both ways now, can you!?

      If the reduction burns had been undertaken far more widely/extensively (whatever), the fires simply cannot attain the intensity you suggest wrt burning through the tree tops etc….and to say it’s not a panacea is simply incorrect.

      Of course, it won’t prevent fires starting and burning, but it sure as hell reduces the intensity and therefore makes them easier to fight/control/ contain.

      That qualifies as a pretty darn good panacea in my book.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “As NSW fire commissioner says, hazard reduction is no panacea in the circumstances.”

      Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he? Otherwulise the disnal hazard reduction record under him and his predecessors might become a major issue.

  • Stu says:

    So SD and Nev to sum up your argument, if our firies had preburned everything to your satisfaction and other hazard reduction in place these fires would not have occurred or if they did they would not become conflagrations. Is that what you are saying? If so, how are you so sure, given Fitzsimmons seems to be saying the opposite.

  • Neville says:

    Gosh stu, even our chief scientist has told the Senate that there is virtually nothing we can do about your CAGW EVEN IF WE stopped ALL OZ EMISSIONS today.
    You need to be shown the Wiki graph every day, so I suppose we’ll just have to include Dr Finkel’s statement every day as well.
    And ditto from Dr Pitman and his statement about droughts and climate change. So clearly we must clean up the fuel loads ASAP, because nothing else will work.
    And I couldn’t care less what the USD Mann clown thinks about anything and thanks to McIntyre and McKitrick for exposing him for us.

  • Neville says:

    Their ABC hysterics can’t rebut Bolt and Sky news so they just hurl more abusive ignorant rants at him.
    What a disgrace they are and it’s exactly what we should expect from this mob of religious fanatics.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/how-deceitful-is-paul-barry-the-abcs-climate-hysteric/news-story/3ee60e9aabc736689298ec9523d5dac6

  • Neville says:

    So far the clear winner from the Iowa caucus is Donald Trump.
    So far no Dem winner and Trump easily wins the Republican nomination, while the Dem donkeys still can’t count the numbers.
    Perhaps they should ask Greta to help them out ? Bernie and some others are sure they’ve won, but these donkeys have now extended the count time and the backroom hatchet men are probably in fear of any of these fools actually falling over the line.

  • Neville says:

    Another excellent, accurate post from WUWT, regarding Aussie bushfires and here’s their summary main points + link.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/03/australian-bushfire-season-2019-2020-severity-reasons-and-conclusions/

    Summary

    All-in-all the bushfire season in Australia is not abnormal
    Consider Australia to be a continent of fire
    Most ecosystems in Australia are ecologically adapted to the fire and will even require it
    The only way to manage the fire hazards in Australia is to manage the fuel loads
    Natural Indian Ocean Dipole events (and ENSO events) have and will have the effect on droughts in Australia
    Hazardous volume of fuel loads together with abnormally positive Indian Ocean dipole and the associated drought is the prime reason for extreme bushfire season in southeast Australia and especially in New South Wales during this season

    • Andrew says:

      A wise head talks….

      • Neville says:

        Yes Andrew,a very wise man and of course another retired CSIRO scientist.
        And he says clearly that nothing works except REGULAR FUEL REDUCTION BURNING.
        But don’t expect our resident donkeys to understand this simple message, because they don’t want to understand.
        They’d rather follow fools like USD Mann and his delusional nonsense.

  • Neville says:

    Sanders and Buttigieg are on 26% and 25% of Iowa polling and Warren on 21% and their creepy uncle Joe Binden is just 13%. And the count goes on and here’s the latest from the live update.

    But STILL about 38% to count.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/iowa/

    Candidate Pct. Final alignment votes Del.
    Bernie Sanders 26.3 % 28,220 —
    Pete Buttigieg 25.1 27,030 —
    Elizabeth Warren 20.7 22,254 —
    Joe Biden 13.2 14,176 —

    107,496

  • Chris Warren says:

    Something for the few remaining (and sentient) denialists to ponder …

    http://archive.is/u331c/3ca38c5a41edcbe8ed7ebad9bff420f81594eb77.jpg

  • Andrew says:

    You post that and expect anyone to think you’re credible. My God!

  • Stu says:

    Andrew et al,
    Regarding the great panacea of hazard reduction here is what Shane Fitzsimmons actually said. “SHANE FITZSIMMONS: … hazard reduction has a place and is a valuable tool for day-to-day fires, for normal seasons, but when you’ve got a really tough season, when you’ve got awful fire-weather conditions, so when you’re running fires under severe, extreme or worse conditions, hazard reduction has very little effect at all….

    – ABC News Breakfast, 8 January, 2020”

    I think when choosing who to believe I will go with an expert in the field rather than any one of the coterie of “expert” columnists, shock jocks etc on the various flavours of Murdoch. And there seems to be no counter view in any of those outlets. Which also raises the question of why is it that News Corp is the almost sole repository of such “wisdom” in the broad media? Could it have something to do with vested interests, political control, cash for comment etc? Probably yes. Once again climate change denial is appearing to be an age related condition with political undertones.

    • Neville says:

      Sorry stu , the data tells us there is nothing we can do EXCEPT FUEL REDUCTION BURNING.
      See Dr Finkel and Dr Pitman+ retired CSIRO scientest David Packham etc.
      Nothing works at all except getting rid of the fuel loads. When will you wake up?

      • Stu says:

        I will spell it out for you. No one is arguing with you, we have to do hazard reduction but the issue is that once things are dry enough, the wind strong enough etc the hazard reduction makes little difference. That is what he is saying and I credit him with more knowledge and experience than you. An extreme fire is an extreme fire. I recall the intensity of the Canberra fires ripping through well managed pine plantations, then the inferno rolling across wide expanses of bare open ground (read eaten bare horse paddocks).

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      He said “when you’re running fires under severe, extreme or worse conditions, hazard reduction has very little effect at all….”

      Indeed. Hazard reduction is what is done in the off-season. During fires, they do back burns.

      I can understand, with the pressure he is under, that the commissioner might get his terminology mixed, but that does not mean that others should follow suit.

      You said

      “Could it have something to do with vested interests, political control, cash for comment etc? Probably yes. Once again climate change denial is appearing to be an age related condition with political undertones.”

      Again with the allegations of venal motives, to which you add now political motives. Given the admitted political motives of many alarmists (and not just those from the UN, EU, IMF, World Bank, but also from lesser figures), such allegations are a bit rich!!

      Wake up to the new world Stu, the slogan “The personal is political”, which politicises everything, came from so-called “progressives”, not conservatives.

      • Stu says:

        BJ, geez mate you don’t think he knows the terminology. Clearly he means that even if an area has been prepared by hazard reduction prior, in certain conditions it makes no difference. Obviously he is not talking about back burning and clearing breaks etc during the handling of a fire. But of course I forgot you are a master at misrepresenting what people say, yes.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Nice of you to read his mind and tell us what he clearly means. He was under great pressure and mixed up his terms is just as likely. But Stu knows best!!

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “Clearly he means that even if an area has been prepared by hazard reduction prior, in certain conditions it makes no difference.”

          Please go to Quadrant On-Line (yes, I know, bunch of eeeevil denialists, but try to open your mind for once), and look at the photo at the top of the article “An Academic Theory Fit For Burning”, then get back to us. Notice particularly the track through the trees.

          Then let’s discuss “certain conditions”.

      • Stu says:

        You missed the point. Venal or not. How is it that the Murdoch media is the repository for such a collection of like minds to the exclusion of alternative views and no other media seems so afflicted? As Julius SM used to say “why is it so?” And of course none of the people I refer to (Credlin, Jones, Bolt etc etc) have any quals to be so outspoken. And most often they merely make statements and do not quote sources.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          I don’t know. Perhaps you could tell us why the ABC is “such a collection of like minds to the exclusion of alternative views”? See Q&A.

    • Andrew says:

      Stu, really.

      If you can’t grasp the simple fact (supported by science and common sense) that more fuel load = bigger, longer, more intense fires, no one can help you.

      • Stu says:

        And even when the fuel load is reduced if conditions are right the fires can still be very extreme, why can’t you admit that fact enunciated by Fitzy? Unless of course you are sticking to the argument that the current drought and high temperature conditions have had no effect on the fire situation. Are you really?

  • Stu says:

    This is pertinent sadly.

    ““I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…

    The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”
    ? Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”

    Substitute Australia for America.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Here’s some more US stupidity, stu.

      What does it remind you of?:

      https://www.cato.org/blog/crescent-dunes-another-green-flop

    • Andrew says:

      From that Quadrant article:

      “Identifying the flaws in the academics’ argument takes only a few seconds. Firstly, Professor Lamont and Dr He ignore fire science. Reducing fuel loads and simplifying fuel structures by regular burning reduces the speed of a bushfire, its intensity, the size of the flames and its ember and spotting potential. All of this makes bushfires easier to put out and less damaging. In mature forests, crown fires cannot be sustained if the surface and near-surface fuels are at low levels as a result of regular fuel-reduction burning.

      Professor Lamont and Dr He make the extraordinary assertion that long-unburnt forest fuels are of low flammability and therefore of no significant threat to communities. This is not only demonstrably untrue, it is dangerously wrong.”

      Alarmists like you are a danger to our society.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      You are quite correct, as is Sagan.

      So-called “progressives” and their soulmates in the media have done untold harm to western civilisation.

  • Neville says:

    Amazing that the religious cranks and fanatics soon go to water when THEY are asked to endure any hardship due to their own crazy ideas. What a joke.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/02/a-lesson-for-the-divestment-snowflakes-from-st-johns-college-oxford/

  • spangled drongo says:

    The New Breed of Blithering Buffoons are determined to avoid the real world in order to impose their Klimat Kult.

    This is written by Graham Walker who owns a Saw Mill at Corryong:

    Never in my lifetime have I ever seen a bushfire become so political, with so much interference from city based experts!

    Australia is known for its bushfires, cyclones, droughts and flooding rains so what has changed this time?
    I believe we now have a new breed of people in this country that NEED TO BLAME somebody for every natural event that occurs and they have infiltrated our communities with their ideology!

    The majority in this country are the “Quiet Australians” who have seen it all happen before and know we will see it all happen again.
    Our voice wasn’t being heard! We knew that the fuel load was too high, we knew that policy had changed allowing fuel reduction burns and we knew that protesting by minority groups was influencing decision making!
    Just back on June 20, 2019 I raised these issues in a Regional Forests Agreement meeting in Corryong with representatives from DELWP, Federal, State and local governments regarding the fuel load in National Parks, the blackberries and noxious weeds in State forests and Parks, the lack of maintenance of fire tracks, the lack of water storages in these areas and outlined that we had a ticking time bomb right under our noses!

    Climate Change didn’t light the fires in NSW and Victoria, lightning and arsonists did!! The fuel load was there and it was tinder dry from the drought.
    But now the SWAMP is rising and along with social media and mainstream media they are driving a tsunami of hate, of blame, of rebellion like we’ve never seen before!
    Everything that goes wrong has to be someone else’s fault!!
    They CRY Climate Change but then board an aeroplane to go overseas!
    The scientists are some of the worst hypocrites in this area! Fly to this climate conference and then to the next!

    Children are being indoctrinated in schools before they can even read and write, about politics, climate change, gender equality, sex and religion at such a young age and well before they can make their own judgments on any of these matters.
    This indoctrination then spreads like a virus and infects those who we thought were immune, until it becomes a plague of rebellion and uprising against those who are the quiet Australians.

    I might be old fashioned, but the Australia I knew as a kid was far better!
    We didn’t care where the power came from, as long as the toaster or the lights worked!
    We didn’t care if it was a drought as we knew every day was one closer to it raining!
    I battled the 1st of February 1969 bushfires in 45c heat as a 15 year old, I bent all the linkage arms on the tractor ploughing fire breaks, experienced the extreme heat of the fire, the lack of oxygen in my lungs, being too scared to sleep inside the house at 2am!
    I saw the devastating loss of property, and the burying of dead stock.

    We didn’t have P2 masks or were told every 5 minutes of the what the air quality was!! We wet a handkerchief and put it across our nose and mouth and tied a knot in the back and got on with it!!

    Then the chaos came again a few weeks later when torrential rains came and caused massive erosion and polluted our water, and 3 months later on the 5th of May we had cows dying of bloat as the grass was so prolific!

    THIS WILL ALL HAPPEN AGAIN!!
    This is the country we live in and know as Australia, NO politician can change it, NO Climate Change policy will either!
    Humans caused this atrocity by their ignorance of nature and the history we have on record that could be used to prevent this occurring this bad ever again!

  • Chris Warren says:

    Andrew

    Quadrant is not an acceptable source for such issues.

    If fuel load was such a factor there would have been many, many such fires in the 1800’s set off by lightning.

    The severity of recent fires was less dependent on fuel load but on the flammability of tree crowns.

    The dryness seems to be the key and near Canberra fires were caused by helicopter lights and beekeepers smoking devices. If the environment was not so dry – these incidents would not have caused major fires.

    • Andrew says:

      Chris,

      What an utterly ignorant comment – ‘Quadrant is not an acceptable source”!!

      Yet the two authors have 50+ years direct fire fighting and management them.

      Why don’t you Google ‘Byram’s Fire Intensity Equation’ – and learn a bit – then get back to me.

      It’s the baseline of any fire science.

      Whether talked about in Quadrant or elsewhere.

      • Boambee John says:

        Andrew

        You have to understand, the only “acceptable” source to Chris is one that accepts every element of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.

  • Neville says:

    Here is the high resolution 2014 Vance et al 1,000 year Aussie drought study.
    We are very lucky to be living in the 20th and 21st centuries and not the 12 th century when they had a 39 year drought. Of course co2 levels were then about 280 ppm. And ditto for the other 500 year study.

    http://acecrc.org.au/news/antarctic-ice-cores-tell-1000-year-australian-drought-story/

    • Stu says:

      Ah Neville, so now you like conclusions drawn from proxies, wonderful, perhaps you can now revisit the hockey stick.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Fell into a trap?

        Good to see that you now reject proxies!

        Did you check that Quadrant photo, or were you worried about cognitive dissonance?

        • Stu says:

          Once again you draw false conclusions, stop being a dick please

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So you do accept proxies? All of them, or only those used by alarmists
            And you didn’t check the Quadrant article? Too confronting for you?

          • Stu says:

            When did I write that I reject proxies? They are an essential tool in many areas of science research. I presume some are well researched and accepted and some less so. My point was that you reject the hockey stick research (which has been validated over and over) and which by necessity uses proxy data, yet you are all over a new study from the Antarctic regarding Australian drought history. That just seems contradictory on your part. I am quite happy to accept the research quoted, why not. You are the one with the conflict.

          • Andrew says:

            The hockey stick has been invalidated – permanently.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/30/20-years-later-the-hockey-stick-graph-behind-waves-of-climate-alarmism-is-still-in-dispute/

            “The Canadians’ 2003 study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.”

            When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th century that exceeds the warmth of the 20th century.”

            Plenty of other good reading, here and here…

            https://www.rossmckitrick.com/paleoclimatehockey-stick.html

            https://notrickszone.com/2018/03/29/another-bust-pages-2k-global-reconstruction-fails-to-confirm-the-hockey-stick/

            Anyone who suggests Mann’s hockey stick has been validated is delusional – what’s that other term they bandy about these days? Cognitive dissonance…

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            I have mentioned before your inability or unwillingness to check who raised the original point before putting fingers to keyboard with a critical response directed at someone else. You have done it again.

            I was not “all over a new study from the Antarctic regarding Australian drought history. That just seems contradictory on your part.” That was Neville.

            As for the hockey stick being “validated over and over”, it was so convincingly validated that the IPCC dropped it like a hot cake, and Mann dragged the chain on providing the data for his legal case so long that the judge dismissed that case. But you keep the faith brother!

          • Stu says:

            “… it was so convincingly validated that the IPCC dropped it like a hot cake, and Mann dragged the chain on providing the data for his legal case so long that the judge dismissed that case. ”
            Sorry, but once again that is just BS and you know it. Try again. A bit like the Quadrant story saying that JCU is “giving science a bad name”. Go and read the court verdict, it was all about employment contract conditions and nothing about science, but that is typical of the contras, trying to misconstrue the facts.

          • Boambee John says:

            Sure Stu, whatever you say!!

  • spangled drongo says:

    Controlling fuel load and establishing fire breaks is absolutely fundamental to reducing bushfires.

    Anyone who doesn’t understand this is simply brainwashed and blind to the real world.

    Like the minority of Europeans who are destroying the living standards of their citizens in so many ways:

    https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/redactions-choice/mad-as-the-sea-and-wind-wind-power-in-france-a-lie-and-a-swindle/

  • Chris Warren says:

    Andrew

    There is no point calling people ignorant.

    Why are you so rude?

    • Andrew says:

      It wasn’t rude Chris, just to the point. No doubt you’ve faced worse!

      Your argument was BS as you played the man and not the ball. Some things never change with the alarmist cult.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Andrew

        I never played the man not the ball.

        There is no cause for you calling others arguments BS.

        Why are you behaving like this?

        Will you start crying like a Boambee when you start getting paid back in your own coin?

    • Boambee John says:

      Poor Chwissy, Andrew called him “ignorant”. Poor petal, dry your tears, don’t hold your breath until you turn purple.

      “There is no cause for you calling others arguments BS” says the world leader in rejecting arguments that cause him cognitive dissonance!!

      How are you going with adjusting your personal lifestyle to the world per capita CO2 emissions level? We need a leader like you to show us the way by personal example!

      • Chris Warren says:

        How old is Boambee????

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          This (quite unjustified) facade of “intellectual superiority” that you attempt to project might initially impress first year students whom you are trying to bluff in a seminar, but it is ludicrous when you try it on a mature audience.

          And the students will work you out after a couple if lectures or seminars!

  • Neville says:

    NZ has just had very heavy rainfall and flooding on parts of the south island.
    That’s up to 200 mm of rain according to the purple on the map. That’s up to 8 inches.
    Brisbane + other areas looks to be heading for heavy falls over the next few days and Sydney perhaps 1 to 2 days of good falls.

    https://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=6425

  • spangled drongo says:

    When is our govt going to investigate the BoM methodology?:

    https://jennifermarohasy.com/2020/02/cooling-the-past-made-easy-for-paul-barry/

  • Chris Warren says:

    So denialists don’t like proxies? I wonder why?

    Now I see …

    “Proxies, which are indirect measurements of past temperature obtained from archives, such as tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake and marine sediments, and cave stalagmites, reveal that the rate and magnitude of the current global temperature change is likely exceptional in the context of the last two thousand years. Global temperatures were last on par with the present ones in the previous Interglacial Period (125,000 years ago), when sea level was 6–9 m (20–30 ft) higher than today. Projected warming over the next century will likely place global temperatures in a range not seen in millions of years of geologic history.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    During the Holocene sea levels were 2+ metres higher as evidenced by oyster beds and Arctic tree lines were further north indicating temperatures considerably warmer than currently. Many science papers cover this.
    In 2019, more than 440 scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob:

    https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/30/over-440-scientific-papers-published-in-2019-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Holocene sea levels 3 metres higher, temps 4-6c warmer.

    Tell us something that is happening today that is climate change in excess of that:

    https://notrickszone.com/2017/08/21/10000-to-5000-years-ago-global-sea-levels-were-3-meters-higher-temperatures-4-6-c-warmer/

  • Neville says:

    Another great editorial by Andrew Bolt urging the Coalition to take on the Labor and Greens imbeciles and their lies about so called CAGW.
    The Greens Bandt has to be the dumbest thing on two legs and yet nobody calls him out on his extremist nonsense.

    • Stu says:

      A point of clarification. Bolt does the common bait and switch technique. Notice he showed Morrison and Albanese in the chamber whereas the clip of Bandt is in a studio, quite a different proposition given the point Bolt is trying to make, you could say dishonest, but typical.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Speaking of the “common bait and switch technique”, I asked you to look at a photo in a specific article in Quadrant On Line.

        On return you made no reference to that photo (Was it too much of a challenge to your world view?), but raised a minor element of a separate article.

        You latched on to a minor introductory comment about the Ridd case, but missed the main point of the article, which was about a review of several JCU papers on the GBR. The review found, among other failings, that:

        “comprehensively and transparently show that—in contrast to previous studies—end-of-century ocean acidification levels have negligible effects on important behaviours of coral reef fishes, such as the avoidance of chemical cues from predators, fish activity levels and behavioural lateralization (left–right turning preference).

        Using data simulations, we additionally show that the large effect sizes and small within-group variances that have been reported in several previous studies are highly improbable. Together, our findings indicate that the reported effects of ocean acidification on the behaviour of coral reef fishes are not reproducible, suggesting that behavioural perturbations will not be a major consequence for coral reef fishes in high CO2 oceans.”

        In essence, the review dismissed the validity of the work of some of JCU’s prized researchers as, at best incompetent, and at worst … ???

        Did you even read the JCU article, or just the name “Ridd”?

        Or were you just using the “common bait and switch technique”?

  • Chris Warren says:

    More mad, bad, denialists predicting cooling based on Milankovitch cycles.

    https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/figure3-updated.jpg

    This would be correct EXCEPT for global warming

    • Andrew says:

      No one disputes there has been warming. You’re either not so bright or being disingenuous to play that card.

      However, the real issue is whether the warming (or even the rate of warming) of the recent period (post LIA) is unprecedented?

      And it is not.

      Nor is it bad for the world or the world’s peoples. Quite the reverse.

      All the rest – sea level rise, polar bears, acidification, melting ice caps (and lately fires) – is just fluff created to scare folk.

      If you can’t grasp that very simple fact, I doubt you finished primary school.

      • Stu says:

        Andrew, “Nor is it bad for the world or the world’s peoples. Quite the reverse.” Wow, that is a big call. What evidence do you have for that claim?

        • Andrew says:

          Really Stu – are you related to Chris?

          I’ll leave you with this little Google search test?

          Why were the HCO, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period etc. referred to as ‘Optimums’ universally until about 50 years ago?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Increased crop yields, greening of former desert regions, as a couple of good starts?

      • Chris Warren says:

        Andrew

        Obviously you are an anti-science nutter.

        All these issues have been done-to-death so it seems you have no. ability to research any issue of consequence.

        Your comments have no basis and are just the musings of a confused denialist.

        Warming post LIA is radical and unnatural. Modern warming is a complete departure from the natural trend which was evidenced in the LIA.

        You will not understand this, but the evidence is clear:

        https://archive.is/DOl4k

        Your misunderstandings are either deliberate or ignorant – which is it?

        • Andrew says:

          Even Mickey Mann would give that chart a ROFL emoji!

          Seriously Chris, are you trying to embellish your (already) well established lightweight credentials?

          • Chris Warren says:

            Asinine Andrew has no idea what Mann would say.

            But this doesn’t stop asinine Andrew from making stuff up.

            Pure unadulterated denialism.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris at 1554, doing the junior academic in a first year seminar act again!!!!

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          “Your comments have no basis and are just the musings of a confused alarmist.”

          Fixed that for you!!!

          As for ability to conduct research, genuine researchers do not arbitrarily reject whole bodies of data (Quadrant) just because they don’t like what they show.

        • Boambee John says:

          PS, your entire 1435 post exemplifies the whole “junior academic running a first year seminar” act that you use so frequently. It would be nice, but probably too much to hope for, if you could find a more mature debating style.

  • Stu says:

    “Optimums” perhaps, if you lived in Europe at that time and for a place with typically cold winters. And how was the water situation there. And tell me about the rest of the people in the world at that time. And you did say it would be the “reverse” of bad. Would you care to quantify that? Sorry, your explanation so far does not cut it as evidence.

  • Neville says:

    Andrew, the bloke isn’t worth your time. If these people don’t understand what the world was like just 30, 50, 100 and 200 years ago it’s best to ignore them.
    I’ve explained it to them many times and many ways but they just forget after 24 hours. It’s like trying to argue with poor Greta, they literally never, ever learn anything.
    BTW heavy rain in Mildura at the moment.

    • Stu says:

      True to form again Neville, ignore the pertinent question, just like Bolt.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stueyluv

        For you to ridicule anyone for ignoring pertinent questions when you have done nothing but ignore pertinent questions the whole time you have been on this site is simply confirmation of your blatant hypocrisy.

        Remember those unanswered Qs by any chance…???

        Still waiting for stu…..

        Still waiting for greenhouse….

        • Stu says:

          Guys would make a great world wrestling tag team. The difference is you ask questions for which the answers are already out there. I am asking you or in this case Andy to put up or point to something worthwhile to justify his statement. Don’t forget I am on the side where there is copious published info while guys are in the small space of generally poorly accepted puff pieces. The onus is on you the naysayers to provide the counter evidence to the globally accepted position.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “generally poorly accepted puff pieces”

            To borrow, yet again, from Mandy Rice-Davies, well those whose position would be threatened by the collapse of the current dominant paradigm would say that, wouldn’t they. Doesn’t mean that they are right.

            Just as they will always defend the “Hockey Stick” and other alarmist sacred cows.

          • Boambee John says:

            PS, if the “answers are already out there”, why can’t you provide them?

          • spangled drongo says:

            “….you ask questions for which the answers are already out there.”

            If they are already out there why is it so hard for you to confirm them?

            Could it possibly be that however you reply to them it will undermine your whole argument?

            You alarmists know you can’t win the debate and therefore simply refuse to have one.

            An honest debate requires the answering of basic questions so it can move forward.

          • Boambee John says:

            SD at 1538

            Snap!

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Speaking of “ignore the pertinent question”, see my post above at 1509.

        • Stu says:

          That photo proves nothing. The text under it requires more information to be taken as fact. E.g. was there a difference between the two sides before the fire, did the track through there have an impact including trucks with water. Perhaps an aircraft doused water there, did the wind change, etc. All sorts of possibilities, but just putting up the photo with that text is not convincing one way or the other. It is a bit like your undated, untimed pictures of Balmoral. But is ok, you have shown before you are easily swayed by flimsy articles.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    Again, you confuse your responses.

    I have made no reference to Balmoal, today or previously.

    As for the photo, you have tied yourself in knots to convince yourself that it “proves nothing”. I won’t bother to rebut all your points in detail, since as they stand they condemn your closed mind. However, the comment “Perhaps an aircraft doused water” shows poor understanding of water bombing. Apart from the lack of pink colouring, it would take a very large water bomber and amazing skill to follow the course of that track for such a distance.

    But you keep grasping at straws. Anything to avoid having to admit to the existence of possibilities not part of the “narrative”!!

    • Boambee John says:

      Balmoral even!

    • Boambee John says:

      PS

      “was there a difference between the two sides before the fire,”

      You didn’t read the article, did you?

    • Stu says:

      I responded to this earlier but it seems to have been swallowed by the ether. I accept it was not you with the Balmoral pic, but you know what I am referring to so the point holds. Undated, untimed pics of a seafront prove nothing.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Is moving a discussion from bushfires (where you seem uncomfortable right now) to sea levels at Balmoral an example of the “common bait and switch technique”?

    • Stu says:

      And you do realise they do not always use the pink rubbish on fires. BTW, has anybody looked into the composition and downstream issues with that stuff? The folk whose cars got doused in Sydney might know.

  • Boambee John says:

    Now that the drought is being replaced by flooding rains, can either of our resident alarmists explain if this is “climate change” or merely weather.

    • Neville says:

      Gosh BJ I don’t think you need to ask. When you’re dealing with religious fanatics or consensus it’s always we terrible human sinners that spins the narrative.
      The last thing these extremists worry about is proper data and evidence.
      BTW how far away is Balmoral beach from Fort Denison I wonder? Sorry silly stu , seems he didn’t think of that problem either. Look it up.

      • Stu says:

        “BTW how far away is Balmoral beach from Fort Denison I wonder? ”. Not far at all actually but that is not the point. Two photos of the same place years apart with no mention of tide state proves nothing, when trying to argue sea level change, it is that simple. Why can’t you grasp that simple fact I wonder?

    • Stu says:

      Now you are just being childish, it smacks of playground nah na nah na nah.

  • Neville says:

    Senator Malcolm Roberts has a red hot go at Upside Down Mann. This should be interesting? Also gotta love the Josh cartoon at the end.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/07/friday-funny-manntastic-claims-require-manntastic-evidence/#comment-2911529

    BTW this Mann donkey is the go to man for the DEMs every time they are looking for a scientist (?????) to decipher their CAGW for them.
    What does this say about the DEM fools if this clown is their popular choice? Think about it?
    And if he was so sure of his evidence or data why didn’t he have the guts to take on Dr Ball? Instead he threw in the towel, perhaps Steyn has some very fertile ground to peg out whenever the case proceeds?

    • Boambee John says:

      Neville

      Remember that Steyn has counter-sued, so Mann dragging the chain on discovery and providing data might eventually get Mann’s case against Steyn dismissed, as it did against Ball. However, Mann will still have to respond to Steyn’s case.

    • Stu says:

      “A red hot go….”. Under parliamentary privilege I notice.

      Meantime the facts around the hockey stick include:

      “An independent assessment of Mann’s hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick – that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.
      While many continue to fixate on Mann’s early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result – that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes).”

      And why on earth would Mann want to “debate” with a non scientist like Roberts?

  • Chris Warren says:

    More science and data for denialists to misrepresent, misunderstand, avoid or deny …

    https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2020/02/08/antarctica-record-temperature/

    You get a similar picture looking at the recent heating of south pole LT temps from Spencer.

    • Boambee John says:

      Back to tge drive-by posting format.

      Sad!!!

    • Andrew says:

      But isn’t it your fellow cultists who always bleat – ‘that’s weather, not climate’?

      One sunny summer’s day….yawn.

      https://notrickszone.com/2019/05/31/10-of-10-coastal-antarctic-stations-show-no-warming-over-past-decades-failed-scientists-need-to-resign/

      • Boambee John says:

        Local temperature inversion?

      • Chris Warren says:

        Andrew

        Very slowly now … if – the – climate – changes – then – the – weather – will – change.

        Repeated tumbling heat records represent weather changing in response to climate changing.

        The Antarctic Peninsula, the northwest tip near South America, is among the fastest-warming regions on earth, with temperatures rising almost 3C during the past 50 years, the WMO said.

        About 87 per cent of the glaciers along its west coast have “retreated” during those decades and had shown an “accelerated retreat” in the past 12 years, it said.

        • Andrew says:

          If you had been diligent enough to peruse the link I posted you’d have seen Butler Island, at 72.2S on the Antarctic Peninsular, which has an obvious cooling trend.

          Nor that SIE (sea ice extent for you Chris) has been trending north – how does this happen in a warming, melting environment?

          Yet close by (well 1000kms), you claim (with any supporting evidence whatsoever) that “is among the fastest-warming regions on earth, with temperatures rising almost 3C during the past 50 years”.

          I note the Peninsular runs as far north as circa 63S – what, circa 1500km north of the main Antarctic land mass. That’s a greater distance than from Melbourne to Brisbane…..

          It reeks of the spin that Place A is doubling at twice the rate of Place B and then Place B is doubling at twice the rate of Place C etc etc.

        • Boambee John says:

          Andrew

          Chris wrote that “Repeated tumbling heat records represent weather changing in response to climate changing.”

          An important point to remember is that for alarmists any record high temperature, even by a fracrion of a degree, is clear evidence of “climate change”. Any record low temperature, even by multiple degrees, is simply weather!!

  • Boambee John says:

    As recently as December the BoM was forecasting no significant rain until at least April.

    That forecast held up well, not!!!!

    But their projections for 2050 are ultra reliable. Just ask them!!!

    • Stu says:

      Showing your ignorance again. Forecasting no significant rain till April is “WEATHER” forecasting while stuff out to 2050 is “CLIMATE” projection. Would you like it spelled out more simply for you?

  • Stu says:

    Showing your ignorance again. Forecasting no significant rain till April is “WEATHER” forecasting while stuff out to 2050 is “CLIMATE” projection. Would you like it spelled out more simply for you?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Falling back on the usual alarmist’s “weather/climate” excuse I see.

      And the difference in forecasting/projection techniques is exactly what? If the projection models are so superior, why not use them for weather forecasting?

      Or is the difference that they can say what they like about 30 years in the future, knowing that they will be comfortably retired by the time they are facing the actual reality?

      It has been said that actuaries are the people who find the pressure of accounting too stressful. Are climate scientists those who find the pressure of forecasting tomorrow’s weather too stressful?

      • Boambee John says:

        PS, it’s so cute when you leap to the defence of the secular saints of alarmism. The poor petals need you on their side!

      • Stu says:

        “ If the projection models are so superior, why not use them for weather forecasting?”. That statement proves you have no idea. Go and ask a climatologist.

  • Neville says:

    Just so everyone understands how Mann etc hid the decline as explained here recently by Steve McIntyre at 46 min 45 secs.
    Many books were written about this by other scientists and Steyn also used many of the other scientists comments to write his book at that time.
    Brendan Shollenberger also wrote another book reviewed on Climate Audit as well. Here’s the video link for McIntyre’s comment.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Just because our denialists say the opposite …

    Here is Ole Humlum’s chart of Antarctic warming.

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90S%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1957.gif

    from 1960 to 2020 there has been a slight warming for the region as a whole.

    Spencer’s data also shows Lower troposphere warming at the South Ext. (and South Pole for land).

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

    So everything points to warming – except statements from denialists.

  • Neville says:

    Remember Mann received no support for his case against Steyn .
    Even left wing groups and media left this donkey isolated and this just proves what a crock their so called coming apocalypse really is.
    If the world was going to end in 5 to 10 years they’d all be rushing to support Mann instead of abandoning the clueless fool.
    But most sane people knew this from the start and only the crazies are still supporting the dill.
    What more evidence do we need, it’s all just so much more BS ?

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/24-media-organizations-oppose-defamation-suit-waged-by-climate-scientist_2810374.html

  • Chris Warren says:

    Here is an example of the foul, fraudulent behaviour of denialists that we all need to take note of.

    I said, above, “The Antarctic Peninsula, the northwest tip near South America, is among the fastest-warming regions on earth, with temperatures rising almost 3C during the past 50 years, the WMO said.” – fact.

    So what does denialist do, but deliberately cut off the reference to the WMO and then (falsely) quote the new version as:

    ““is among the fastest-warming regions on earth, with temperatures rising almost 3C during the past 50 years” – full stop !!!!!!

    But further, after cutting out the source, this Andrew fellow has the gall to assert that the statement is a “claim (with any supporting evidence whatsoever)”.

    BUT THIS FOOL CUT THE EVIDENCE ITSELF.

    We have to draw the line somewhere.

    Why do denialists fabricate and lie like this?

    Why? – Simply because the science is not on their side and they have, almost universally, been predicting global cooling.

    This is an act that is even well below a drongo falsification.

  • Chris Warren says:

    And the next dirty trick of this denialist is to state:

    “…SIE (sea ice extent for you Chris) has been trending north”. Please check the quality of the source he provided for that nonesense.

    The science is that:

    “The satellite record reveals that a gradual, decades-long overall increase in Antarctic sea ice extents reversed in 2014, with subsequent rates of decrease in 2014–2017 far exceeding the more widely publicized decay rates experienced in the Arctic. The rapid decreases reduced the Antarctic sea ice extents to their lowest values in the 40-y record, both on a yearly average basis (record low in 2017) and on a monthly basis (record low in February 2017).”

    And you can all read this science at:

    https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414

    Denialist Andrew’s claim is only correct if you deliberately cut off all the data from 2014.

    This denialist is truly a very dirty player.

    • Boambee John says:

      I see that the junior acadenic is giving another poorly attended pompous seminar!!

      This one seems to be on the subject of selective use of sources.

      • Chris Warren says:

        So YOU support such conduct ????

        Are YOU just as dirty ????

        Or are you able to answer the question ???

        Why do denialists lie and fabricate like this. ???

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          Do you deny that you are selective in your use of sources?

          Do you deny that you completely reject some sources (eg Quadrant) without offering any substantive reasons?

          Does this make you dirty?

          Why are alarmists afraid to look at all of the evidence????

          Are you an evidence denialist?

          • Chris Warren says:

            Unlike Boambee – I use all scientific sources.

            Not partisan magazines or outpourings from entities with obvious political agendas.

            So all of its begging trolling can be dumped in the garbage can where it belongs.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            “Not partisan magazines or outpourings from entities with obvious political agendas.”

            Like the ” obvious political agendas” of many alarmists??

            So you define out of existence anything with which you disagree, then deny that you cherry pick? I guess it makes your life easier if you don’t have to consider contrary evidence. Only the “approved” nlmaterial in the “approved” journals run by the “approved” people is fit for your delicate eyes?

    • Andrew says:

      Chris W, flailing wildly in desperation….

      Yes, we know it said ‘so says the WMO’ but no chart or other data referencing.

      You then ignore ENTIRELY – data sets from 11 major Antarctic stations which ALL show either nil warming or a negative trend. Hmmm.

      As for Sea Ice Extent – anyone with even a modest IQ know they can get 48 hour dated data at NSIDC – https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/category/daily-image/

      The problem with low level denial such as yours? You wave around one piece of remotely relevant data – the warm spot temperature at the northern most tip if the Peninsular (as noted, 1500km north of the main land mass) and IGNORE entirely everything else that disputes your take……

      That’s propaganda, not science.

    • Andrew says:

      ps Chris, check out the current sea ice extent data for the Arctic….

      boom boom.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Here is something you really need to worry about, blith:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-LS-anoms-NP-SP.jpg

  • Neville says:

    Just to clear up this Antarctic warming nonsense using the UAH V 6 data since 1979.
    The very latest long term trend is now about 0.02c decade or about 0.2c in 100 years if it stayed that way, but probably won’t.
    Even at the start of the record in 1980 we can find monthly changes of 1c/decade or more, just check it out.
    And the Turner et al study found that the Ant peninsula has been cooling since 1999.

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

    • Stu says:

      Nev, cut the crap. Posting a link to a long string of data points is not useful to most people here, few are trained to comprehend it, possibly even you, hence your post

      • Neville says:

        Gosh now you can’t even link to a major Antarctic temp data set, because the silly donkeys prefer , ignorant rants over proper data and evidence.
        Sorta says it all really.

        • Stu says:

          Ok, show me some analysis and valid conclusions drawn from that data set, by you. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the data, there might be or not, but I am saying that listing it here looks like a poor attempt to impress people who don’t have the time, skills or knowledge to process it.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Denialist dogma…

      “… but probably won’t”

      See Neville at: “The very latest long term trend is now about 0.02c decade or about 0.2c in 100 years if it stayed that way, but probably won’t.”

      No professional scientist would make such a statement without some explanation based on evidence.

      But this does not stop denialists making whatever random comment they like – more for their own comfort than shedding any light on Antarctic post 2014 warming.

      Denialists are now a cranky laughing stock.

  • Chris Warren says:

    It is all very simple … not that Antarctica is representative of global warming overall. It just took longer to show early signs.

    The science is that:

    “The satellite record reveals that a gradual, decades-long overall increase in Antarctic sea ice extents reversed in 2014, with subsequent rates of decrease in 2014–2017 far exceeding the more widely publicized decay rates experienced in the Arctic. The rapid decreases reduced the Antarctic sea ice extents to their lowest values in the 40-y record, both on a yearly average basis (record low in 2017) and on a monthly basis (record low in February 2017).”

    And you can all read this science at:

    https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414

    Cherry-picking this or that sub-regions, or different timescales, is not relevant.

    This would be a dirty trick of denialism.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    I seem to be a bit of an outlier here in that unlike either alarmists or some other sceptics, I see proxies as little more than general indicators of trends. I have grave doubts about proxy “temperatures” having any significant level of precision.

    Their first problem is the lack of availability of true worldwide proxies. There are no deep ice fields in low lying temperate or tropical regions, and few or no trees in regions covered in ice for millenia. As well, it is unlikely that trees in extremely cold regions will have identical growing patterns to those in temperate or tropical regions.

    Then there is the issue of other influences on tree growth. Moisture levels would be the most obvious, but not the only one.

    Are tree rings influenced more by temperature or by rainfall? The likely answer is “It depends”. How will tree rings vary between hot/wet, hot/dry, cold/wet, cold dry, warm/ wet etc seasons?

    I am sure users of the various proxies will all offer assurances that all of those factors are taken into account, but the results will inevitably have wide error margins.

    All up, proxies might provide some broad indicators, but if you hang your hat on precise temperature levels derived from them, then you are deluding yourself.

    SD and Neville, your comnents please, as both of you have drawn on proxy data previously?

    • There are useful clues from relatively recent sediments under oceans and lakes. I understand reliable inferences can be drawn from the type and abundance of plant pollen, ash from fires, dust from droughts etc etc.

      • Boambee John says:

        Mike

        Perhaps, but what accurate numbers can be derived many centuries ago? We have thermometers for recent years, but proxies are used for earlier periods. In at least one well known example the proxy did not match the thermometer record when extended into the modern era.

    • Stu says:

      BJ, “I seem to be a bit of an outlier here in that unlike either alarmists or some other sceptics, I see proxies as little more than general indicators of trends. I have grave doubts about proxy “temperatures” having any significant level of precision.”

      Then perhaps you need to back to school, work your way up to uni then a PhD followed by post doc work and you might understand, rather than just reject.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Then perhaps you need to back to school, work your way up to uni then a PhD followed by post doc work and you might understand, rather than just reject.”

        So, where can I find your published PhD on temperature proxies? For my enlightenment!!

        Pray tell us, what order of accuracy did your work reveal? Plus or minus 0.1 degrees? 0.5?? 1.0?? 5.0??

        Curious minds await the fruit of your brilliance!!

        PS, that’s sarcasm, in case you couldn’t work it out.

        • Stu says:

          ”So, where can I find your published PhD on temperature proxies? For my enlightenment!!
          Pray tell us, what order of accuracy did your work reveal? Plus or minus 0.1 degrees? 0.5?? 1.0?? 5.0??”

          No need, I am not rejecting a truckload of published conclusions that most are in agreement with, you are. You said you ”have grave doubts about proxy temps having any significant level of precision”. Remember? So show us your workings.

          If you check you will find the science underlying the complete proxy tool kit is very complex, quite varied in types of proxy and scientific expertise, extremely detailed and well reported on. It is not a case of just looking at a tree ring and saying ooh, as you seem to imply. (I can joke also!)

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            If you do not understand basic statistics, I am certainly not going to waste time trying to teach you.

            You have a touching but naive belief that once something is written (but only by a scientist you approve) then the “science” is clearly established. Genuine science does not work that way, as has been repeated here often, but you have only the shallowest understanding.

            But since you claim familiarity with the “complex, quite varied in types of proxy and scientific expertise, extremely detailed and well reported on” science of proxies, what error margins does that “complex, quite varied in types of proxy and scientific expertise, extremely detailed and well reported on” science record?

          • Stu says:

            BJ “If you do not understand basic statistics” etc. Mate I have studied and used more than “basic” statistics. In fact well enough to suppose it likely that there is a very high correlation perhaps with a value of 1.0 that your crazy views align with both age and political persuasion variables. Yes.

            Now go and actually read some of the papers regarding temperature proxies and observe the rigour of the research and the complexity of the data treatment.

          • Andrew says:

            Patrick Moore on acidification.

            http://ecosense.me/ecosense-wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Ocean-Acidification.pdf

            “The most serious problem with the assertion that pH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 since 1750 is
            that there is no universal pH in the world’s oceans. The pH of the oceans varies far more than 0.1
            on a daily, monthly, annual and geographic basis. In the offshore oceans, pH typically varies
            geographically from 7.5 to 8.4, or 0.9 of a pH unit. A study in offshore California shows that pH
            can vary by 1.43 of a pH unit on a monthly basis.30 This is nearly five times the change in pH that
            computer models forecast during the next 85 years to 2100. In coastal areas that are influenced
            by run­off from the land, pH can be as low as 6.0 and as high as 9.0.

            The Humboldt Current, a large area of ocean upwelling off the coasts of Chile and Peru, is
            among the lowest pH found naturally in the oceans. (see Figure 4) The pH of this seawater is 7.7
            to 7.8.31 If the ocean average pH is now 8.1, the water in the Humboldt Current is already at a
            lower pH than is predicted by 2100. Upwelling waters tend to be lower in pH than other areas of
            the ocean for two reasons. First, the water has been at a depth where the remains of sea creatures
            fall down and decompose into nutrients, tending to drive pH down. Second, the water that is
            upwelling to form the Humboldt Current is water that downwelled (sank) around Antarctica, and
            being cold, it had a high solubility for CO2 at the ocean ­atmosphere interface. Ocean water that
            sinks at the poles eventually comes to the surface where it is warmed, thus outgassing some of
            the CO2 that was absorbed in the Antarctic and the Arctic.”

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So what are the error margins?

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu,

            Proxies are like GCMs.

            They are often assumption-based and do not provide empirical evidence.

            Show us a peer reviewed science paper that provides observable, measureable evidence that current climate is warmer than Holocene climate.

            No doubt you are aware there are hundreds of such papers that provide evidence for the reverse.

            Try coming up with just one.

            BTW, stu, tomorrow is the Highest Astronomical Tide [HAT] of the year. Why don’t you go and make your own benchmark of it somewhere so you can refer to in the future. I made that benchmark in 1946 [yes, 74 years ago] and in all the years since that I have been checking, HATs have all been up to 250 mm LOWER than that original benchmark.

            I will be checking it again tomorrow at my 1946 benchmark.

          • Chris Warren says:

            It is good that asinine Andrew has started posting evidence of global warming in Antarctica. In summer so the Andrew story goes – you can now wear T-shirts. How good is that, pity that global warming does not stop at such a convenient point and what must the rest of the world be suffering if they wear T-shirts in Antarctica?

            When will they be growing grapes at the South Pole?

            Although it dos show that he has lost track of his own argument and that denialists are truly laughing stocks.

          • Chris Warren says:

            What is this Moore muck meant to show?

          • Peter S says:

            I have already commented at length on the chemical and biochemical impacts of increasing partial pressure of atmospheric CO2. Because you think Patrick Moore’s article is muck I will try to provide a simple explanation of why it is not.

            The concept of pH was invented somewhere around 1905. Therefore we have no measurements of ocean pH prior to then and indeed until much later in the 20th century. Therefore the claim that since the industrial revolution ocean pH has decreased by around 0.1 units is based entirely upon calculation. I could repeat that calculation for you but I am almost certain you would not understand the mathematics and physical chemistry concepts involved. Some indirect systems have been identified for estimating pH values earlier than 1900, but like all proxy values these contain errors and biases that are not easily resolved.

            The second major point in Moore’s article is that ocean pH is quite variable so measuring its average value is enormously difficult, and somewhat meaningless. It can range from 7.5 to 8.4. It varies diurnally and seasonally. It varies with depth, largely because of the decay of organic matter sinking from the epilimnion down to the hypolimnion where the decay produces CO2, and if deep enough where O2 is much depressed, CH4. The range of variation in the littoral zones is also quite large, and it is in the littoral zones where ocean life, apart from phytoplankton, large fish and mammals is mostly concentrated.

            In short, specifying an average ocean pH is meaningless. We simply do not have the data.

            Seven reference sites have been established by researchers to try to identify trends. These have identified a decrease in pH over the measurement periods covered by these sites. The decrease ranges from 0.0013 to 0.0025 units per year, about the same order of magnitude as the measurement variation. But these should not be construed to represent ocean wide trends. Seven sites, however carefully chosen, cannot represent the entire oceans.

            If you are interested in these data they are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2014.16

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          To borrow some words from you, “Ok, show me some analysis and valid conclusions drawn from that data set, by you.”

          My purpose in raising the issue was to see whether you are capable of independent, logical thought on a subject of great interest to you. It seems that the answer is “No”!

          • Stu says:

            No point asking the question, but here goes anyway, how the hell do you reach that conclusion based on our correspondence so far?

            Which reminds me, have you taken the trouble to read up on the fundamental differences between weather forecasting (read near term) and climate model prediction (long term)? I guess the answer is no. Do you want me to spell it out for you in even simpler language?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Well you ignored my open invitation to show some independent thought on proxies, and immediately lapsed back into regurgitating other peoples’ words. Still, here is your chance to do so with weather and climate forecasting. Go for it. Try to keep it simple for a poor old man.

            PS, I wonder whether there is a very high correlation perhaps with a value of 1.0, that your crazy views align with political persuasion?

          • Stu says:

            Come on explain your quip about using the same models for weather and climate. You cant can you?

            As for the correlation I don’t fit actually on either measure. Swinging voter and reasonably old for someone who accepts the conventional science. Reactionary thoughts fit with fossilised brains clinging to the current (but less than 100 years old in NSW and Vic) paradigm of power creation and distribution, not to mention transport. But you will get it eventually old chap.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Still hanging out for the great technical breakthrough on solar, wind or batteries?

            The problem with such breakthroughs is that they cannot be forecast, and even dedicated work can come up empty after years and billions.

            It is not reactionary to want to be sure the new system will work before starting to run the old one down.

            Fun fact: even as the Trinity shot was being prepared in July 1945, there were some who did not believe it would work.

          • Stu says:

            Yes I thought you would avoid answering because it shows your poor knowledge. Or maybe it was one of your weak attempts at humour.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu, Stu

            You’re not still stuck on the old left/right, progressive/reactionary paradigm are you? How 20th Century!

            These days, depending on the terminology used, the break is between elites/masses, cosmopolitans/parochials or internationalists/nationalists. Note that these days many of those pushing for “socialism” are millionaires and billionaires.

            As for the difference between predicting weather and projecting climate, the key difference is human, particularly the presence or absence of either humility or overweening arrogance.

            Good weather forecasters learn humility early. Those who don’t soon move on to medium range forecasting, and as their arrogance develops further, on to climatology.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          Perhaps the issue of ocean “acidification” (really, becoming less alkaline) is more complex than alarmists like to claim?
          But alarmists gotta alarm!

  • Chris Warren says:

    This is the chart you get to following asinine Andrew’s link…

    https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png

    It shows that sea ice was gradually increasing until around 2014 when it suddenly reversed.

    This is entirely consistent with the professional science as here:

    https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414

    Cherry-picking this or that sub-regions, or different timescales, is not relevant.

    This would be a dirty trick of denialism.

    • Andrew says:

      Chris,

      You ignore (I keep repeating that word):

      1. The temperature trend from the 11 stations is flat or negative

      2. the sea ice trend is slightly positive

      3. the current SIE level is pretty much the same as it was in 1980.

      Those are the facts. Asinine? I’d say projection.

      You keep bleating about 2014. It’s irrelevant.

      Even the well credentialed alarmists I interact with elsewhere are smart enough to know the Antarctic is one place that simply does no favours to the warmist agenda.

      Clearly, you’re not.

      • Boambee John says:

        Andrew

        “You keep bleating about 2014. It’s irrelevant.”

        It shows what Chris wants to see.

        It’s called “cherry picking”!

  • spangled drongo says:

    Our blith is just one soy latte away from gluing himself to the road.

  • Boambee John says:

    Chris

    How are you going with adopting a lifestyle that does not exceed the world per capita average for CO2 emissions? We would all like to hear what you had to give up to achieve that level. Or is it only the little people who need to make sacrifices?

  • Neville says:

    Another interesting post on USA west coast SLR from Willis Eschenbach.
    This bloke is up there with Steve McIntyre when maths and stats + data analysis are required.
    But they love to accelerate their SLR and more than a few donkeys always believe these con merchants.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/09/accelerating-the-acceleration/#comment-2913024

  • Stu says:

    Going back to proxies it is amusing to note that some people here dismiss the proxies. SD says they are not empirical and are assumption based. But then he holds up his claims for high temperatures mid holocene. He can’t have it both ways.

    And I forgot he seems to have some fixation that the highest astronomical tide of the year is sea level. Really! As stated before mean sea level is much more complex than that. It is not a “Biggus dickus” competition.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Let me hold your hand while I explain, stu.

      When raised oyster beds show sea levels to be 3 metres higher than today, a few thousand years ago, that isn’t a proxy.

      That’s observable evidence that sea levels were that much higher at that period.

      And for the SLs to be higher it had to be warmer.

      And likewise when tree lines in the far north proclaim their existence in the recent past beyond all current tree lines, that again, is observable evidence of only one thing.

      The world must have been warmer at that period.

      “…..he seems to have some fixation that the highest astronomical tide of the year is sea level.”

      It is theoretically the highest sea level [BP corrected] that you are going to observe and it is the most accurate way of observing if sea levels are rising.

      If the current HAT is higher than previous HATs then seas levels are rising.

      If the current HAT is lower than previous HATs then they are not rising.

      Very simple, observable scientific evidence if you have gone to the trouble of establishing a benchmark for king tide comparisons.

      Mean Sea Levels, OTOH, are a central measurement and more approximate.

      Today’s HAT was similar to all those of the last 10-20 years and around 25 cms [10 inches] LOWER than HATs of 70 years ago.

      There has been no SLR in Moreton Bay since the “Climate Change” groupthink began!

      And Moreton Bay, like Sydney Harbour, is a stilling pond next to the biggest piece of ocean in the world.

  • Chris Warren says:

    So it looks like folks will be able to wear T-shirts in Antarctica and denialists will still be projecting cooling.

    Andrew in Wonderland meeting a Boambee still in a stupor from too many drugs.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Is it your usual practice to quote documents out of context and exaggerate their import?

    • Stu says:

      Save your fingers. I was not saying anything about SL rise, fall or static. I was rubbishing your reliance on a single king tide as indicative. Did you notice the significant impact of atmospheric conditions on the level of the tide over the last few days on the east coast?

      But off you go on your charger full tilt on your misguided crusade. Good luck to you. There is not enough space here to seriously argue the SL issue so I wont try, just go and look at some proper science.

      BTW have you noticed they only publish tide “predictions”? Lots of variables day to day, month to month. I do know we have had some quite big tides the last few days.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Soooo, “we have had some quite big tides the last few days”, but the HAT yesterday was quite low.

        Interesting anomaly, or is it some kind of indication???

      • spangled drongo says:

        “I was rubbishing your reliance on a single king tide as indicative.”

        How long have I been telling you that I have checked this benchmark against King Tides since 1946?

        And always corrected it for BP?

        You are not just selective in what you remember, stu, you are a downright denier and avoider of facts when they are staring you in the face.

        Did you use the opportunity to establish your own benchmark, by any chance?

        So you can check any “scientific” claims in the future?

        Or are you more than happy to accept those claims knowing they will always be on the catastrophe support band wagon?

        Grow up and get sceptical!

        The fact is that algorithm-free benchmarks like these [and I have many others, just not as old] are proving without a doubt that SLs are not rising.

  • Neville says:

    Jim Steele straightens out the blatant Antarctic temp nonsense from the usual con merchants in the left wing media.
    Of course our donkeys are so easily misled and always seem to get it wrong.
    Why do these stupid fools think they can also fool us every time they jump on some fraudulent bandwagon?
    The best rule of thumb is …….. if our donkeys really promote some crazy assumption we sane people must take everything they claim with extreme caution.
    Many good factual comments at the link.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/09/medias-horribly-dishonest-antarctica-propaganda/

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the RSS TLT tool to check on Antarctic temps since the start of 2016. Set the graph for “recent” and you’ll see a flat trend to 2020.
    Then also note a very cool data point at the start of 2019. But the temp trend since 1978 is about 0.04 c per decade or twice the UAH V 6 trend for Antarctica.

    http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

  • Neville says:

    Steve McIntyre also looked at the Law Dome data and found that we’ve just had the coldest period in the late 20th century over the last 2,000 years.
    See the Law Dome graph at the link and UAH V 6 finds no stat significant warming over Antarctica for 41 years. Of course this overlaps the end of the Law Dome graph at the link and adds another 20 years to 2020.

    https://climateaudit.org/2017/11/20/new-antarctic-temperature-reconstruction/

  • Stu says:

    BJ wrote. “As for the difference between predicting weather and projecting climate, the key difference is human, particularly the presence or absence of either humility or overweening arrogance.
    Good weather forecasters learn humility early. Those who don’t soon move on to medium range forecasting, and as their arrogance develops further, on to climatology.”

    For someone claiming to be presenting science, that is absolute poppycock. For those reading who are not informed I will spell out the difference. Forecasting (not predicting) weather is at best a ten day out scenario related to movement of pressure systems etc and their embedded characteristics. Predicting climate is a much grosser affair dealing with much more data with much less granularity (BJ that means covering much bigger areas). The models and their constituents are quite different and have nothing to do with “humility” or “arrogance” except on the part of BJ.

    Thus his second paragraph is just insulting arrogance on the part of a no-nothing amateur, but then again that is at the heart of most climate change denial.

    I will be surprised if he does not respond this time.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Surprise!!! Here I am!!!

      “Predicting climate is a much grosser affair dealing with much more data with much less granularity (BJ that means covering much bigger areas). The models and their constituents are quite different and have nothing to do with “humility” or “arrogance” except on the part of BJ.”

      Note the use of the word “grosser”. Yet the climatologists use this “grosser” data to claim great precision in their “projections”. Calling what they use “data” is an example of the arrogance I mentioned. Real data are measurable. “Data” points on the future 30 or 50 or 100 years in the future are not measurable, they are the product of computer models, and subject to the basic computer equation, GIGO.

      PS, I spent half my career in jobs involving looking into the short and medium term future. It can be a humbling experience. Climatologists, OTOH, seem simply to ignore the multiple failures of their “predictions”, and arrogantly continue to offer more, in the arrogant belief that the previous faikures will quickly be forgotten. Most alarmists do just that. Sceptics are (wisely) more cautious.

      PS, I notice you use “predicting” climate, but refer to “forecasting” weather. Slip of the finger, or an indication of your beliefs?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        How are you going with your confident “very high correlation perhaps with a value of 1.0 that your crazy views align with both age and political persuasion variables”? Worked it out yet, or are you still stuck in the outdated 20th Century paradigm?

      • Stu says:

        “ PS, I notice you use “predicting” climate, but refer to “forecasting” weather. Slip of the finger, or an indication of your beliefs?”

        No “beliefs” on this side of the fence, just facts and science.

        If you don’t know the difference between a forecast and a prediction in this context I can’t help you. That is the normal wording for this stuff in the real world even if not in your la la land.

  • Boambee John says:

    From Forbes

    “A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist. We know of this intent because one of the principals of Skeptical Science, a blogger named Dana Nuccitelli, said so last Friday, writing of one academic on their list, “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.”

    Those open minded alarmists are now maintaining a “blacklist”.

    The urge to fascism is ingrained in alarmism.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s an interesting site with all the data on Antarctic and Arctic sea ice over the last 40 years.
    A drop of Antarctic sea ice was probably a result of unusual storms at the latter stages of 2016, but a recovery has since taken place.
    The warm AMO seems to be the major reason why the Arctic has seen a reduction since 1995 and blue, red colours on the chart clearly show this to be the case since 1960. Arctic sea ice has flat-lined since 2010.
    I think Dr Judith Curry is correct to have highlighted this cold/ warm AMO impact over the last few years.
    Obviously OECD trying to reduce co2 emissions is a fools errand and will not change anything, just ask China, India and the developing world. AGAIN see WIKI graph.

    https://www.perspectaweather.com/blog/2020/2/13/715-am-arctic-sea-ice-has-shown-resiliency-in-recent-years

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the details of the Perspecta site. They employ thousands of people and here is their Meteorologist Paul Dorian’s info. At least this scientist has been a credit to Penn state university.

    https://www.perspectaweather.com/about
    About Meteorologist Paul Dorian

    Paul Dorian of Perspecta received Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees in meteorology (1981, 1983) from Penn State University. As a grad student, Paul worked with Dr. Gregory Forbes, currently with The Weather Channel and its severe weather expert, and Dr. John Cahir, Professor of Meteorology (Emeritus), Vice Provost and Dean, (Emeritus). He began his professional career as a meteorologist with NASA’s Climate Branch from 1983-1985 at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland and his work continued there with the Severe Storms Branch from 1985-1990. While at the NASA Severe Storms Branch, Paul worked with Dr. Stephen Koch, current Director of NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) and severe weather expert, and Dr. Louis Uccellini, current Director of NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) and winter weather expert.

    Since 1990, he has worked in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania as a systems engineer with a focus on meteorology-related activities. He has led forecasting efforts for multiple worldwide ground truth data collects with customized weather forecasts to help with the success of these efforts. Additionally, Paul provided his own daily nationwide weather forecast to the Emergency Operations Center of Lockheed Martin with a focus on severe weather potential as a way of securing the safety of their employees. Since June 2011, Paul has operated the company weather web site at perspectaweather.com. Contact via email: paul.b.dorian@perspecta.com

  • Chris Warren says:

    Typical Neville denialist statement;

    “Arctic sea ice has flat-lined since 2010.”

    Typical scientific fact:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2018/02/monthly_ice_01_NH_v3.0.png

    Nuff said …

  • Neville says:

    Jim Steele has certainly written a very good article about Antarctica and supported by the recent Tony Heller video.

    Don’t forget that 16 years ago the UK’s chief scientist told us that everyone would have to flee to Antarctica to escape their CAGW. Unbelievable but true and the MSM liars lapped it up.

    Incredible that the latest spike in warming is due to the NATURAL Foehn wind phenomena and yet the fools in the media claim this is due to co2 warming. Here’s the Tony Heller video including his references.

  • Neville says:

    Another accurate article about AOC’s Solar &Wind lunacy from Paul Driessen via the GWPF.
    Even the late Sen Ted Kennedy opposed the installation of these environmental disasters anywhere near his home turf.
    Amazing how the moronic elites quickly develop a NIMBY complex when they have to suffer the consequences.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/why-the-green-new-deal-would-destroy-the-environment/

    “Why The Green New Deal Would Destroy The Environment”

    Date: 14/02/20
    Paul Driessen, The Federalist

    “The Green New Deal is anything but ‘clean’ or ‘green.’ Even the relatively modest numbers of solar and wind installations in the United States today are causing serious environmental damage.

    A few minutes of serious thought from self-described environmentalists would prompt a realization that if the Green New Deal, a program championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, were implemented, it would create an environmental disaster.

    In recent decades, policymakers have forced public utilities to generate increasingly more electricity from fashionable “renewable energy” sources, especially wind and solar, and pushed automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles. Their chief goal is to eliminate reliable, affordable, generally clean fossil fuels, including natural gas, even though they generate most of America’s electricity and power most U.S. transportation.

    Environmentalists claim to worry that carbon dioxide from these fuels will cause devastating global warming. Many would also eliminate nuclear power, which they say is inherently unsafe.

    As I argue in a new Heartland Institute policy study, however, environmentalists have paid too little attention to the serious harm Green New Deal policies would inflict on the environment — including scenic lands, wildlife habitats, and threatened and endangered species. Implementing the Green New Deal would undermine the very values environmentalists have espoused for decades.

    America faces a dilemma. Will it focus on real environmental problems that do measurable harm to human and ecological wellbeing, or will it mandate policies to head off climate disasters that are based on warming predictions have been repeatedly proven wrong by real-world empirical observations? Will it recognize that harnessing intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar energy requires enormous amounts of raw materials and mining, resulting in massive land-use impacts and human rights abuses, and is anything but clean, green, renewable, and sustainable? Or will it ignore all this?

    Solar farms generate only 1.5 percent of the nation’s electricity and would be an inefficient way to generate the more than 8 billion megawatt-hours of power that fossil fuels and nuclear provide each year to meet industrial, commercial, residential, and automotive transportation needs and charge backup-power batteries. Using cutting-edge Nellis Air Force Base solar panels to generate that electricity would require completely blanketing 57,000 square miles of land — equivalent to the land area of New York and Vermont — with 19 billion photovoltaic solar panels. Because billions would be placed in less-sunny places, the area required would certainly be higher still. The effects on habitats and wildlife would be incalculable.

    Onshore wind turbines are no better. Indiana’s Fowler Ridge Wind Farm covers 68 square miles, an area larger than Washington, D.C. Using similar facilities to replace all our country’s fossil fuel and nuclear power would require more than 2 million turbines on more than 500,000 square miles of farm, wildlife habitat, and scenic lands. That’s equivalent to the combined acreage of Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and one-quarter of Washington state. Consider also that many of the huge number of turbines needed to meet Green New Deal requirements would have to be placed in lower-quality, less-windy sites, which would certainly drive the amount of required land and raw materials even higher.

    Environmental groups have long expressed concern that onshore wind turbines kill bats and birds. In fact, the 56,000 turbines we now have could already be slaughtering millions every year, including many protected and endangered species. Remember that these birds and bats eat insects, which, when left alive, can ravage crops and harm humans. The millions of turbines required by the Green New Deal could even threaten the existence of some species.

    Renewable energy proponents tout offshore wind turbines as superior to those on land because ocean winds blow more steadily. Yet because of opposition from environmental groups, only one relatively small offshore facility is operating today off Rhode Island’s coastline.

    Turbines ruin scenic views, kill countless birds and bats, and harm marine mammals, which is why environmentalists — and even the late leftist icon Sen. Ted Kennedy — have long opposed the planned Vineyard Wind facility off the Massachusetts coast. To provide enough power for the country, Green New Deal advocates would have to build hundreds of thousands of truly gigantic offshore turbines.
    Environmentalists Should Shun This Policy

    Green New Deal-mandated solar and wind facilities would need to be located further from populated urban areas than natural gas, coal, and nuclear facilities, meaning a major expansion of high-voltage transmission lines. But as recent wildfires in California show, power lines can cause major environmental damage if brush, trees, and grass are not cleared regularly. Environmental groups have opposed new power lines, and consistently oppose clearing vegetation, calling it “unnatural” or “harmful to wildlife,” thereby making deadly, habitat-destroying fires more probable.

    Solar panels require many toxic materials, and wind turbines require enormous amounts of steel, concrete, copper, and rare earth elements. Storing a week’s worth of power for periods when the sun is not shining or the wind isn’t blowing would require some 2 billion half-ton Tesla car battery packs. Meeting these needs would require a massive expansion of mining for lithium, cobalt, and other substances in the United States or in Asia, Africa, and South America. Operations in the latter countries involve extensive child labor, create environmental disasters, and even lead to premature death”.

  • Andrew says:

    New paper – Comprehensive Analytical Study of the
    Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere
    Peter Stallinga 2020 – https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020011611163731.pdf

  • Neville says:

    We know their ABC programs are full of pig ignorant left wing fools,but this bottom of the bird cage effort takes some beating.
    Talk about the blind leading the blind. Morrison should remove most of their funding like Johnson is planning for the clueless BBC. Let’s hope he doesn’t weaken and brings this on ASAP.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/no-osher-paranoia-is-not-a-sane-reaction-to-warming-scare/news-story/3f86c4be66cb86c6d2f3ea4e77ff173d

  • Neville says:

    Another top power point presentation by Dr Spencer. Although this is to a Lay audience it covers a lot and what a pity they couldn’t find any so called scientist to debate Roy.
    Don’t forget that previously Dr Schmidt fled in a panic when Roy entered the studio. What a mob of cowards and squibs.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Pasadena-Feb-2020-pdf-slideshow.pdf

    • Stu says:

      One point in his presentation stands out. He assumes ALL of the increase in crop yields is due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. That is a big call that I suspect is not justified. Which other of his points are also dubious?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        So what are the other causes? Or is it that alarmists fear that he might be correct?

        • Neville says:

          Gosh BJ, what a pity that stu wasn’t there to debate Roy Spencer?
          Even their so called scientists run a mile whenever a coherent scientist like Roy accepts any challenge.
          BTW another interesting point about Dr Hansen’s 2015 Paris COP 21 fra-d + con trick is the fact that global co2 levels have increased by 10 ppm from Jan 2016 to DEC 2019.
          That’s 9 times MORE than OZ’s total of 1.1% of global emissions in just 4 years. Look up CSIRO Cape Grim and Mauna Loa Hawaii data.
          Anyone NOT see a BIGGGG problem with their sums?
          Since 1989 co2 levels have increased by 60 ppm, yet in another 30 years the increase could be another 75 ppm higher, if the previous four year trend was replicated.

        • Stu says:

          “So what are the other causes?”

          FFS, have you never heard of fertilizers and improved crop varieties, expanded irrigation, and better machinery etc? Obviously not. The guy clearly confused correlation with causation.

          • Andrew says:

            I think 70% has been attributed. maybe that Zhu 2016 greening paper. Stay tuned.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So “fertilizers and improved crop varieties, expanded irrigation, and better machinery etc” all followed the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels? Who knew!

            Even by your standards, that is a miserable response.

          • Stu says:

            BJ, you prove once again there is simply no reason to discuss things with you, irrational replies like yours are a total waste of space.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “irrational replies”!!

            This from the deep thinker whose immediate reaction to the “greeining of the earth” claim was to link it only with developments in agriculture!!

            No, Stu, natural vegetation also benefits from higher CO2 levels. You claim to trust the judgements of the “consensus” scientists. Perhaps you should broaden your outlook?

            PS, I gave up actually arguing with you some time ago, as you clearly have no actual understanding of the issues. These days, I am just trying to plumb the depths of your ignorance, out of simple scientific curiousity. You continue to surprise.

          • Stu says:

            BJ, you are a very poor at reading. Where did I say that increased CO2 had NOT affected crop yields. If you go back, take off your cloak of antagonism and read again you will see I was merely challenging (show me where I am wrong) that Heller was wrong in associating the increase solely with CO2, which is clearly bullshit. But go ahead and tell all the plant guys they have been wasting their time for the last forty years. Your current poor comprehension and poorer logic is on display again. Apology please!

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “But go ahead and tell all the plant guys they have been wasting their time for the last forty years”

            Trying to change the subject? Many of the other influences you mention long pre-date the last 40 years. Those early developments occurred before the great CO2 emissions crisis became an obsession. They have benefited from the additional CO2, of course, but you are attempting to conflate different things.

            Apology? When you offer some apologies for your more egregious accusations of venality and familial indifference, then I might consider you worthy of receiving one. Or I might not.

          • Stu says:

            You write rubbish as usual, check the facts.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Speaking of facts.

            “Norman Ernest Borlaug was an American agronomist who led initiatives worldwide that contributed to the extensive increases in agricultural production termed the Green Revolution. Wikipedia”

            Born 1914, died 2009. Obviously a late developer! The “Green Revolution” was a looong time ago.

          • Stu says:

            Bj “The “Green Revolution” was a looong time ago.”
            That bit was indeed, but do you really suggest that since then there have been no advances through breeding and even genetic engineering and all the other things I mentioned? Yes, I guess you are.

  • Boambee John says:

    Chris

    An Australian academic working in the UK has recently had a book published, The Ahuman Manifesto, calling for the end to human reproduction and subsequent human extinction. Name is Patricia MacCormack.

    Do you agree with her objective of human extinction? Or do you consider the objective atrocious?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Just to fill denialists with a bit more science…

    https://www.wired.com/story/arctic-greening/

  • Chris Warren says:

    Hey – denialist!

    Are you getting the message now?

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/temperature/

    • Peter S says:

      A record based on “homogenised data”. Strange that.

      • Chris Warren says:

        You do not know what you are talking about.

        • PeterS says:

          But I do. I am a statistician, a metrologist and a scientist to boot. I suspect you do not know what you are talking about.

          • Chris Warren says:

            So why are you spreading denialist canards that have no basis in august scientific journals?

          • Andrew says:

            This IS the most current science! And it says unequivocally ‘nothing to see here’!

            Peter Stallinga – Comprehensive Analytical Study of the Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere

            Atmospheric and Climate Sciences , 10, 40-80.
            https://doi.org/10.4236/acs.2020.101003

          • Peter S says:

            A response that is irrelevant to my comment. You are a wanker.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Your regular reference to “august scientific journals” as the final answer in a discussion suggests an overweening intellectual snobbery combined with a gross ignorance if the replication crisis in material published in such journals.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Andrew

            Articles from such journals which charge ” Article Processing Charges (APC) $899″ do not have the same authority as those resources emanating from more established sources such as the Bureau of Meteorology.

            These journals have a greater density of denialist output than others.

            Quality beats quantity.

            If these is any serious question as to homogenisation, it would have surfaced elsewhere.

          • Boambee John says:

            “more established sources such as the Bureau of Meteorology.”

            Only an alarmist or the terminally naive would expect doubts about homogenisation from its inventors.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            “These journals have a greater density of denialist output than others.

            Quality beats quantity.”

            These are value judgements made from your alarmist perspective. They do not necessarily reflect reality, but do demonstrate your extreme reluctance to consider the full range of evidence.

  • Chris Warren says:

    What experts from University of York say about temperature homogenisation.

    http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/homogenization2015/homog.pdf

    Cry denialist, cry!

  • Boambee John says:

    Chris

    Any reaction yet to the MacCormack book?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      No. I was merely pointing out that some of the events you mentioned occurred before alleged CO2 CAGW became a “thing”.

      Incidentally, glad to see you supporting GMO, so many who claim scientific knowledge have a closed mind on the subject.

  • Boambee John says:

    Re “august scientific journals”, this from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

    “Reproducibility of Scientific Results
    First published Mon Dec 3, 2018
    The terms “reproducibility crisis” and “replication crisis” gained currency in conversation and in print over the last decade (e.g., Pashler & Wagenmakers 2012), as disappointing results emerged from large scale reproducibility projects in various medical, life and behavioural sciences (e.g., Open Science Collaboration, OSC 2015). In 2016, a poll conducted by the journal Nature reported that more than half (52%) of scientists surveyed believed science was facing a “replication crisis” (Baker 2016). More recently, some authors have moved to more positive terms for describing this episode in science; for example, Vazire (2018) refers instead to a “credibility revolution” highlighting the improved methods and open science practices it has motivated.”

    Those who are not open to challenge might be part of the problem.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s more proof that the left wing loons couldn’t care less about the poorest people on the planet.
    These people are the scum of the earth and if it wasn’t for our crazy left wing media everyone would know the truth about these vile idiots and perhaps more would eventually start to wake up.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/20/europes-anti-science-plague-descends-on-africa/

  • Neville says:

    So now we have the Albo fool promising us net zero emissions by 2050, but of course no costing from the clueless Labor party..
    The difference for temp would be no stat significant change at all.
    At least NZ released proper costing and this is in the trillions of $ by the end of the century and Aussie costs would be many times the NZ estimate. Here’s a fairly recent article from Lomborg on the NZ costings and whether we use NZ’s 0.1% or OZ’s 1.1% the change to climate or temp would be SFA.
    What a mob of con merchants and just more of Dr Hansen’s COP 21 BS and fra-d, plus you cripple and junk your electricity grid as well.
    Yet our resident donkeys would vote for this delusional Labor nonsense in a heartbeat.

    https://nypost.com/2019/12/08/reality-check-drive-for-rapid-net-zero-emissions-a-guaranteed-loser/

    • Back in the 60’s and 70’s economic rationalists held sway, and like a job description, the only criterion was “superior efficiency “. Many lovely old buildings were torn down and replaced by bland money boxes.
      Now the pendulum has swung completely opposite and priorities seem to revolve around a kind of environmental psychology. Sacrifices in exchange for vague promises of better weather in 100 years time.

    • Boambee John says:

      ROFLMAO!

      Scraping the absolute bottom of the alarmist barrel now. Basic propaganda, no attempt at understanding scientific issues.

  • Neville says:

    Gator recently posted this on WUWT in response to Mosher. Gosh I remember most of these comments over the years and the authors or so called scientists certainly exposed themselves in a big way.

    Gator
    February 19, 2020 at 9:02 am

    Mosher’s childish attempt at straw men is as failed as the fraudulent alarmists number fudging.

    All I need to show conspiracy is the actual words the alarmists use to describe their conspiracy…

    “We need to get some broad based support,
    to capture the public’s imagination…
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
    make simplified, dramatic statements
    and make little mention of any doubts…
    Each of us has to decide what the right balance
    is between being effective and being honest.”
    – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy.”
    – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
    climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
    bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
    on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.
    – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The models are convenient fictions
    that provide something very useful.”
    – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
    on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
    – Al Gore,
    Climate Change activist

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “It doesn’t matter what is true,
    it only matters what people believe is true.”
    – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    <i."The only way to get our society to truly change is to
    frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
    – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
    reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
    has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
    governments and individuals and an unprecedented
    redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
    will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
    of every human action be integrated into individual and
    collective decision-making at every level.”
    – UN Agenda 21

    Then of course we have this…

    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer??review literature is!”
    -Philip Douglas Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia

    So yeah Mosher, it is a conspiracy. You guys already confirmed this, so stop lying.
    Reply

  • Chris Warren says:

    Lets “stick-it” to our desperate denialists in their Antarctica t-shirts, while they radiate fake science over homogenisation.

    Here is a statement from an Australian Government Committee set up to look at data quality etc:

    _____________

    The ACORN-SAT is the Bureau’s long-term homogenised dataset of Australian daily temperatures covering the period from 1910 to the present. In light of the importance of the integrity of this dataset in understanding long-term climate trends affecting Australia, the Bureau initiated an independent peer review of the ACORN-SAT dataset in 2011. The peer review expressed overall confidence in the Bureau’s management of the dataset and considered its practices to be amongst the best in the world.

    One of the recommendations of the independent peer review was to establish a Technical Advisory Forum to review and provide advice on the ongoing development and operation of the dataset.

    The Forum was established to meet annually for three years from 2015 to 2017. The Forum’s Terms of Reference require it to consider the following over this three-year period:

    • the extent of the public availability of the ACORN-SAT information;
    • developments since the 2011 Independent Peer Review of the Bureau’s data and analysis methods; and
    • the scientific integrity and robustness of the Australian climate record and the homogenisation process.
    ______________

    See how creepy and fake our remaining denialists are?

    • Boambee John says:

      Chri

      Which pals of the BoM did the “peer” review? Names and current and previous positions please.

      Since Climategate, climate scientists face a credibility crisis, akin to the general credibility crisis faced by “august scientific journals”.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Why are denialists so pig ignorant and unable to understand the word independent.

        Denialist: “ignorance on a stick”.

        • Boambee John says:

          Why are alarmists too ignorant to understand the concept” “Never start an inquiry without making sure you get the answer you want”.

          It is a basic bureaucratic tactic to draft careful Terms of Reference, and select a “sound” (thanks Sir Humphrey) team of “independent” reviewers to conduct the inquiry.

          Alarmist: “pig ignorance on a stick”.

          • Boambee John says:

            I’m alwaysastonisdhed at the way alarmists feign ignorance of these bureaucratic tactics.

            After all, they use them as a matter of routine to “prove” the innocence of various alarmists caught out by reality. Think Climategate, Hockey Stick, tropospheric “hot spot”, and many other occasions.

  • spangled drongo says:

    And our blith conveniently ignores direct statements by climate “scientists” and authorities awa denies that the homogenisation process has any problems.

    BTW, blith, check the Australian summer rainfall from one of your “authorities” and tell us if the claimed ACO2 caused “droughts” are scientifically based:

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/water/rain/australia/rain.aus.1202.17446.png

  • Boambee John says:

    Chris

    Any thoughts yet on the MacCormack book?

  • Neville says:

    If you want to understand the data about our bushfires since 1900 and what difference we would make if we reduced our OZ emissions to zero today, have a look at this latest Lomborg video.
    John Anderson has a very informative talk with Lomborg and some of the stats etc are very interesting.
    For example if New Zealanders were stupid enough to spend 5 trillion $ by 2100 they would extend the worst of global warming etc by just 3 weeks.
    I’m not sure that’s true because the RS & NAS study also claims that the entire world couldn’t make a difference for temp etc for 1,000 years even if we stopped all emissions today.
    Anyway here’s the video from last week and if you haven’t much time you could start at about 30 minutes to watch most of the climate change section.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Good stuff Neville.

      Also:

      Fossil fuels are 100% organic and were produced with solar energy.

      “All life is carbon-based. And the carbon for all that life originates from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. All of the carbon in the fossil fuels we are burning for energy today was once in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide before it was consumed by plankton in the sea and plants on the land.

      Coal, oil and natural gas are the remains of those plankton and plants that have been transformed by heat and pressure deep in the earth’s crust. In other words, fossil fuels are 100% organic and were produced with solar energy. Sounds positively green.”

  • Chris Warren says:

    More denialist rubbish from IPA stablehands…

    https://archive.is/bb283

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the Royal Society and NAS question 20 Q&A AGAIN, just for our resident donkeys. Or see Zickfield et al and referenced by their IPCC.
    Note this includes the result for ALL GHGs not just co2.

    20. If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?

    No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.
    Here’s the link, AGAIN.

    https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/

    • Boambee John says:

      Neville

      More proof (if such were needed, given the policies of India and China) that the only sensible policy for small developed countries like Australia is adaptation.

      That is, if you accept the CO2 “is the engine of CAGW” story.

      • Neville says:

        BJ ADAPTATION + more R&D is the only policy we should have and that’s why I’ve linked to the RS & NAS , IPCC Zickfeld etc to prove that even these fools admit it couldn’t make a difference for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
        And that’s IF WE STOPPED ALL GHG EMISSIONS today.
        BTW watch the Lomborg video from about 30 minutes if you have the time and look at our bushfires since 1900 graph, data etc.
        Our ex deputy PM is a good interviewer and what satisfaction it is to watch two sane people discuss the data about mitigation, the net zero emissions fantasy, the drop in bushfires from about 11% of total area to about 5% + today.

    • THe best guess for the next Ice Age is between one to three thousand years hence, besides it’s never been proven that Greenhouse gases are responsible for recent warming. Clever wording from the RS, and their graph is an expression of hope, not reality

  • Neville says:

    Sorry above reference study is Zickfeld et al 2013 not Zickfield.

  • Neville says:

    And don’t forget that co2 levels have increased by about 60 ppm since 1989 ( just 30 years) , yet the last previous increase of 60 ppm since 1750 required an interval of 231 years or from 1750 to 1981.
    That’s 1750 -280 ppm to 340 ppm in 1981, see NASA co2 levels.
    It seems China, India and developing countries have certainly been busy over the last 30 years. So please explain why OECD countries should be held to account when this super fast 30 year increase in co2 is mainly due to developing countries’ emissions?

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt

  • Boambee John says:

    From the UK, a downside to EVs.

    “Baroness Vere, a transport minister, said she was “astonished” to discover that electric vehicles tend to “stop very suddenly” when they cease to function, rather than coasting like conventional cars, and that they can take longer to be removed from motorways.”

    This could cause some real pile-ups on motorways until it is fixed!

  • Neville says:

    The latest Newspoll shows that people haven’t been fooled by our clueless media, so called scientists and the dopey Labor and Greens parties.
    On the reasons for our terrible bushfires most people understand that the main cause is the neglect of proper fuel reduction burning.
    Most people agree that the severity of the fires is because of a lack of fuel reduction 56% and 35% think it is climate change or global warming.
    Unbelievable that even Labor voters come out even with 47% for both reasons. But the dumb Greens voters BELIEVE that Climate change is the cause by 72% and excess fuel just 24%.
    And of course the brighter Coalition voters agree with the data and science 69% to 20%. I must admit I met a coalition voter ( I think) recently who was inclined to think it might be climate change, until I explained it to him and directed him to a David Packham interview etc.
    But it’s amazing to think that there are stupid people who can be conned into voting for the Greens led by the Bandt Donkey and his ignorant, fact free ideas.

    https://theaustralianatnewscorpau.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/newspoll.jpg

  • Neville says:

    The GWPF has a new costing of Net zero emissions for the UK and it will cost trillions $ by 2050 if the voters are stupid enough to keep voting for these clueless fools for the next 30 years.
    But in the meantime safe, small modular nuclear plants should be used. And a Texas company has used co2 as the turbine driver using new technology, so why not use new, safe SMNukes as the interim choice and let’s see whether the new co2 plants have a future after 2022? See story for timeline and photo of one of the turbines. Don’t forget that very small nuclear plants capable of servicing 100,000+ populations have been in operation for at least 30 years.
    The Nuclear USS Ronald Reagan has been powered this way and hasn’t been refueled for about 25 years. And these small plants could be installed in a very small area at a distance from a city with proper 24/7 security to continually back up the operation. Certainly anything is better than the S&W idiocy that costs a fortune and can be hopelessly unreliable, is a blot on the landscape and has to be backed up by fossil fuel powered plants anyway.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/cost-of-net-zero-will-be-astronomical-new-reports-warn/

    • spangled drongo says:

      Good stuff, Neville.

      Why is it that alarmists refuse to see solutions that are functional and economical?

      As Montford says:

      “We may thus be at the threshold of a revolution in the way we generate electricity. Not a
      manufactured revolution, like the one that has brought the environmental horrors of wind
      and solar, and has filled the pockets of rent-seekers at the expense of everyone else, but a real
      revolution that makes power cheaper and more reliable, and one that rewards innovation
      and risk-taking rather than political influence. What a pity it would be if we were to cover
      our landscapes with unreliable wind turbines at just the moment when a better way forward
      emerged.”

      • Boambee John says:

        SD

        “Why is it that alarmists refuse to see solutions that are functional and economical?”

        Because the aim is not to control the climate, the aim is political control of the finest details of everyone’s lives.

  • Boambee John says:

    If “climate change” caused the drought that caused the bushfires, what caused the flooding rains?

    Yeah, yeah, I know, the drought was “climate”, the rain is “weather”!!

  • Neville says:

    Andrew Bolt calls out the liars and fraudsters, trying to con Aussies that unless we have net zero emissions by 2050 we will somehow bring about the end of the world.

    And stupid Turnbull also chimes in and claims we must have net zero emissions ASAP. But Bolt answers all their lies and half truths using proper data and evidence and quoting some of the true believers like Dr Finkel and prof Pitman to strengthen his case.
    These donkeys should be ashamed of themselves for lying so openly to Aussies and assisted by our weak MSM and so called scientists.
    Here’s the link to his editorial on the Bolt report and the video tells the true story.
    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/vote-labor-or-die-what-science-really-says-about-labors-climate-plan/news-story/d040c2d2e07c4cd5c6ebc6fca8e60218

  • Chris Warren says:

    Eight stages of climate denial…

    1 – the earth is cooling
    2 – warming is a hoax, fraud etc
    3 – science not settled
    4 – temp always changes – not human caused
    5 – elevated cyclones,fires, floods and droughts have other causes than GHG
    6 – too expensive to take action
    7 – we can only adapt and mitigate
    8 – we do not care about future generations.

    All pursued by cherry-picking, puppetry and outright slander of scholars.

    • Andrew says:

      I’m still waiting for one comment from you with an ounce of gravitas Chris.

      You never discuss the issues raised by others – or counter with some data or even a scientific paper. You just throw darts randomly into the crowd.

      You certainly don’t appear to read any of the papers or other information questioning the official line.

      It’s very childish really.

      God knows why you bother – you’ll not change anyone’s mind with mindless rants.

      One day you’ll ‘wake up’ and whimper off into the hills cringing with embarrassment…..

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Most of your “stages” are matters about which reasonable people (which excludes you) could have a rational debate.

      However, your point “8 – we do not care about future generations” is evidence free slander, which seems to be based on your anger at your complete inability to convince anyone here that your obsession is soundly based. All you have is cherry picked thoughts of long discredited alarmists (Mann et al). That will not convince anyone who has read both sides of the argument, and observed reality.

      • Chris Warren says:

        This is why Bomabee is a laughing-stock.

        Displaying high-ignorance it states:

        “point “8 – we do not care about future generations” is evidence free slander,”

        Coming from this Bomabee this can be simply dismissed as denialist trash that it is, but the evidence is clear.

        As Don Aitkin stated:

        “Hillerbrand and Ghil persuade me, if I needed persuading, that I do not owe obligations to a dimly perceived and uncertain future: ”

        This is core denialism and a crime against (future) humanity.

        Boambee should hang its head in shame.

        • Boambee John says:

          ROFLMAO.

          Is this the best you can come up with?

          “This is core denialism and a crime against (future) humanity.”

          This from the alarmist who has proposed reducing world population as a means of combating “climate change “! Reducing future generations deliberately is not “core alarmism and a crime against (future) humanity.”??

          Hang your head in shame!

  • Neville says:

    Andrew,just ignore the stupid donkey, he’s not worth our time.
    BTW we know that clueless lefties always get it wrong, but have a look at this article from Michael Shellenberger, where he takes looney Bernie to task.

    Indeed Bernie is as dumb as they come and doesn’t even understand what happened in Vermont after they closed down their nuclear plant. He’s asked a simple question and proves he’s far too stupid to understand or learn from very recent history and in the very state he’s supposed to represent.

    This joker is totally clueless and yet wants to be President and wreck the US economy ASAP. And like our barking mad Labor/Greens he ignores very simple data and evidence , like the history + origins of co2 emissions and levels since 1990.

    We all know that Biden is a goose or much worse, but the pair of them combined couldn’t run a chook raffle and yet millions of delusional donkeys are chaffing at the bit to rush to a polling booth to vote for them. The blind leading the blind. Please read this latest Shellenberger article at Forbes or the shorter version at the GWPF. Don’t forget that Shellenberger like Dr Tol, Dr Lomborg etc are from the left but actually study and follow proper data/evidence.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/02/17/if-they-are-so-alarmed-by-climate-change-why-are-they-so-opposed-to-solving-it/#2d78a3536b75

  • beththeserf says:

    So sensible, Don, in contrast to the latest madness of crowds.I n my post on madness of crowds, this from Charles Mackay on Western world xtraordinary delusions of 16th and 17th Century when not just illiterate villagers bu some of the highest dignitaries in the land succumbed to witch mania…

    ‘An epidemic terror seized upon the nations; no man thought himself secure, either in his person or possessions, from the machinations of the devil and his agents. Every calamity that befell him, he attributed to a witch. If a storm arose and blew down his barn, it was witchcraft; if his cattle died of a murrain – if disease fastened upon his limbs, or death entered suddenly and snatched a beloved face from his hearth – they were not visitations of Providence, but the works of some neighbouring hag, whose wretchedness or insanity caused the ignorant to raise their finger, and point at her as a witch. The word was upon everybody’s tongue – France, Italy, Germany, England, Scotland, and the far North, successively ran mad upon this subject, and for a long series of years, furnished their tribunals with so many trials for witchcraft that other crimes were seldom or never spoken of. Thousands upon thousands of unhappy persons fell victims to this cruel and absurd delusion. In many cities of Germany, the average number of executions for this pretended crime, was six hundred annually, or two every day, if we leave out the Sundays, when, it is to be supposed, that even this madness refrained from its work.’

    Substitute today, ‘CO2 ‘ for ‘witch’ and you get an apt description of the current mania.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the latest video from Naomi Seibt and what an intelligent, sane young woman she is, unlike some others we could mention.
    She asks us not to panic, but to think. Who of us with any commonsense would ever argue with her request?

    https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos

    • Stu says:

      It is a bit sad but also revealing that the fossil fuel lobby’s best funded denier group, Heartland, are so shaken by the words of a young Greta that they cast the net to find and fund a look alike stooge as a counter measure. Is that the best they can come up with. If so, they have lost the game.

    • Chris Warren says:

      More lies – courtesy of denialist Neville.

      Naomi is being used – her script said IPCC predicted 0.333C per decade warming [lie 1]. It did not. See video at 2m2s.

      They said IPCC claimed 4.1C per doubling [lie 2]. It did not. See video at 3m14s.

      The rest is just denialist propaganda transmitting the usual junk about the sun’s influence and pretending to be some poor victim being denied free speech.

      She could not get even a basic fact right. At 3m28s she claims warming of 1.4C since 1850. This is false the rise is 1.1C and anyone can check for themselves here:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/trend [BEST data]

      or even less as here:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend [HADCRUT4]

      So the question remains: Why, o’ why o’ why do denialists spread such lies?

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris and Stu

        Been travelling, and just catching up on the Naomi/Greta issue.

        The most amusing aspect of it is the mixture of fear and outrage with which you greet the Naomi presentation.

        Fear that the optimism of Normal Naomi might be more attractive than the pessimism of Grumpy Greta.

        Outrage that sceptics might have the nerve to copy an alarmist tactic. Don’t those awful sceptics realise that only alarmists are allowed to utilise pedophrasty?

        Well, in the immortal words of Chris, this is repaying alarmists “in their own coin”.

        As for the issue of scripting, if the pair of you are too stupid collectively to realise that everything Grumpy Greta said and posted was scripted and rehearsed (she is a registered actress in Sweden, her Twitter is run by an IOCC linked individual), then it is no wonder that your efforts here have been so unsuccessful.

        Stu

        To modify some of your words, “Is Greta the best the alarmists could come up with. If so, they have lost the game.”

  • Neville says:

    Silly Stu supports Greta who runs around in a mad panic and understands nothing or cares zip about data or evidence, while Naomi studies the data and evidence and asks people not to panic but to think for themselves.
    I can well understand why he supports the non-science of Greta and dislikes Naomi because she wants to personally understand more about the climate and the evidence.
    Meanwhile Jo Nova has another post checking the data and evidence for OZ co2 emissions since 1990. As I’ve shown a number of times our pop has increased by about 49% over that time while our co2 emissions per person has fallen by about 40%. Think about it.
    See the graphs ,data at the link.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/02/australia-installs-more-renewables-than-anywhere-else-but-national-emissions-stay-the-same/#comments

    • Stu says:

      Once again you can’t read and then infer things that are not written. I did not say I supported Greta. What I did say was that it was a sign of desperation to create a copy cat negative version. Greta created her own image, while Naomi seems to be a creation of Heartland (read fossil) money. If G is so misguided and wrong why do you worry about her, her message and her recognition? And BTW watch for the reaction when she gets the Nobel. Your mate Trump will go all hurt and ballistic again.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Greta created her own image”

        You can’t help but get things barse-ackwards, hey, stu?

        Greta is simply the individual rep of all the institutionally brainwashed kiddies on today’s planet, promoted by alarmists.

        I doubt if she has two personal scientific ideas to rub together.

        Whereas Naomi is a measured and factual response to that stu-pidity.

        • Stu says:

          Oh yes I remember now. The whole climate change mafia machine said lets find some young teenager and get her to miss school and protest in front of parliament and we will amplify it all. No they did not of course, you know the story. Wheras Naomi is a complete conspiracy cult creation.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Greta created her own image”

        ROFLMAO. Everything Grumpy Greta says and does is scripted and rehearsed by adults with financial interests.

        • Su says:

          And if you actually watch the video you will find it full of cliches and falsehoods. All of it standard Heartland and Heritage Foundation boiler plate denialist bull. And you would think they could at least have found someone who is bilingual, perhaps she is not that bright after all