Every now and then I come across someone else’s work that is so good I want everyone to read it. This essay, by Richard Lindzen and William Happer, is one such. They are supremely eminent scientists, and their current status is given at the end. Yes, they don’t give references, but then neither do most alarmist speakers, like Steffen, Karoly, Mann and so on. They are speaking from a position of intellectual eminence. Like a few others who are outspoken in their sceptical cause, they are retired. No deans are complaining to the university president about these two.

So read on.

By obligating the United States once more to the Paris agreement, and by signaling very clearly that “climate” will be central to its policies, the Biden administration has joined other governments in the crusade against a supposed “climate emergency.” We use the word “crusade” advisedly, since the frenzy over climate resembles the medieval crusades against foreign infidels and home-grown heretics. There is even a children’s climate crusade.

Medieval crusaders would chant ‘Deus vult’ (God wants it), the ultimate virtue-signalling slogan. Few leaders of medieval Europe could resist the temptation to join the crusades. The medieval elite could count on earthly rewards to add to their heavenly treasures. The enemies of God — and the little people — paid the bills.

Some climate crusaders have invoked the mandate of heaven, and others use language all too reminiscent of millenarianism. But most claim to be following a mandate of science.

We are both scientists who can attest that the research literature does not support the claim of a climate emergency. Nor will there be one. None of the lurid predictions —dangerously accelerating sea-level rise, increasingly extreme weather, more deadly forest fires, unprecedented warming, etc. — are any more accurate than the fire-and-brimstone sermons used to stoke fanaticism in medieval crusaders.

True believers assert that this emergency can be averted only by eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions. Greenhouse gases include ubiquitous water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and above all, carbon dioxide, a gas released when fossil fuels are burned to power transportation, generate electricity, and are used to manufacture amenities of modern life.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere let sunlight warm the earth’s surface. But they absorb some of the heat radiation from the surface and atmosphere that would otherwise cool more efficiently by escaping directly to space. Greenhouse gases — and clouds — keep the earth’s surface temperature several tens of degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without them.

So far, climate crusaders have refrained from vilifying water vapor and clouds, which make the largest contribution to greenhouse warming of the earth. Carbon dioxide, demonized as “carbon pollution,” is an improbable villain. Green plants use the energy of sunlight to manufacture sugar and other organic molecules of life from carbon dioxide and water molecules. A byproduct of photosynthesis is the oxygen of our atmosphere. Each human exhales about two pounds of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide every day.

No scientist familiar with radiation transfer denies that more carbon dioxide is likely to cause some surface warming. But the warming would be small and benign. In fact, history shows that warmings of a few degrees Celsius — which extended growing seasons — have been good for humanity. The golden age of classical Roman civilization occurred during a warm period. Cooling periods, which were accompanied by barbarian invasions, famines, and plagues, have been bad. Barbara Tuchman characterizes such periods as “the calamitous 14th century” in her book, A Distant Mirror.

More carbon dioxide will certainly increase the productivity of agriculture and forestry. Over the past century, the earth has already become noticeably greener as a result of the modest increase of CO2, from about 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of atmospheric molecules. More CO2 has made a significant contribution to the increased crop yields of the past 50 years, as well. The benefits to plants of more CO2 are documented in hundreds of scientific studies.

Water vapor, and the clouds that condense from it, warm the earth’s surface at least four times more than does carbon dioxide. Paleoclimate data show little correlation between CO2 and climate, suggesting that the effects of CO2 are, in fact, marginal. Doubling CO2 concentrations alone should increase the earth’s surface temperature by about 1 C. Climate crusaders use computer models that include clouds, convective heat transfer in the atmosphere and oceans, and other factors to claim that “positive feedbacks” increase the predicted warming to 4.5 C or more. Supposedly, the direct consequences of any change are amplified. This would violate Le Chatelier’s principle that says “when a settled system is disturbed, it will adjust to diminish the change that has been made to it.”

Crusaders like to claim that the climate violates Le Chatelier’s principle and has “tipping points.” Given the much higher and changing levels of carbon dioxide that prevailed over much of the earth’s history, it is unlikely that life would have survived if such tipping points existed.

Neither contemporary observations nor the geological record support computer-based claims that CO2 is the “control knob” for the earth’s climate. Warmings, similar to or larger than the current one, have been observed many times in the past few millennia when there has been negligible use of fossil fuels. A thousand years ago Greenland really was warmer than today and supported Norse farmers who grew crops such as barley, which cannot be grown there now because of the cold.

In another spasm of crusading fervor, some climate warriors want to do away with traditional farming and ranching because they are sources of the minor greenhouse gases, such as methane from ruminant livestock, paddy rice, etc., and nitrous oxide, mainly from fertilizer use. (In this context, the word “minor” should be explained: The warming per added methane molecule is about 30 times greater than the warming per added carbon-dioxide molecule. Carbon-dioxide molecules are being added to the atmosphere at 300 times the rate of methane molecules. So the warming added each year from methane is about 10 times less than the small warming from carbon dioxide.) This could threaten the livelihoods of farmers in countries whose governments have signed on to the Paris agreement. But, as noted above, the warming from methane is only one-tenth of the modest, beneficial warming of more carbon dioxide.

The crusade against methane and nitrous oxide will be all pain and no gain for farmers and for those who consume their produce.

A serious review of policy-related climate science is long overdue. Crusaders will continue to retort that “the science is settled; it is time to act!” But real science is never settled, nor is scientific truth determined by consensus or political diktats. Agreement with observations is the measure of scientific truth. Climate models predict two or three times more warming than has been observed. They have already been falsified. A soon-to-be published book by physicist and New York University professor Steven Koonin, Unsettled, convincingly lays out some of the problems a high-quality review would reveal.

There is no climate emergency. Americans should not be stampeded into a disastrous climate crusade. The medieval crusades did far more harm than good, destroying the lives of many decent people of all faiths, and leaving a bitter legacy that complicates international relations and social harmony to this day. A climate crusade that destroys economies and ultimately lives will be as bad, or worse.

Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor, Emeritus, of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a fellow of numerous professional societies, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor, Emeritus, of physics at Princeton University, a fellow of numerous professional societies, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

 

Join the discussion 444 Comments

  • Ian MacCulloch says:

    This question seems to escape us all. What is the minimum amount of CO2 in the atmosphere needed to support plant and marine life? Plenty of talk about CO2maximums but not a reference to minimums. This question is particularly important as the climate czar for the USA one John Kerry has recommended a zero CO2 level, not just a zero net emissions level.

    We have seen Planet Earth plant fertility benefitting from elevated levels of CO2 as per the recent NASA satellite data.

    An excellent article.

    • Aert Driessen says:

      Ian, I have a figure in mind which I obviously read somewhere but I cannot provide a source or reference. That number is 180 ppm CO2. I’m sure someone will provide an authoritative figure.

  • John Stankevicius says:

    Thank you for your sensible article. I have a query regarding the Crusades. Were’nt there marauding Arab populations running amuck in the middle east threating death at the blades edge if you did not covert? Were’nt the Crusades a defense of the sacred sites and murder of Christian populations?
    The increasing in greenery in the earths surface – does this have anything to do with irrigation.
    Finally, if oil was not mined, what would the earths surface temperature be?

  • Karabar says:

    Real scientists, using reason and logic are a breath of fresh air.
    Ian MacCulloch May 5, 2021 at 2:19 pm……………. It is generally accepted that at about 180 ppmv to 150 ppmv plants do not grow. Ergo, when we were at 250 ppmv we were very close to the endo of life of all kings.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Many of the major ’emitter’ have made significant cuts. By how much has the global temperature decreased?
    Or is this the old ‘absence of elephants ‘ joke?

  • Neville says:

    Dr Lindzen and Dr Happer are real scientists and they also understand all the data /evidence and have common sense and integrity.
    There is no emergency, or crisis and certainly zero chance of any climatic “existential threat.”
    In fact humans are healthier and wealthier today than at any time in history and the Earth has been greening for at least 30 years, because of the extra co2.
    And according to the UN IPCC data as quoted by Lomborg, Shellenberger, Koonin etc the people of the world in 30 to 50 years time will be living even longer lives and be 2.5 times richer than they are today.
    We should abandon the dilute, toxic S&W idiocy ASAP and build more reliable, broadband coal, gas or nuclear power stns as the number one priority for our future.

    • Neville says:

      Sorry above should read baseload not broadband. I’ve been discussing broadband quotes and still had it on my mind.

  • Stu says:

    Don, publishing that piece smacks of “ arguing from authority”. Yes Happer is regarded as a distinguished figure, but not for any contribution regarding climate science. The only “paper” he has published anywhere near the subject was not peer reviewed and was via an industry funded climate denial group.

    Better then to describe it as an interesting piece by a retired physicist although I assume you will respond that “emeritus” positions are fully functioning researchers.

    There are many more papers by currently full working distinguished professors.

    As you wrote, no references. But plenty of unattributed claims most of which have been nade before by Happer and systematically debunked by experts in the field. E.g. “ Dr. Jason West, an organizer of Carolina Climate Change Scientists, a faculty group on climate change, responded in depth to refute claims in Happer’s Chapel Hill presentation. West pointed out that Happer had been giving many similar lectures to that he made at Chapel Hill, and so West was compelled to respond.”

    Part of what West wrote (just the synopsis). “ Happer argues that the current concern over human-caused greenhouse gases is overblown. Although he clearly understands basic climate science, his presentation includes claims that are exaggerated, misleading, or incorrect regarding human-caused climate change. His presentation is entertaining, but he argues in many places against claims that climate scientists do not make. He acknowledges that CO2 has an influence on climate, but emphasizes that the influence is small. Yet he gives no physical reason to conclude that the current scientific understanding on the response of climate system to CO2 (the “climate sensitivity”) is wrong, other than to say that he does not trust climate models. His claims that climate models do not work are exaggerated and misleading. He also claims that increased CO2 will be beneficial by increasing plant growth – it is true that plant growth will increase by the CO2 increase alone, but he does not show that it will be beneficial, especially when climate is changing at the same time as CO2. His presentation ignores the large number of studies available that show that through climate change, CO2 will be detrimental to agricultural productivity as well as to human well-being generally. “

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “Don, publishing that piece smacks of “ arguing from authority”.”

      How dare the wicked denialists (sic) use tactics that are reserved for alarmists.

      Then you continue by using an “argument from authority” by a member of a “faculty group on climate change”.

      Nice one, Stu.

      • Stu says:

        You don’t understand “argument from authority” do you? The reference is to using his prominence (for things other than climate) almost (or in his case totally) as a key part of the case he is arguing. Do some research on the man, he has no credibility with climate change. He is more of an old duffer trying to spin out his period of relevance. (Now that should get you going, yes)

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          No.

          Stupid personal insults (aka attacking the messenger) are not worth getting agitated over. They say more about their writer than I would bother saying.

    • Aert Driessen says:

      Stu, can you please give examples where Happer’s presentations are “exaggerated, misleading. or incorrect regarding human- caused climate change”. Can you show me where in the essay wher Happer acknowledges that “CO2 has an influence on climate, but emphasizes that the influence is small”. Just as an aside, are you not aware of the ice core evidence that clearly shows that temperature drives CO2 and not vice versa? That is to say that warming seas (for whatever reason) emit or give off CO2, which is perfectly in accord with the chemistry of CO2 viz. that it is more soluble in cold water than warm water.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “via an industry funded climate denial group.”

      Indeed. So much less reliable than a grant funded academic climate alarmist group.

      • Stu says:

        “ So much less reliable than a grant funded academic climate alarmist group.” You can always be relied for an emotive, politicised description of academia. Why are you so intransigently negative when assessing the motives of hard working researchers, while giving a free pass to openly admitted biased outcomes from groups set up with the stated aim of debunking the scientist, not through more science, usually just comment. And of course they never do it via published articles in learned journals allowing for response and rebuttal. It reminds me of our friend Ridd who I don’t think ever did respond to the rebuttals published by those he attacked at JCU. Maybe he did, it all got lost in the coverage of the court wrangling over an employment contract.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “intransigently negative when assessing the motives of hard working researchers, while giving a free pass to openly admitted biased outcomes from groups set up with the stated aim of debunking the scientist”

          We have been through this before. Academics are as prey to human emotions as anyone else. That s why you should focus on the message, not the messenger.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Perhaps you might find one of Obama’s top scientists more believable, though you have previously avoided commenting on the substance of his comments.

      “mental self-deceptions are harder for Steven Koonin, Caltech physics professor and the top scientist in Barack Obama’s Energy Department, who argues that because the actual science behind such things as climate change policy is unsettled due to the irreducible complexity of the problem relative to available data, then plans must be correspondingly flexible to cope.”

      But, this doesn’t support your precious “narrative”, does it?

    • Ted O'Brien (not the MP). says:

      “He doesn’t trust climate models…”

      Nor should you. Never forget GIGO. A computer model can only tell us what we have told it. And Climate computer models are reverse engineered. Subject to personal assessment and adjustment to get an outcome. Their integrity can only be affirmed by repeatability.

      Add to this that while surely every student of statistics is taught that statistics is not an exact science, it seems that an awful lot of lettered people have a very poor comprehension of that fact. Climate science lies wholly in the field of statistics,

  • Karabar says:

    Andrew bolt interviewed Richard Lindzen and Will Happer last week on his show.
    With Roy Spencer reporting that temperature is now less than in 1979, one would think this analysis by these genetlemen would raise some eyebrows.
    However, you won’t read about it on the Alinski Bolshevik Collective, or on Nein.

    • Stu says:

      “ temperature is now less than in 1979”. Classic stuff. You are no better than our mate Neville, who cherry picks very particular days to argue about sea level, with a “one day in May analogy”, effectively. Climate is measured over a much longer term than that. Go and check the recently released US long term climate data showing the stark changes occurring.

  • Peter E says:

    It is indeed very well put. The conclusion is that Americans (and Australians) should not be stampeded into a disastrous climate crusade. Hear, hear!

  • Stu says:

    Here is the 2020 report on climate by the WMO.

    https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6942683c7ed54e51b433bbc0c50fbdea

    But of course if you the reader subscribe to the view that all the worlds meteorological bodies, science institutes, universities and governments are part of a great conspiracy to defraud us all, and only the fabulous few doubters can be trusted then I suggest you stop and think “which conspiracy is the most likely to be attempted”. One of the features of conspiracies is that the greater the number of players the greater the risk of discovery. The denial group is much smaller, easier to manage, naturally appealing to right wing thinking, and more in tune with the continuing profit motives of coal, oil and gas conglomerates.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu, you are the one that is in denial. Let me count the ways:

      You deny that current climate is due to natural variability.

      You deny that previous climate has been warmer.

      You deny that previous sea levels have been higher.

      You deny that climate models are simply based on the assumptions of their creators.

      I could go on but you fail to understand that climate sceptics are not deniers of anything climate.

      Because past climates have been warmer with low levels of CO2, we merely ask, why should a lesser global warming be the fault of CO2 today?

      That isn’t denial of anything. that’s simply common sense.

      And we are still waiting for you to answer that question with evidence to support your claim.

      But so far you never have.

      But you deny even this.

      • Neville says:

        Yes SD and I’ve linked to Willis’s proper data checking + Dr Christy+ Dr Koonin+ Dr Spencer+ DR Lindzen + Dr Humlum + Lomborg+ Shellenberger + Dr Happer etc and they all tell us there will be no emergency or crisis or stupid Biden’s EXISTENTIAL threat.
        Yet we’re supposed to believe the DEMS SO CALLED expert, Mr “upside down Mann?”

        Sorry but I prefer the honest fair dinkum scientists. Now he claims that Bolt is a cherry picker because he supplies photos that show no discernible difference in SLs since 1905.
        But very early 1885 photos of SLs at Fort Denison also show no obvious difference to recent photos.
        Their must be a lot of busy people taking photos at just the right moment?
        But can any of these con merchants tell us when there was a better climate throughout the world and WHY they’d make that claim? Come on tell us WHEN and WHY?

        • Stu says:

          “ But very early 1885 photos of SLs at Fort Denison also show no obvious difference to recent photos.”

          Once again classic misinformation. Such photos without very accurate time of day and date information are meaningless. And even if you have that data there is much more going on at any point in time than just sea level. Do you know the tide goes up and down twice a day in Sydney and is affected by air pressure, the sun and moon, storm surges, tsunami etc? But you stick with your super simple analysis if it makes you sleep better.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Are you claiming, stu, that the 106 year 10 month total record of mean sea levels at Fort Denison that shows the first monthly MSL recording of 1.111m in May 1914 to be 67mm higher than the last monthly MSL recording of 1.044m in March 2021, is misinformation?

            So you now also deny empirical climate science as well?:

            http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

          • Stu says:

            SD, did you also read this bit in the BoM post regarding gaps in the sea level recordings. “ The Monthly Sea Levels and Statistics are based on hourly sea level observations. The “Gaps” column in the table shows the number of missing or invalid hourly sea levels for that month, while the “Good” column contains the number of valid hourly sea levels for that month. Caution must be observed for those months with large gaps.”

            And note that the month of May 1914 had an exceptionally high number of gaps, 734 to be precise.

            Oh well, never mind old chap, I am sure you think you know more than all the boffins.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, but also check the max plot for the same period and you will see the same result.

            The latest max levels are lower today than at the start of records.

            The highest sea levels were in 1974 but overall there is nothing happening.

            http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLI.pdf

      • Stu says:

        I don’t deny any of those things you allege. I simply choose to follow the advice of countless scientists and science bodies that we have an emerging problem because of our carbon emissions. But you continue to subscribe to the conspiracy theory that it is all a conspiracy, so that a group of scientists can get more research funding. That is a very thin argument. And what I think is irrelevant to commercial and government policy, whereas you are like a fart in the wind, few people beyond this space are paying you any attention.

        You rehash rubbish about past sea levels, temperatures, natural variability etc, which have all been answered in the published science. You point to a claimed temperature low while completely ignoring the well established fact that the bulk (>90%) of the excess heat the earth is absorbing is going into the oceans, etc, etc, etc.

        The climate case is a bit like Covid, where do you stand on that one? Do you listen to the experts or some of the “others” that you often quote like Bolt et al.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu sez: “I don’t deny any of those things you allege.”

          You mean you DON’T deny that current climate is due to natural variability?

          You mean you DON’T deny that previous climate has been warmer?

          You mean you DON’T deny that previous sea levels have been higher?

          You mean you DON’T deny that climate models are simply based on the assumptions of their creators?

          Yet you then say: “You rehash rubbish about past sea levels, temperatures, natural variability etc,”

          Please stop having yourself on, stu.

          You even deny that specific empirical evidence is required to prove your alarmist climate claims.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “I simply choose to follow the advice of countless scientists and science bodies that we have an emerging problem because of our carbon emissions”

          When you have nothing valid to say, you always revert to “science by consensus”. Sad, low energy.

      • Boambee John says:

        SD

        We have been through the concept of the Null Hypothesis with Stu before. He doesn’t want to know about it, and finds it easier to demand that sceptics prove a negative that that the (alarmist) warmists prove their contention.

  • Tony Taylor says:

    Check out Barbara Tuchman’s Guns of August, about the lead-up to WWI.

  • Chris Warren says:

    How on earth do a select few become “supremely eminent scientists”. On whose authority? Is this just fake advertising. Sounds like a deep bias to me and rank partisanship, the antithesis of real collegiate science.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chrissy

      Ah, “collegiate science”, where gentlemen sit around in the faculty lounge, scratching each others’ backs.

      The resort of the supporters of “consensus science”.

      If the “consensus scientists” can’t take the heat of the debate, they should stay out of the kitchen.

  • Neville says:

    Stu wants countries to waste 100s of trillions $ for a guaranteed ZERO return, yet he can’t tell us when the climate was better than our climate today and WHY he would make that claim.
    My version is very simple and includes the best data in our world’s history. Just check the improvement in life expectancy and wealth over the last 200 years or 100 yrs or 50 yrs or even the last 20 years.
    And don’t forget that fossil fuels still generate over 80%+ of the world’s TOTAL energy in 2021 and yet the con merchants believe that TOXIC, DILUTE and disastrous S&W are the answer?
    But please tell us when the climate was better and WHY? It certainly wasn’t the Eemian inter-glacial so tell us when the last 10,000 years of the Holocene presented a better climate than the last 100 years?
    And the planet is GREENING because of the extra co2 and that has been the case for at least 30 years.
    Don’t forget If you can’t answer you haven’t got a case and your entire argument is just more BS and fra-d.

  • michael reed says:

    Hey once again the likes of the climate change believers want Climate Justice and their prescription is more of the same medicine -just
    more environmentally destructive renewable energy -windmills and solar panels.These inefficient old technologies require fossil fuels to make them
    and the added bonus is they kill top predators and bats.But never mind crony capitalists like Alex Turnbull make profit through their investment in
    them which we pay for through our electricity bills (via buried subsidies).Oh and by the way this climate emergency is directly causing energy poverty
    to hundreds of thousands of Australians right now!!! So if the disease is Climate change then these cures are something i don’t need or want.In any case where is the so called Climate Emergency -define please ? and then show exactly how and where it is occurring.

  • Stu says:

    Meantime the holes in the ground will remain a problem.

    “ Coal miners in the Hunter Valley have failed to set aside enough money to fill in their massive voids or maintain the vegetation required to restore the landscape once their mines come to the end of their lives.

    Japanese trading giant Idemitsu has fallen well short in its efforts to replant pasture and woodlands on its Muswellbrook coal mine in the Upper Hunter, with insufficient topsoil and a poor choice of species being replanted, a report obtained by the Herald shows.

    The report, to be released by the Australia Institute today, has found filling in the region’s 23 mine voids would cost between $11.5 billion and $25.3 billion, based on the stated costs per hectare of four mines in the Upper Hunter.

    The NSW government holds just $3.3 billion in bonds to meet the rehabilitation costs of all mines across the state.

    Rod Campbell, a research director at the Australia Institute, said the mine owners won’t be able to afford to ‘‘ clean up the mess they leave behind’’ , leaving the public to pick up the tab.

    ‘‘ The voids that the Hunter will be left with represent a multi-billion dollar subsidy to multinational coal companies, one that will be borne by future generations living in the Hunter,’’ he said. SMH 6 May

    But never mind Neville and company don’t think coal causes any problems.

    • Boambee John says:

      Ah, the Australia Institute, aka the Ponds Institute. Reliably alarmist and always pro-Unreliable Energy.

      Meantime, the holes in the ground and the toxic lakes overseas, caused by mining and processing the materials needed for wind generators and solar panels, remain out of sight, and for Stu, out of mind. If only Australia imported our coal, Stu would be happy.

      • Stu says:

        Never mind Ponds, how about the NSW government.

        “ A spokesperson for the Department of Regional NSW confirmed that, at the start of this year, the government held $3.3 billion in security bonds for rehabilitation. The sum had risen $1.1 billion over the past five years.

        ‘‘ All titleholders must provide a rehabilitation security deposit that covers the full cost of rehabilitation,’’ the spokesperson said, adding the bond is not returned until the land is returned to the final approved landform.

        The Australia Institute report also found Hunter coal mines in 2020 were operating at less than two-thirds of their approved 241 million tonnes of output a year, which undermined the case for new coal projects.

        Copyright © 2021 The Sydney Morning Herald

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “Australia Institute report also found Hunter coal mines in 2020 were operating at less than two-thirds of their approved 241 million tonnes of output a year,”

          That you are surprised that coal output fell in a year which had large scale economic shutdowns around the world says much about you (and the Ponds Institute).

          I wonder when security deposits will be put in place for rehabilitation of mine sites in the Congo and industrial sites in China?

          • Stu says:

            “ That you are surprised that coal output fell in a year which had large scale economic shutdowns around the world says much about you (and the Ponds Institute).”
            And nothing to do with China curtailing their buying, eh!

    • Neville says:

      Again I ask you when and why has the climate been better than today? And I’ve included the last 10 K of our Holocene to provide you with plenty of room to cherry pick your data. So again WHEN and WHY?

    • dlb says:

      I was told in the open cut mines of Central Qld, that after coal extraction, hills rather than voids are left. This is because the over-burden expands after it is dug up, having been compressed for millions of years deep underground. So either the Australia Institute doesn’t know what it is talking about, or the Hunter Valley coal has little over burden.

      Anyway over-burden is generally very poor soil and quite acidic so rehabilitation will require re-spreading of topsoil that was stockpiled prior to mining.

  • Neville says:

    I’m still waiting for our Donkey’s answer about when and why the climate was better than the last 100 years?
    And I’ve allowed them to cherry pick the last 10,000 K of the Hol Inter-Glacial. But still no answer.
    Here’s the next most important question for them and involves the donkey HIPPOS of the UN talking at cross purposes.
    The UN Sec Gen Gueterres ( like Biden) often tells us that their climate crisis is an EXISTENTIAL threat to humans and we must reduce our co2 emissions to net zero by 2040 or 2050 etc.
    But the UN data also tells us that life exp has increased rapidly over the last 100 years and now is about 72 yrs. Yet the pop has increased by about 6 billion people in the last 100 yrs And the 7.8 bn people alive today are much healthier and wealthier than the 1.8 bn in 1921.
    And since 1921 the loss of human life from extreme weather events has dropped by 95%. See Lomborg, Willis, Koonin, Christy, Spencer etc .
    But today there are 6 bn MORE HUMANS AT RISK since 1921.
    The world is a much safer place for humans than at any time in human history. CERTAINLY NO EXISTENTIAL THREAT and in fact the REVERSE IS TRUE. Look up the data.
    BUT then we have the same UN telling us that human life expectancy will be about 80 years in 2100 and for vwealthy countries about 90 yrs. Yet the pop could be at least 9 to 10 + bn people in 2100 and most of that increase will come from Africa. Look it up.
    Now tell us how these two competing forecasts are possible from the UN? Is their so called climate change an EXISTENTIAL threat to human life or will humans be much healthier and wealthier by 2100?
    These competing forecasts are like a type of collective UN, Biden etc BI-POLAR disorder from these donkeys and sensible, rational people should either laugh at them or ignore them.

  • Stu says:

    And I found this interesting comment in the ether.

    “ It strikes me as odd that the people who insist human society has the imagination and ingenuity to adapt to a 2-degree hotter world, are usually the same people who are convinced that society will collapse if we simply accelerate the shift to clean energy and stop using coal…”

    What say you Nev

    • Neville says:

      Firstly tell us WHEN and WHY. But your question really is so STU-PID and I ask how we’ll defend our country in the future.
      You can’t fight with clueless S&W energy and tanks, fighter jets, subs, ships etc don’t run on S&W or batteries. Wake up to yourself.
      Now again, “when and why?”

      • Stu says:

        Oh Nevy, “ You can’t fight with clueless S&W energy and tanks, fighter jets, subs, ships etc don’t run on S&W or batteries. ”. There you go again exaggerating and making things up to suit your position. Show me where anyone serious is suggesting solar powered tanks etc. I agree they may in the long run move to more renewable power such as hydrogen, which appears well suited to heavy vehicle usage. And just in case you had not noticed our submarines do actually run on batteries. Yes they need diesels to recharge but who knows how that may evolve. Clearly you totally misunderstand the concept of “net zero” carbon. Go and do some reading.

        You claim to be the great predictor so tell us why the status quo will continue.

        As for your claim of the wasted “trillions” you always completely ignore the cheap power flowing from such investment over a long period not to mention the economic activity in its creation rather than waste on new fossil energy generation plant. Meantime as I showed above it appears that all the holes in ground around here will remain just that, brilliant. And you say fossil fuel is not subsidised. Wow.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “Yes they need diesels to recharge but who knows how that may evolve.”

          Preferably to nuclear.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “usually the same people who are convinced that society will collapse if we simply accelerate the shift to clean energy and stop using coal”

      Have you changed your mind? Do you now believe that wind, solar and batteries, in their current state of development, can now provide the reliable, continuous power required by an industrialised society?

      PS, that question also works in reverse. What are you frightened of in the adaptation process?

  • Aynsley Kellow says:

    Stu doesn’t seem to appreciate that ‘science’ is more a process than a set of findings. The problem with climate ‘science’ as practiced is that it does not conform to the dictates of that process. Too often it involves examples of bringing evidence to the theory, the presentation of model results as evidence, and the generation of new ‘findings’ at politically convenient moments (ie ‘policy based evidence’). The models have been shown to have no predictive skill. They have been falsified by observations. Should me a climate science paper that does not include the word ‘could’ – usually in the abstract. In Popperian terms, they are conjectures without refutations.

    As for his use of the term ‘denier’! This alone marks him as a practitioner of political rhetoric.

    I discuss much of this with Jo Nova in an interview on my chapter in the latest ‘Climate Change: The Facts’:

    • Stu says:

      Aynsley “ Stu doesn’t seem to appreciate that ‘science’ is more a process than a set of findings. The problem with climate ‘science’ as practiced is that it does not conform to the dictates of that process.”

      I say again you don’t need to convince me, but rather the vast array of scientists and science bodies. When you convince them I will listen to you. Get it?

      • spangled drongo says:

        “When you convince them I will listen to you. Get it?”

        Stop pretending!

        With you, it has nothing to do with science or evidence.

        You are a natural socialist true believer and this non-science catastrophism is right up your alley.

        And extremely convenient.

        You will go into deep depression when climate nat var goes into reverse.

        Along with all the so-called “scientists” and MSM who likewise love promoting this climate propaganda.

        • Neville says:

          Yes SD you’re right on the money with your comment. These crazy people have always been MUCH more interested in L W politics than the science.
          Btw Aynsley’s talk with Jo Nova at the link is very interesting and full of common sense and mentions so much of the history of this taxpayer funded corruption and fra-d.

          • Stu says:

            It is really funny that you effectively claim the scientists are all left wing except the small subset that you agree with. And you say it should not be political. Right! Notice the words you guys constantly use “propaganda, fraud, crazy, so-called, alarmist, donkey, etc”.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, the word I constantly use with you is EVIDENCE.

            I have been requesting it from you for years.

            And you have yet to produce any.

            And until you can produce any, the rest of your blither remains simply that; blither.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            M
            No, he is saying that YOU are left wing. Address the point, instead of obfuscating.

          • Stu says:

            SD , I wrote “ Notice the words you guys constantly use “propaganda, fraud, crazy, so-called, alarmist, donkey, etc”.

            And your response is – “nothing”.

          • spangled drongo says:

            So how does stu-pid respond to my claim that the word most used by me to him is EVIDENCE??

            As usual, he goes once more into denial.

        • Stu says:

          “ You will go into deep depression when climate nat var goes into reverse.”.

          No mate you have it all wrong. In that scenario we would be happy to sing and dance and say we were wrong, long live civilisation. On the other hand the further we go down the path we are on, the more you go into denial, until you implode from the predictive failure. Poor you. I truly wish you were correct, but science tells me you are wrong.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “…but science tells me you are wrong.”

            That’s just your worshipped GCMs and your climate religion, not science, stueyluv.

            Factual climate science is begging your tiny mind to consider the history of the Holocene and be honest enough to admit that what we are currently experiencing with climate has happened to much greater degrees when CO2 was much lower.

            “In that scenario we would be happy to sing and dance and say we were wrong.”

            Give the B/S a rest! You live in terror of your religion being even slightly disputed, let alone disproved and discredited.

            But when you deny the evidence and the real world like you do, you really have it coming.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “but science tells me you are wrong.”

            You yet again demonstrate your utter and complete ignorance of science. After everything you have been told, it is safe to assume that your knowledge of actual science could be written on the back of a postage stamp, using a whiteboard marker.

      • Aynsley Kellow says:

        Stu, you show by your use of ‘denier’ and claiming that to disagree with the learned authorities one must posit a conspiracy that you have zero understanding of either the sociology or philosophy of science. Einstein didn’t accuse his intellectual forebears of a conspiracy – he just proposed a theory that better accounted for the observations. They held on to those beliefs for all sorts of anti-scientific reasons, including groupthink and cognitive dissonance. Kuhn offered a description of how this happens; unfortunately, many now regard that as a description and circle the wagons to defend against contrary evidence.

        The key to alarmist climate science is the hypothesis that the modest (logarithmic) warming produced by the doubling of carbon dioxide will lead to increased water vapour, the dominant GHG, and this positive feedback will produce ‘dangerous’ AGW. There is no evidence to support this assumption, which is present in all models. Paltridge et al in fact showed the evidence went the other way. Of course, that had a difficult path to publication – as can happen when the leader of the Greens party in British Columbia controls the journal.

        • Aynsley Kellow says:

          Sorry: ‘Kuhn offered a description of how this happens; unfortunately, many now regard that as a PRESCRIPTION and circle the wagons to defend against contrary evidence.’

        • Stu says:

          “ The key to alarmist climate science is the hypothesis that the modest (logarithmic) warming produced by the doubling of carbon dioxide will lead to increased water vapour, the dominant GHG, and this positive feedback will produce ‘dangerous’ AGW”. But,but, but aren’t you the guys who keep arguing that the climate models have to start addressing clouds to be taken seriously? Where exactly do you sit?

        • Stu says:

          “ Einstein didn’t accuse his intellectual forebears of a conspiracy – he just proposed a theory that better accounted for the observations”. True, but you guys accuse the plethora of climate change scientists of operating some kind of scam for personal reward. You argue that the scientists are not accounting for “the observations”. It is not enough to retreat to the defensive walls of the null hypothesis, it is time to stake out an hypothesis regarding climate “normalcy” that you can defend.

          • spangled drongo says:

            We don’t need any hypothesis when the recent history of climate is so well known. How many would you like:

            Abstract
            Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

            https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617.abstract

            https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Rosenthal-data-1.jpg?ssl=1

          • Stu says:

            Ah yes Mr Rosenthal. Regarding his paper in 2013 he said in an interview.

            “ The study finds that the rise in ocean heat (and temperature) in recent decades is far faster than anything seen earlier in the Holocene, the period since the end of the last ice age. But the researchers say that this rise is from a relatively cool baseline. Between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, at depths between 500 and 1,000 meters, the Pacific Ocean was some 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today for many centuries.

            In our chat, Rosenthal said the work reveals the enormous capacity of the oceans to act as an efficient and copious reservoir for heat: “Maybe the ocean is taking the heat more and won’t exhale it as much.”*

            Here’s how he put it in a news release from Rutgers:

            We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy…. It may buy us some time – how much time, I don’t really know – to come to terms with climate change. But it’s not going to stop climate change”

            Note the last sentence.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “But it’s not going to stop climate change”

            “Note the last sentence.”

            What a scientific mind you possess, stu. When did climate change ever stop?

            You don’t get that just like you don’t get Aynsley’s “dangerous AGW”.

            But here are some more science papers to help with your denial problem:

            https://notrickszone.com/?s=science+papers+showing+previous+warming+and+sea+level+rise

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            ” it is time to stake out an hypothesis regarding climate “normalcy” that you can defend”

            I have done that in previous threads. Either you have a memory loss problem, or you chose to ignore what I wrote, possibly because you had no rational or coherent response.

  • Neville says:

    As well as the dual bi-polar competing forecasts from the UN as I noted above there’s also their third problem of so called mitigation.
    The Royal Society & NAS joint report also tells us that removing all co2 emissions TODAY STILL CAN”T MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO co2 LEVELS FOR AT LEAST A THOUSAND YEARS.
    They quote Zickfeld et al and the Petit study also shows temp at the Antarctic Vostok site dropped for thousands of years and co2 levels also remained high for many thousands of years AFTER that temp drop.
    I’ve linked many times to Petit , the RS & NAS study, plus the Conversation article and all show us the same evidence.
    So why should we WASTE trillions $ on this non problem and for a ZERO dividend? But still waiting for their “WHEN and WHY” report.

    • Stu says:

      “ So why should we WASTE trillions $ on this non problem and for a ZERO dividend? But still waiting for their “WHEN and WHY” report”

      How about, so we don’t continue to make the future problem worse?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “How about, so we don’t continue to make the future problem worse?”

        If you genuinely believe this statement then you must reject your previous contention that China (and other developing nations) should be allowed to “catch up” with western industrial development. Either all CO2 makes the problem worse, or none does. What say you?

  • Neville says:

    Even more evidence from Prof William Kininmonth who tells us we should be worried about COOLING and not WARMING. Here’s a part of his interview and the Bolter video link below.

    Recent global warming has been ‘part of the natural processes’ of climate: Retired Meteorologist
    03/05/2021|5min

    Retired meteorologist William Kininmonth has told Sky News a “slow steady warming” has been taking place “well before” carbon dioxide started to increase in the atmosphere.

    Mr Kininmonth said the warming or cooling of the oceans mirrored that of the atmosphere, and the rate of warming has been “about one degree per century which really is not very much”.

    “Recent observations from the corals in the trop oceans have pointed to this warming has been taking place since around about 1800, 1820,” he said.

    “It’s been a slow steady warming that’s been taking place – it commenced well before carbon dioxide started to increase in the atmosphere.

    “I think we can look at it as being part of the natural processes of the climate system.

    “I don’t think we should be worried at all.”

    https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6252011847001

    • Stu says:

      Ah yes, the possibly geriatric Kinnimoth. He wrote in Quadrant in 2009 “ Unfortunately the more recent pattern of global temperature does not fit the IPCC scenario. Carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise but global temperatures have flat-lined since 1997.”

      That does not seem to sit too well with experience since that time.

      And then there is Peter Farara another luminary of the “fabled” Heartland Institute. He wrote in Forbes in 2012 that:

      “Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.”

      Unfortunately it is hard to follow now because it was removed with the words “After review this post has been removed for failing to meet our editorial standards”.

      Oops.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu reverts to standard practice. If in doubt attack the messenger. Apparently in Stu-world, geriatrics have nothing of value to say. Ooops!

        • Chris Warren says:

          Anyone who claimed temperatures have flat-lined or there will be global cooling deserves whatever appellation comes their way. Geriatric is a scientifically valid term.

          Most geriatrics have plenty to say, but not you and not other denialists.

  • Neville says:

    The Bolter has also interviewed Dr Koonin and his ideas now align with Kininmonth’s interview. He has taken 7 years of careful study since he left the Obama admin and today is very critical of so much of what Biden and others are telling us.

    He says that his careful studying of IPCC reports and data have convinced him that so much of their claims are exaggerated. He now considers Dr Christy to be a friend and has asked him about some of the temp data to help him reach his conclusions.

    He said so much of what you now see in the MSM is like the kid’s game of telephone where an original message is distorted or changed as time goes on. Just a pity this EXISTENTIAL threat BS and fra-d GAME will likely cost 100s of trillions $ for a non problem. And make things a lot worse because of the TOXIC, environment destroying S&W disaster.

    Here’s some of the interview and the link to the full Bolter video. Well worth your time.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/catastrophic-weather-events-not-caused-by-human-influence-professor-koonin/video/a74e16e16559a54062a7d03be0eabb97

    “Catastrophic weather events not caused by ‘human influence’: Professor Koonin”

    “Most of the extreme weather events that the media and public are so focused on possesses no evidence of “human influence”, according to Former US Undersecretary for Science Professor Steven Koonin. “Almost all my belief is founded upon reading the UN IPCC reports and similar reports by the US government and then looking at the underlying research literature,” he said. “According to the reports… most of the extreme weather events that the public and the media are so focused on do not show any evidence of human influence. “So for example, the report’s saying and again this is the consensus science talking … there are no detectable human influences on hurricanes over the last 100 years. In the US, heatwaves, are no more common now than they were in 1900 and have not gone up in incidents over the last 60 years. “Wildfires around the ground have gone down by about 25 per cent since 2003. And yes last year 2020 saw terrible fires in Australia and in California here in the US – but in fact, 2020 globally was one of the least active fire years on record. “While the globe has warmed significantly – we’ve not seen any changes in these kinds of events that at least we can detect and say are there with confidence.”

    • Stu says:

      Wonderful stuff, not. Have a look at Roy Spencers own website and his temperature figures. The trend line is clear, whatever interpretation you or others want to claim.

      Regarding extreme weather down load the WMO report on State of the Global Climate 2020. There is a 2021 version due out soon. It is amazing what these “lying conspiracists” put out, stick with the Bolter, he is so educated.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Do you ever find it amazing that the climate of the late 20th Century happens to represent perfection (at least according to climate scientists). Surely this must be a gift from God? That even a single degree of temperature increase will destroy the ideal balance?

        That’s sarcasm, just in case you can’t recognise it as such.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu, to support his true believer religion is in denial that ~ a 1c temperature rise and no additional sea level rise over the last century represent a very mild climate change that has happened in the past, and often in much greater amounts, for as far back as anyone will find.

    He believes that climate should never change.

    • Stu says:

      One of these days there will be a flash of enlightenment as it dawns on you that it is the future effects of a changing climate that they are concerned about, but that action needs to start now to lower the amount of change and it’s effects. The changes of the past you refer to simplistically were mostly at a time before the botanical environment we know evolved. An issue now is the rate of change being faster than things can evolve to adapt to. That evolution requires fossils like you to phase out and be replaced by attitudes more in keeping with change. You are a classic reactionary, for you everything old is good and cannot be changed, yeah!

      • spangled drongo says:

        “An issue now is the rate of change being faster than things can evolve to adapt to.”

        Blatant, unscientific crap!

        Served with the usual evidence-free obtuseness.

        Check all the ice core graphs and you will see that the world warmed 10 times faster, numerous times, in the past.

        ” You are a classic reactionary”

        I happen to be “carbon neutral” with over a million trees and no livestock on my place.

        It is you, the climate-religious who spout this rubbish that are always the last ones to abide by your own dictates.

        Science-free, evidence-free, observation-free, lying hypocrites!

        • Stu says:

          “ I happen to be “carbon neutral” with over a million trees and no livestock on my place.”. A classic piece of virtue signalling. If we still had OBE’s I would give you one.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            From a consistent virtue signaller here (Have your grandchildren read your letter of self criticism yet?), that is a farcical comment. Try harder.

          • Stu says:

            You really don’t get it, do you? It is not about “individual effort”, that is one of the classic misleading lines introduced by deniers. Rather, it is the need for collective action. And regarding your trees, if you planted them wonderful, if they always been there stop blowing your own trumpet.

          • spangled drongo says:

            I’ve already got one, thanks. And not only did I plant many of them, I stood aside after having done that while the govt rezoned my place from allowing subdivision to disallowing subdivision because they considered it now to be a green zone. If I had kept it as the original farm it was, I would be millions richer.

            When I asked them for a refund of the enormous rate bills I had been paying for years as a subdividable property, no answer, and I even had to go to court to get the valuation reduced.

            As an environmentalist, I did not object to the rezoning and have copped the loss as part of my contribution to the environment.

            But I’m sure with your widely and loudly proclaimed philosophy, you have made much greater financial sacrifices.

            Because I’m sure you know that your “collective action” has to consist of very many individual actions.

            Please tell us about them.

            Or are they like your evidence for CAGW?

            Non existent.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “Rather, it is the need for collective action.”

            Including by China?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “action needs to start now to lower the amount of change and it’s effects”

        Action has started. The problem is that the proposed solution, Unreliable Energy, is not fit for the task without a significant technical breakthrough.

        So we should all adopt the Chinese position. Continue to use (and expand as necessary) fossil fuels, while working towards a long term solution.

        Do you agree?

  • Peter Kemmis says:

    Convincing a society of some or other paradigm has been with us for some thousands of years. Look at how different religious beliefs have spread across civilisations, ironically helping to bond societies, but as Don pointed out in an essay last month, at times with disastrous effects on their own and others. He cited the medieval crusades as an example.

    How does this happen? It is collective psychology at work; keep providing the same message, reinforce it with whatever means at hand. “Fear the gods! Consider the disaster inflicted on us now!” (Choose your disaster – drought, flood, disease . . .) In a world of travel by horseback and sailing ship, the messages are carried more slowly; many messengers are required. The fear of expressing views outside the group, contrary to what seems to be the strongest message, silences many. If necessary, disbelievers are put to the sword, or the stake.

    In today’s largely secular Western society, communication is at lightning speed, global in reach. So much easier. Keep repeating the same message. Capture the young; I’ve seen that in action at Canberra’s National Portrait Gallery, with an earnest lady teacher explaining to her tots the meaning of a mural-sized painting which included the Franklin Dam story, with her hero Bob Brown to the fore. Sickening, I thought. But ever thus.

    So those tots move on through school, some going on to learn all about journalism. And what do you know; a different lady teacher (I can’t name her, lest I be called pig-ignorant), earnest but more cynical, repeats the same message. Thus we have our ABC and our compliant media, trotting out the same simplicities.

    The anti-cholesterol saga that started in the 1950s, shares the same pattern of the global warming genesis. First convince the politicians, such a useful source of power, then get industry on board, for there is money to be made here. A whole new poly-unsaturated fat crusade began, and it is still with us. It will take decades yet for that falsehood to die.

    The next big lie is already upon us, in a vegan world of artificial “meat”, vegetable “milk”. Same methods.

    May the gods help us!

  • Stu says:

    SD wrote that the earth warmed ten times faster in the past, many times. He might care to look at that claim more closely.

    “ A misleading graph purporting to show that past changes in Greenland’s temperatures dwarf modern climate change has been circling the internet since at least 2010.

    Based on an early Greenland ice core record produced back in 1997, versions of the graph have, variously, mislabeled the x-axis, excluded the modern observational temperature record and conflated a single location in Greenland with the whole world.

    More recently, researchers have drilled numerous additional ice cores throughout Greenland and produced an updated estimate past Greenland temperatures.

    This modern temperature reconstruction, combined with observational records over the past century, shows that current temperatures in Greenland are warmer than any period in the past 2,000 years. That said, they are likely still cooler than during the early part of the current geological epoch – the Holocene – which started around 11,000 years ago.

    However, warming is expected to continue in the future as human actions continue to emit greenhouse gases, primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels.

    Climate models project that if emissions continue, by 2050, Greenland temperatures will exceed anything seen since the last interglacial period, around 125,000 years ago.”

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

    • Neville says:

      You’d think if our stu-pid donk really believed his sermons he’d get fair dinkum and spend his full time in China, India etc because that’s where co2 emissions are RAPIDLY increasing.
      I think I should remind him AGAIN that the EU and USA combined have about the same co2 emissions as 1970 or 50 years ago.
      Meanwhile China etc emissions have been soaring, just look at the graph. So what does motivate this loony fool, because it certainly isn’t data and evidence?
      This bloke isn’t worth the time of day and his ignorance of the REAL planet’s data is beyond belief. His climate data is trapped within his fantasy planet and in turn that’s trapped between his ears.
      Oh and still waiting for “when and why?” But don’t worry he’s not equipped to even begin to understand my question.

      • Stu says:

        You continue to emit such mixed messages that it is hard to discern what point you are trying to make.

        • Stu says:

          Nev, I quoted some science, even gave a ref and you come back with a rolling rant, off topic. What are you trying to say with that abusive spiel?

          • Neville says:

            Just for silly stu, I’m asking him to look at co2 emissions since 1970 or 1990 and tell us what he finds?
            EU + USA combined emissions about the same as 50 years ago and LESS than 31 years ago. But China + other countries + India etc have emitted nearly all of the increase in emissions since 1970 and 1990. AGAIN Look at the graph.

            And India and China etc don’t intend to stop for a long time and certainly not ZERO net emissions until 2060. In fact that would be impossible in just 40 years as it will be for the wealthy Western countries.

            In fact Biden will be long gone and giggling Harris won’t last out the normal electoral cycles. Then tell us WHEN the climate has been better for plants or humans and WHY you choose that period? You’ve got a choice of the last 10,000 years and surely that spoils you for choice? Here’s the WIKI graph AGAIN.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

          • Stu says:

            Neville I see you are still trying to mislead with dodgy statistical presentations. Your wiki graph shows ANNUAL emissions. It would me more informative to look at cumulative emissions since, let’s say 1850, and also per capita emissions to show where immediate responsibility for change sits. Of course that involves morality and I get the impression you are not big on that, regarding negative climatic effects. Although it may have been you way back carping about coalifying Africa to save the people from cow dung fumes in their houses, so there is hope perhaps.

            Regarding your greening and no SLR, do some reading on the Mekong Delta and farmers switching to shrimp because the land and water is now too salty for rice, courtesy of SLR.

            As for SD’s 500 sceptical papers, such things are amusing but rapidly become quite boring. Too many are “crafted” by names, such as where this current thread started, but do not in fact add much to the sum of knowledge.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “dodgy statistical presentations”

            But enough about alarmists.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “As for SD’s 500 sceptical papers, such things are amusing but rapidly become quite boring. Too many are “crafted” by names, such as where this current thread started,”

            So much like the alarmist clap trap that you post incessantly?

      • Boambee John says:

        Neville

        “You’d think if our stu-pid donk really believed his sermons he’d get fair dinkum and spend his full time in China, India etc because that’s where co2 emissions are RAPIDLY increasing.”

        Nah; Stu thinks that they should be able to keep increasing their CO2 emissions because it’s their turn. It seems that “equity” emissions have no impact on global atmospheric CO2 levels.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu, did you read those 500 sceptical papers I sent you? No?

      But you send one feeble “fact check” in response to Holocene warming that goes against all the evidence.

      Surely even a stu-pid like you knows that the beginning of the Holocene was caused by enormous warming that raises sea levels a thousand times more than than anything that is happening today?

      In a very short space of time.

      And then temperatures continued to warm and cool throughout the Holocene far more than is currently happening.

      Read about it and absorb the evidence I gave you. It’s all there.

      But I can send you some more if that’s not enough for a scholar like you.

      • Stu says:

        “ the beginning of the Holocene was caused by enormous warming that raises sea levels a thousand times more than than anything that is happening today?”. Sorry mate, but SFW

        • spangled drongo says:

          You’re Stuck For Words, stueyluv?

          That’s a pleasant change.

          But yes, SLR of 120 metres, most of it in a very short period.

          And during some periods at an amazingly fast rate.

          Aboriginals walked to Tasmania but then found they couldn’t walk back.

          • Stu says:

            And what do you suggest caused the shift from ice age to Holocene? Orbital shifts! None of which have been detected to be affecting our current climate regime.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Natural climate variability is huge and mostly caused by known unknowns and unquantifiable.

            Just prior to the beginning of the Holocene was the Late Glacial Interstadial which also enjoyed similar rapid warming.

            During the Holocene there has also been greater climate change, temperatures both warmer and cooler, sea levels higher and lower, than today, in a time of very low CO2.

            But you are in complete denial of it.

            Just as you are of 500 peer reviewed science papers that deal with it.

            Just as you are of empirical evidence required to prove your hysterical claims.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “excluded the modern observational temperature record and conflated a single location in Greenland with the whole world.”

      As usual, alarmists accuse others of what they have been doing.

      “Hide the decline”, “Mikw’s Jature trick”, tree rings from a single tree to “create” an historical world wide temperature record. Any of that ring a bell?

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    It was me who mentioned indoor air pollution from both wood and dung fires. It occurs anywhere there is not adequate electricity or gas supplied. Africa and South/South East Asia are major problem areas.

    Then there is the issue of mining and processing damage to produce materials required for solar cells, wind generators and batteries.

    These things occur in “far away countries of which we know little”. That you show no evident concern about them removes from you any right to pontificate about morality.

    • Stu says:

      You are nearly as good as Trump at completely turning words around for dubious purposes. See his recent misuse of “the big lie”. How do you conclude that I show “ no evident concern about them”? That is true of you pontificating to delay climate action, the result of which will ultimately hurt the poor of Asia and Africa much more than you or SD on his glorious acres

      • spangled drongo says:

        As you are forever virtue-signaling about your concern and our disregard for the planet I thought I would tell you some of my activities in the hope you might respond and detail all your efforts likewise, so we could see just how genuine you really are about your concern about “carbon”.

        So far you have said nothing.

        But feel free to enlighten us on your efforts that I am sure must match your words.

        We wait with bated breath.

      • Boambee John says:

        Don

        My apologies for the intemperate tone of my initial response. I hope that this one is acceptable.

        Stu

        “How do you conclude that I show “no evident concern about them”?”

        Because you never make any productive response when I raise the issue.

        “pontificating to delay climate action, the result of which will ultimately hurt the poor of Asia and Africa”

        The poor of Asia and Africa need reliable continuous power, which solar, wind and batteries in their current state cannot provide. I would offer them HELE coal and nuclear power stations. But those are unacceptable to the alarmists.

  • Stu says:

    “ I would offer them HELE coal and nuclear power stations. But those are unacceptable to the alarmists.”

    No they are not. It is just that there are simpler, more productive solutions than you propose. Has it occurred to you that most often these people you are concerned about are widely distributed (often at low density) and they have never had grids for electrical distribution that we take for granted. Therefore cost wise, distributed low scale S&W can offer significant advantages. But I am sure your nuclear option will work really well in these often politically unstable countries (Lol). But who will provide the security?

    • Stu says:

      Oh and BJ, given that the poor folk of Africa need your HELE and nuclear has it occurred to you that their current lack of power implies they don’t currently have need for dispatchable base load power that you say is so important for our advanced society. So I suggest small scale, even local grid scale, S&W with some battery backup might be just the answer. What do you think?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “has it occurred to you that their current lack of power implies they don’t currently have need for dispatchable base load power that you say is so important for our advanced society.”

        Pathetic even by your low standards. There are major cities in Africa and Asia. Most have some form of electrical grid, but not necessarily an efficient or effective one. Try to join the real world.

        Go back and re-read your last two comments. Patronising would be a flattering description of them. Are you willing to change your lifestyle to that which you are proposing for them?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Those are not unacceptable to alarmists? Goodo, I look forward to you supporting them in Australia. We will need them until Unreliables get their act together.

      I am astounded that you are not familiar with the story of the Indian village that received a solar system from an international agency.

      When a bigwig came to open the system, he was berated by the villagers, who demanded reliable continuous power, not the intermittent supply provided by solar.

      Also, your distributed system will not be adequate for any major user, such as a city, industry or a hospital. Strange as it might seem, Africans and Asians in less developed economies share with China a desire for a modern economy. Perhaps you should give them the opportunity to have one, as you are willing to do for China?

      PS, India already has nuclear power, as does South Africa, and I suspect also Pakistan and Iran. Your favourite UN might take on the task of providing security?

      • Stu says:

        BJ, I have no problem with nuclear in Australia but it will never happen. Too expensive, too political (would you like one near you) and too long gestation to pull it off. HELE has a problem as no commercial operation wants a bar of it. Coal has become toxic economically.

        So let us all make S&W work with adequate backup by batteries, pumped hydro and any other bright ideas clever people like you might come up with. There is a challenge for you. But not straight away it is steady process, so no need to panic.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “HELE has a problem as no commercial operation wants a bar of it. Coal has become toxic economically”

          We have been through this before, and you either didn’t understand or took no notice of the response.

          While ever Unreliables get preferential access to the grid, while coal stations are required to be on permanent stand-by to cover the supply failures (that “inefficient spinning reserve” that you got so excited about a while ago), coal will be economically unviable.

          All sources should be required to contract, on equal terms, to deliver power in blocks of multiple hours, with penalties for failure. Watch the rapid collapse of Unreliables once they must deliver a contracted product.

          And I wait with a mixture of dread and amusement the likely result once both Liddell and Latrobe close. At that time, the East Coast grid will be on a precipice, and no number of batteries will save it from a cloudy, windless, day.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “I have no problem with nuclear in Australia but it will never happen.”

          It won’t as long as people are as weak kneed as you are about it, stueyluv.

          Ever wondered how the Europe Hippos would manage without France’s nuclear?

          Ever thought how we would go with a modular nuclear in every suburb?

          If you want dependable, co2-free energy with minimum enviro interference at the CHEAPEST price, nuclear is the best.

        • Stu says:

          Bj, sd, get a grip, you are dreaming. The government is even going cold on the gas plant for Kurri Kurri. Canavan’s northern dream is full of holes and going nowhere. Where else are we seeing HELE here and show me anyone in Aus suggesting we actually go nuclear. Remind me what is the likely lead time for the latter again?

          Meantime to illustrate the hopelessness of the nuclear problem we still can’t even find a place to bury the low level waste coming from the medical and industrial space. If they can’t even sort out shoving it down the hole at Ranger where they dug tens of thousands of tons of it out if the ground, what hope is there for any rational outcome on that subject. But as usual I know you both know better.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “Remind me what is the likely lead time for the latter again?”

            You’re not too familiar with the concept of modular, are you?

            A few major blackouts and the noisy lobbyists will benoisily lobbying for change. The current obstacles are a clear illustration of the maxim that “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”.

          • spangled drongo says:

            When the penny finally drops after we have bankrupted ourselves trying to “decarbonise” with unreliables, thanks to the true believing bed-wetters, we will need all the panic and agony that situation can muster to finally accept that we missed the nuclear boat.

            When we can power submarines today with nuclear with big numbers of people living in the same room as the reactor, having a similar reactor in every suburb is a piece of cake.

            All it takes is rational supporters, to get rational outcomes.

            But, as usual, I know I’m talking to the wrong person for that simple solution.

          • Stu says:

            Bj “ You’re not too familiar with the concept of modular, are you?‘“. Oh right, modular nuclear plants are popping up all over the world aren’t they? Not.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          Backup powered by unicorns running on mouse wheels.

  • Neville says:

    Another top post from Jo Nova and that graph of USA RUINABLES since early 1970s is all the evidence we should need to WAKE UP.
    Of course S&W are just one part and the rest are Hydro, wood, geo, etc. Certainly that graph would be the biggest sick joke of the last 50 years if it wasn’t so SERIOUS.
    The Biden donkey’s GND is just more fra-dulent nonsense, but I’m sure he doesn’t even understand any of this data. Certainly the Obama , Holdren donkeys didn’t understand it either. Dr Pielke jnr had to school that ADMIN about global fires, droughts etc yet never received an apology for his troubles. I wish Jo could permanently place this graph or something like it on her home page.

    Of course the CSIRO tells us that the SH is a net co2 sink and population is about 800 mil of the Earth’s 7800 million. And the SH countries only emit about 7% of global emissions.

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/05/fifty-years-of-failed-renewables-predictions/

  • Neville says:

    Some more reading for our silly donkey from Rafe Champion at The Catallaxy Files, although we know he hates proper data and evidence.

    https://catallaxyfiles.com/2021/05/06/international-energy-stats-commentary-on-leading-issues/
    “International energy stats + commentary on leading issues”
    Posted on May 6, 2021 by Rafe Champion

    “A bit of light reading from JP Morgan, facing some of the facts.

    Humans will be wedded to petroleum and other fossil fuels for longer than they would like. Wind and solar power reach new heights every year but still represent just 5% of global primary energy consumption. In this year’s energy paper, we review why decarbonization is taking so long: transmission obstacles, industrial energy use, the gargantuan mineral and pipeline demands of sequestration and the slow motion EV revolution. Other topics include our oil & gas views, President Biden’s energy agenda, China, the Texas power outage and client questions on electrified shipping, sustainable aviation fuels, low energy nuclear power, hydrogen and carbon accounting.

    2021energy review

    “More there than most of us want to know, but a handy source for reference.

    Closer to home it is amusing to read in the Energy Security Board’s survey of the scene for the new energy market arrangements that Yallourn power station will close ahead of schedule and Energy Australia will help out with a 4-hour 350MW battery. That is to replace a plant that generates 1400 MW 24 hours a day, every day, barring maintenance time.”

  • Neville says:

    Another top commentary from WUWT about the Biden donkey’s RUINABLES plan and why it can never work.
    Comparing the actual DATA since 1970 or 1990 or 2000 is the only way to understand the fra-d and corruption of the DEMS GND LUNACY.
    China, India and NON OECD emissions have soared while the OECD countries’ emissions haven’t increased since 1970.
    Hopefully when the public wake up to this TOTAL fra-d and con trick the left wing extremists will suffer big time at the ballot box. And the sooner the better.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/07/bidens-u-s-emissions-reduction-scheme-repeats-past-failures-that-promote-more-global-emissions-increases/

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    You wrote earluer

    “So let us all make S&W work with adequate backup by batteries, pumped hydro and any other bright ideas clever people like you might come up with. There is a challenge for you.”

    Here is a challenge for you. Give up (at least in the short to medium term) on solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro (the lack of suitable sites in Australia makes hydro unviable). Until there is a major technical breakthrough with solar, wind and batteries, they are not a viable solution.

    Instead, put your energy into getting HELE and modular nuclear approved. If they are not, there will be a huge problem once Liddell and Latrobe are gone. Do you want the lights to stay on or not?

    • Stu says:

      “ the lack of suitable sites in Australia makes hydro unviable)”

      Not so, do some reading. They don’t all need to be Snowy 2 scale to be viable. Many small scale sites have been identified that are very suitable and cheap tp develop.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Since you mention Snowy 2, announced when Trumble was PM, when do you expect it to come online? Modular nuclear might be quicker.

        Avoiding the challenge? Do you no longer accept that solar, wind and batteries at their current state of development can’t cut the mustard?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          PS, don’t forget that the rains that fall won’t fill the dams. So sez Saint Tim Flummery, prophet of disaster. So it doesn’t matter how many dam sites there are. Tim hath spoketh.

  • Chris Warren says:

    What denialists try to hide. CO2 absorbs infra red radiation. Humans are increasing CO2 well above historic levels and more is in the offing.

    End of story – part 1. I do not want to be alive when part 2 strikes.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Is climate hysteria the storm before the calm?

    Steve Koonin:

    “Yes, the planet has warmed, he concedes, and the burning of fossil fuels is partly to blame, but the impact is tiny, complex and uncertain, and occurs against a backdrop of natural climate change over thousands of years that dwarfs the recent increase in temperature.”

    Koonin, “increasingly dismayed” by climate alarmism, will be hard to “cancel”. He’s still alive, a self-declared Democrat, with impeccable academic and career credentials: a Caltech-trained physicist who became chief scientist at BP in 2005 and then Barack Obama’s undersecretary for science in 2009.

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/is-climate-hysteria-the-storm-before-the-calm/news-story/90ff5bf6f8b9c4d4977404023af21dd5

  • Chris Warren says:

    So our nutty geriatric denies simple science. But wait here is more facts for denialists to deny;

    The Torres Strait Islands are among the most vulnerable regions to climate change in Australia. Sea levels continue to rise, making tides more destructive, coastal erosion faster and droughts more severe. Buildings, roads and even cemeteries have been washed away.

    https://time.com/5572445/torres-strait-islands-climate-change/

    People have every right to be alarmed at the prospect of having their buildings, road and cemeteries destroyed by climate change.

    Denialists be damned.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chrissy

      It is indeed very simple science. So simple that even you should be able to work out the fault in that “experiment”. If a “nutty geriatric” can, why can’t you?

      • Chris Warren says:

        Boambee – still struggling to make a sensible point. Note its lack of care for those losing roads, cemeteries and buildings – with more to come. So concerned for its own self-interest that it cares nothing for those now working their way through the schooling system. A sure sign of a psychopath.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chrissy

          Stilll unable to grasp the fundamental error in that silly experiment.

          Note Chrissy’s lack of care for those losing their jobs and homes. So concerned for its own ego that it cares nothing for those now working their way through the employment system. A sure sign of a psychopath.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Mature people know there are plenty of jobs in renewables and other avenues outside GHG emitting industry. Jobs are a concern for all and you have just made up stuff in a base copy-cat manner. You have no facts whatsoever. You are just trolling.

            You do not know what you are talking about and do not care about those who will suffer in the future and you cannot even understand a simple school-level CO2 demonstration.

            You are a psychopath based on denial and ignorance.

            Produce facts – not denialisms.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chrissy

            Yes, there is nothing quite so satisfying as dusting solar panels. Or burying life expired wind generator blades in landfill. Or putting out fires in lithium batteries.

            Still haven’t wirked out the fault in the experiment? Keep thinking, a high school student should be able to do it.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Time Magazine. Gee, what science, blith!

      Those islands are suffering from lack of deck space with increased population. So they build sea walls which cyclones just destroy with the usual sea surge.

      Sea surge is not SLR, idiot!

      As BJ just pointed out.

      Here’s the tide gauge for Weipa, close by.

      Max, min and mean sea levels all slightly LOWER today than their first recording 54 years ago:

      http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_63620_SLI.shtml

  • Chris Warren says:

    More facts for denialists to deny.

    https://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_sealevel_1880_2019.jpg

    From 1880 – 1920 [40 years] sea level rise was 5cm
    From 2000 – 2020 [20 years] sea level rise was 8cm

    • spangled drongo says:

      Blith can’t even remember when the European satellite ENVISAT showed a sea level FALL until it too joined the club. What a true believer.

      “But quadrupling sea level rise wasn’t enough for NASA experts, so in 1993 they switched over to satellite measurements, which immediately doubled their already quadrupled sea level rise. Satellite orbits decay over time, and it doesn’t require a lot of decay to bring them 1.7 mm closer to earth over the period of a year.

      NASA is the same agency which ignores satellite temperature data, because it doesn’t suit their global warming agenda. Satellites are only used when supportive of their agenda, and only for measurements which are most subject to decay errors”:

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Screen-Shot-2016-10-04-at-7.20.53-AM-1.gif

  • spangled drongo says:

    The perfect essay on climate change as used by climate alarmists:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/82960-1.png

  • Chris Warren says:

    Stu

    If that was posted by dumbo-drongo then it clearly demonstrates the corruption emanating from it. The chart from 2016 only cherry-picks data from 1950 to 1990 and falsely implies that the trend over this period in tide gauges would continue.

    In fact the full data set which was available in 2016 showed that tide gauge data MATCHED satellite data.

    This is what scientists say: https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/12_12_sl-chart-11-2020.jpg

    But there is worse – so stupid was the drongo, for as far as I can remember this fool was claiming there was no sea-level rise. So we have here another examples of Neville’s tactic of posting evidence that destroys his own argument, and not even understanding what they have done.

    drongo is by far the the most disruptive, deluded, cherry-picking, denialist that dares to stick its head up and wonder why he keeps getting kicked into the gutter.

    • spangled drongo says:

      What a lovely, scientific outlook you have on life, blith.

      Have you ever made any personal HAT observations against fixed benchmarks over your lifetime?

      If you have, you might agree with Nils-Axel Morner, one of the world’s leading sea level experts who wrote more than 650 papers on the subject in his long and distinguished career and he always claimed that there is nothing happening with SLR, world wide.

      But do get back to us if you ever have made any of your own observations or possess any genuine scientific knowledge that justifies your hysterical comments.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “… the full data set which was available in 2016 showed that tide gauge data MATCHED satellite data.”

      You can’t read a graph, can you.

      Your link plainly shows the the satellite data immediately records a more than doubling in SLR from ~ 1.5mm/year to ~ 3.5mm/year.

  • Neville says:

    BJ and SD you’re dealing with the dopiest pair of donkeys on the planet and they’ll believe any BS and fra-d providing it’s left wing nonsense and they’ll never wake up.
    BTW even the dopey LW NYT has started to do a bit of research on lithium mining and the clueless Biden’s plans for a change over to EVs ASAP.
    But sceptics have been telling them about other rare earth minerals and other environmental problems + African child labor abuse for years, but only now these idiots are starting to take an interest?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/08/wheres-the-lithium-nyt-notices-a-lot-more-lithium-needed-for-bidens-electric-vehicle-push/

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      “…providing it’s left wing nonsense”

      Are you a fascist?

      • Neville says:

        In reply to our clueless donkey, I can honestly say I’m against TOTALITARIANISM of any kind and I don’t see much difference in Hitler and Stalin’s approach to minorities. In fact they both hated Jews and their religion.
        Now even China’s Pres is forcing over a million Muslims into slave labour camps and forcing them to build solar panels etc to be sold abroad.
        I want as much freedom as possible within the law and I’ll always accept the will of the people, even when I sometimes strongly disagree with their choice.
        So I’m not a Marxist or a Fascist, but I’m mostly a modern Conservative on social issues, but I’m not a practicing Christian although I know many people who are and I like them a lot.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Only totalitarians would threaten humanity with total annihilation – playing off the rights of future generations against their own inflated self-interest.

          • Boambee John says:

            But enough about the ever hysterical alarmists and their fascist plans to control every aspect of human life.

          • Neville says:

            Our silly donkeys are off with the fairies at the bottom of their garden AGAIN.
            AGAIN NOTE that OECD co2 emissions haven’t increased for 50 years, while NON OECD ( China, India, other developing countries etc) emissions have soared since 2000.
            Do I really need to link to that Wiki graph AGAIN? WAKE UP.
            OH and there are no NET emissions from the SH countries or just 0.8 billion of the 7.8 bn human pop. See CSIRO statement at their Cape Grim site.

          • Boambee John says:

            You are right. Scammers of Unreliable Energy have much to answer for.

  • NH says:

    SD – would this be a fair statement of your thoughts?
    a. Tide gauge readings should be corrected by “GPS chips”for vertical land movement. (Typically about 0.2-0.5mm/year)
    b. Satellite orbits are so imprecisely known that expecting vertical measurements better than 5mm is sheer hubris.

    • spangled drongo says:

      You can’t see the difference between a fixed point and a continuously, rapidly variable one?

      As well as some [as in shipping] that have nothing to do with it?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Can you imagine what degree of sea level accuracy you get from bouncing the satellite signal of the top deck of all those thousands of bulk and container carriers?

      If they deducted those ever increasing numbers it would most likely show a sea level fall.

      And then they’d have to redesign the AlGorithm.

  • Peter says:

    Hi spangled drongo,

    On the 25April21 I made a posting re the following link:

    The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof
    Definitive answers to the big questions. By Julia Rose, a journalist with a Ph.D. in geology; her research involved studying ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica to understand past climate changes.
    https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html?action=click&module=Science%20%20Technology&pgtype=Homepage firewall blockage]

    Spangled drongo’s reply was: “I started reading that, thinking it might have some useful info, until I got to the part where she quotes MMann’s Hockey Stick as evidence…..That’s religion, not science.”

    So I wrote to the author, Julia Rosen, citing spangled drongo’s dismissal of it as religion and I received the following:

    “The general shape of the hockey stick has been confirmed by many studies, most recently, by a massive collaboration of international scientists using a wide variety of paleoclimate archives: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0

    You might also point readers to this report by the U.S. National Academies of Science, which finds that “large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700.” https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/2#2

    The hockey stick has also been extended further into the past, for the last 11,000 years, which shows basically the same picture (full disclosure: I worked with these scientists in graduate school): http://www.appstate.edu/~perrylb/Courses/Peru/5015/Readings/Marcott_etal_2013.pdf

    As to this comment specifically, it is certainty true that the world has been hotter (and colder) that is it now, and that sea levels have been higher and lower at various times, and that CO2 levels have varied substantially over Earth history, as I explained in my Times piece. The question is not whether Earth’s climate has changed before, it’s why the climate is changing now.

    Scientists think that the Little Ice Age was a primarily a northern hemisphere phenomenon that was caused by a cluster of volcanic activity and a solar minimum. As I explained in the FAQ, we know that those forces are not causing warming today. We also understand why greenhouse gas concentrations are rising and why that should cause the observed warming.”

    Would you concede, Spangled drongo, that there is any science at all in Julia’s reply or can it simply be dismissed as ‘religion’?

    • Boambee John says:

      Peter

      It is hardly surprising that the author of a paper would defend its content. A better indicator of the value of a paper would be its capacity to convince a sceptic.

      However, given the following comment, it would seem that the author might have been (perhaps unconsciously) to impress colleagues.

      “The hockey stick has also been extended further into the past, for the last 11,000 years, which shows basically the same picture (full disclosure: I worked with these scientists in graduate school):”

      A degree of scepticism would seem justified.

    • spangled drongo says:

      More blitherings from our blith.

      Check when the first vessel [a wooden sailing boat] got through the NW Passage.

      That the steel ones are not managing so well today.

      • Peter says:

        Hullo spangled drongo

        On the 25April21 I made a posting re the following link:

        The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof
        Definitive answers to the big questions. By Julia Rosen, a journalist with a Ph.D. in geology; her research involved studying ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica to understand past climate changes.
        https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html?action=click&module=Science%20%20Technology&pgtype=Homepage firewall blockage]

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

        That’s religion, not science.”

        So I wrote to the author, Julia Rosen, citing this objection and I received the following reply:

        “The general shape of the hockey stick has been confirmed by many studies, most recently, by a massive collaboration of international scientists using a wide variety of paleoclimate archives: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0

        You might also point readers to this report by the U.S. National Academies of Science, which finds that “large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700.” https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/2#2

        The hockey stick has also been extended further into the past, for the last 11,000 years, which shows basically the same picture (full disclosure: I worked with these scientists in graduate school): http://www.appstate.edu/~perrylb/Courses/Peru/5015/Readings/Marcott_etal_2013.pdf

        As to this comment specifically, it is certainty true that the world has been hotter (and colder) that is it now, and that sea levels have been higher and lower at various times, and that CO2 levels have varied substantially over Earth history, as I explained in my Times piece. The question is not whether Earth’s climate has changed before, it’s why the climate is changing now.

        Scientists think that the Little Ice Age was a primarily a northern hemisphere phenomenon that was caused by a cluster of volcanic activity and a solar minimum. As I explained in the FAQ, we know that those forces are not causing warming today. We also understand why greenhouse gas concentrations are rising and why that should cause the observed warming.”

        Would you concede, Spangled drongo, that there is any science at all in Julia’s reply or can it simply be dismissed as ‘religion’?

  • Neville says:

    You have to laugh at the ADJUSTED SL data from the Uni Colorado SAT data that finds an acceleration of less than one tenth of one millimetre per year.
    Who believes any of this super precision nonsense and who believes in even a few mils precision per year anyway?
    Willis has downloaded their data and thinks their analysts would fail high school analysis. Here’s the Uni of Colorado graph for 2020 and still showing about 30 cm SLR by 2121.
    And don’t forget that even the tide gauges found about 8 inches or about 20 cm for the 20th century. And Dr Humlum today found about 1 to 1.5mm/ year from the tide gauges ( global mean SLR) or about 4 to 6 inches by 2121.
    I’ll have to check but I think Willis has recently found tide gauges data about 1 to 2 mm a year or about 4 to 8 inches by 2121. So about the same as the 20th century. Here’s Colorado Uni SAT link.

    https://sealevel.colorado.edu/data/2020rel1-global-mean-sea-level-seasonal-signals-removed

    • Peter says:

      Hullo Chris,

      Your comment about the caravan moving past the barking dogs is an analogy for what is happening in Australia with climate change initiatives and indeed in the US. The psychology of denialists is a sad study in some ways. That Liz Cheney, for instance, states that the US election was not a big lie and that a cult around a leader is dangerous for democracy also parallels some climate deniers: There are objective facts, scientific patterns, that can be verified. I am an infrequent visitor to this site and am more interested in some of the other topics that Don writes about but a psychological profile of individual climate deniers would be interesting. Many women are repulsed by such thinking; the language and offensive terminology denialists use [not exclusively confined them] is also a noteworthy point. The term ‘drongo’ is perhaps a recognition, indeed a self-acceptance, of limited intellectual acumen. ‘spangled’ takes one into another bizarre orbit. There is, it seems to me, a little nest of vipers in this site and dealing with them poses e-moderation challenges that are almost insurmountable unless you adopt the Twitter/Facebook solution with those who can’t change. But why, despite all the vitriol and feverish graph seeking etc, do we/do I return to the site? Why do we/I tolerate behaving and thinking badly? Grievances and invalid thinking pervade the internet and the psyche behind this is deeply embedded.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Peter

        I think it is necessary to be fully acquainted with all the tricks and tactics denialists use. This is interesting not only in climate change but as a feature of society when particular groups deliberately “lie” (even by omission) out of their own private self interest.

        It is particularly necessary when a media mogul exploits a denialist subculture to obtain a market for its commercial media. This then generates climate frisson within the polity as a whole. The same can be said in the case of vaccination.

        If denialism and the ideology it produces, is not challenged, we could end up in some sort of Trumpian, virus-riddled, over-heated nightmare – particularly if present climate trends continue.

        • Boambee John says:

          “It is particularly necessary when a media mogul exploits a denialist subculture to obtain a market for its commercial media. This then generates climate frisson within the polity as a whole. The same can be said in the case of vaccination.”

          It is all because of the eeevviil Trump and Murdoch!

          There’s a solid scientific argument.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Good that you have finally realised

          • Boambee John says:

            Chrissy

            Paranoid conspiracy theory stuff. Do you follow QANON? Sounds as if you do.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Which part of QAnon claims ;

            “It is all because of the eeevviil Trump and Murdoch!”

            You do not know what you are sprouting about.

            You are a noisy, useless troll spreading filth.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chrissy

            Dunno know, I’ve never visited tge site, but if you claim greater expertise, …

      • spangled drongo says:

        Peter, the real climate denialists are those who deny the facts about climate, and the only known facts are past facts, not future “facts” predicted by dysfunctional models.

        And one of the most well known past facts is that past climate varied naturally much greater and more often than it is doing today.

        When CO2 was not part of the equation.

        Even though Mann’s Hockeystick tried to prove the opposite by hiding the decline and ignoring well known scientific data to make his denialist point.

        If you studied rational, sceptical websites like Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, you would be well aware of how completely discredited the Hockeystick actually is and you wouldn’t have to ask a true-believer whether the fake science she used was fake or not.

        What do you seriously think she is going to reply?

        My advice to you is to do what all good scientists do WRT unknown science.

        Remain critical, rational and very sceptical.

        And debate along those same lines, rather than your fact-free, emotional ones.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that recent post from Willis showing his analysis of the SL data and he doesn’t buy the Uni Colorado adjustments. Don’t forget that NOAA doesn’t show the GIA adjustment.
    And of course their GIA adjustments are AGAIN based on more MODELING of the planet. Who would’ve guessed???
    And he states that finding acceleration of 0.097 mm/ year would be very difficult to accomplish . And MEASURED FROM about 1280 klms ( 800 miles ???) above our planet is really stretching things. MUNGING the SL data is an interesting new term.
    Probably one of the best and thorough posts about SL s from Willis EVER. And he explains the data adjustments and what it means.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/21/munging-the-sea-level-data/

    • Peter says:

      Hi spangled drongo

      I would like to read your response to the question I asked: You dismissed Julia’s section as ‘religion’. Is there any scientific substance at all in her comments that she emailed re the hockey stick reference? I accept that there are many flawed models and that many people have made erroneous predictions but the focus on on that question.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Peter, please reply under the comment.

        You say; “The question is not whether Earth’s climate has changed before, it’s why the climate is changing now.”

        You can’t be serious?

        Climates never stop changing.

        I would have thought that If they have changed before, as evidenced by higher and lower temperatures awa sea levels, without CO2 influence, surely the obvious question is; why are they not doing the same today?

        And if Julia has based her study on the Hockeystick, she is obviously convinced that it is factual. And the supporting link you supply even uses M. Mann as a reference. Oh dear.

        It’s just that science awa most rational people don’t agree that current climate is any different from the normal climate we have always enjoyed.

        • Peter says:

          Hullo spangled drongo

          I believe you would endorse the view, along with others on this site, that “There is no climate emergency.. and that “A climate crusade….destroys economies and ultimately lives will be as bad, or worse.”

          Here in Canberra and indeed in many parts of Australia, not that long ago, we had a smoke-filled January and it cost the country millions of dollars. Insurance firms are now excluding people/places or cranking up the cost of financial protection to prohibitive levels. For climate sceptics the upheaval of the economy seems to be the greatest evil, along with the thought that we are unnecessarily cutting off our financial legs to be virtuous global citizens when other countries’ practices remain unbated.

          Risk management is often couched in economic terms. But it seems to me, perhaps naively, that events such as the current Covid pandemic, Chernobyl, the Japanese nuclear disaster, the loss of life in war, the pollution of cities, deforestation and loss of habits, huge increases in population and loss of biodiversity etc take one into a different way of thinking – transcending money.

          I would love to think that climate sceptics are the true discerners in this world – a smaller but truly prophetic group – but for all risk management scenarios the question is: have I factored in everything? What if my analysis is wrong? Will I have done a terrible disservice? It apples, of course, to those climate alarmists as well and the stakes are high.

          • spangled drongo says:

            The main thing you have to factor in, in this debate, Peter, is whether there is anything happening today that has not happened before, that you can factually connect with human CO2 emissions.

            And definitely state is only due to those emissions.

            If there is not, you don’t destroy the economy, productivity, society and the environment, as we are doing right now, for a religious, unscientific belief.

            Now, can you name anything different that is happening because of ACO2?

          • spangled drongo says:

            “And definitely state is only due to those emissions.”

            Correction, I should have said:

            “Provide measurable evidence that it is only due to those emissions.”

          • Peter says:

            Hullo spangled drongo

            I can not provide a definitive study relating to specific harmful effects related only to those emissions.

            It may be that you have all the bases covered but for most people there is a sense of heightened alarm certainly caution. We can already see the economics changing, with the US under Biden, changing the world’s direction. So in terms of the points I raised about risk management, you fall into a camp that is in the minority. That in itself is not a problem but can you categorically say you have missed nothing? Do you have any doubts at all about your position?

            These are some considerations from Julia’s article that tend to persuade people of the need for reducing carbon emissions. Do any of them strike a cord with you?

            Today, however, CO2 levels have soared to 420 p.p.m. — the highest they’ve been in at least three million years. The concentration of CO2 is also increasing about 100 times faster than it did at the end of the last ice age.

            We’re now emitting carbon much faster than it was released 56 million years ago.

            CO2 levels have soared to 420 p.p.m. — the highest they’ve been in at least three million years.

            Numerous studies have found that more than 90 percent of scientists who study Earth’s climate agree that the planet is warming and that humans are the primary cause.

            Currently, more than 97 percent of publishing climate scientists agree on the existence and cause of climate change (as does nearly 60 percent of the general population of the United States).

            Climate change inaction: A lot of it came from coordinated messaging campaigns by companies and politicians that opposed climate action.

            To bolster the falsehood of lingering scientific doubt, some people have pointed to things like the Global Warming Petition Project, which urged the United States government to reject the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, an early international climate agreement. However, nearly 90 percent of them studied something other than Earth, atmospheric or environmental science, and the signatories included just 39 climatologists. Most were engineers, doctors, and others whose training had little to do with the physics of the climate system.

            Denialists often use it as evidence that climate science isn’t settled. However, in science, uncertainty doesn’t imply a lack of knowledge. Rather, it’s a measure of how well something is known. In the case of climate change, scientists have found a range of possible future changes in temperature, precipitation and other important variables — which will depend largely on how quickly we reduce emissions. But uncertainty does not undermine their confidence that climate change is real and that people are causing it.

          • Boambee John says:

            Peter

            “for most people there is a sense of heightened alarm certainly caution. We can already see the economics changing, with the US under Biden, changing the world’s direction”

            This is an alarmist line often used by Stu. Essentially it says that reality doesn’t matter, politics has triumphed.

            This is a silly way of deciding whether to wind down our economy. In their current state of development, wind, solar and batteries cannot provide the reliable continuous power necessary for a modern economy.

            If you follow this line, the only practical ways forward, absent a sudden breakthrough with renewable power, are HELE coal or nuclear.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Currently, more than 97 percent of publishing climate scientists agree on the existence and cause of climate change”

            Have you got any evidence to support this?

            Most certainly agree that climate change is happening. I don’t think the “climate denier” you talk about exists because everyone knows climate is always changing.

            But they don’t agree on what is the cause of that change.

            Particularly your evidence-free version.

          • Peter says:

            Hullo Boambee John

            You argue that for those who support action around climate change “reality doesn’t matter, politics has triumphed.This is a silly way of deciding..”

            The issues, and indeed the stakes, are probably much higher than you allow. Given the number of scientists, particularly those specialising in climate change, the complexities and indeed the uncertainties have possible effects that transcend the boundaries of your beatific modern economy. Terms such as ‘tipping point’, ‘fusion’, ‘pandemic’, ‘nuclear reaction’ ,population explosion’ etc have the embedded concept of a geometric progression that gets right out kilter. I’m not convinced that your dismissal of options as ‘silly’ is accepted by the majority of scholars and researchers in climate change. It’s logically possible that your thinking is far more comprehensive and knowledgeable that those in the article I cited to spangled drongo but the chances of this are not high, I believe. Too many fall from great and good for you to doubt the likelihood.

          • Boambee John says:

            Peter

            I don’t argue that “reality doesn’t matter, politics has triumphed”, alarmists do. Their idea seems to be to develop an air of inevitability, so that they no longer have to address the scientific issues, where their claims can be challenged with actual data.

            It is a pathetic ploy.

        • Peter says:

          Hullo spangled drongo

          You inquired about the evidence supporting climate change:

          John Cook1,2,3,16, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13Show full author list
          Published 13 April 2016
          https://web.archive.org/web/20201101060911/https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002?platform=hootsuite

          • spangled drongo says:

            “You inquired about the evidence supporting climate change”

            No, Peter, the empirical [measurable] evidence supporting HUMAN CAUSED climate change.

            Please supply a quote of that evidence in any one of the thousands of science papers that cover the subject.

  • Neville says:

    Another great interview of Dr Steve Koonin from the Outsiders team from Sky News. Compared to the idiocy we usually get from the MSM this informed Scientist’s opinion is a breath of fresh air.

    Here’s part of the transcript and the video link.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhUsF01oJlM

    “Modest global warming will be “beneficial” for the planet and even if the temperature increases by two or three degrees Celsius the impacts will be “modest”, according to Professor Steven Koonin. “It is in fact getting warmer, it’s gotten about one degree Celsius warmer since 1900, and that warming is thought to be in part due to human influences and in part due to natural phenomenon,” he told Sky News. “The assessment reports say that a modest warming will actually be beneficial for the globe, and only when we get to two or three degrees do we start to see some impacts, and even those, the official reports say, will be modest.” Professor Koonin authored ‘Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters’ and served as the undersecretary for science in the US Department of Energy under the Obama administration. “The truth is that this climate change is not a hoax, but it’s not horrible either,” he said. “I believe that we will be able to manage it largely by adaptation because reducing our emissions on the scale required to make a difference is, I would say, practically impossible.” Professor Koonin said when “drastic, large-scale” measures proposed start to impact ordinary people, they’re going to “stand back and say is this really worth it, is this really so much of a threat”. “Even if the warming got as much as three or four degrees, the reports themselves say that the economic impact will be equivalent to a couple years’ worth of growth at the end of the century, 80 years from now,” he said. “Even the official reports say this is not a big deal economically.” Professor Koonin said depending on the climate model, the Earth could warm from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius.”

    • Stu says:

      Typical of the “talent” that Sky throws up, pun intended. I think Koonin like others is missing the point about temperature rise. The scientists talk of a rise of 1 or 2 degrees or more, and they are referring to average global temperature. As already happening in some places the actual change varies greatly. So for example the Siberian temperature anomaly for last northern summer and winter is many degrees more than that, with significant effects on perma frost, release of methane and melting of ice cover. Have a look at temperatures through the middle east this last week for very early very high temperatures. Variations in temperature are having bad effects on certain crops, flowering too early then being burned by frosts etc. Ask why the pinot growers here in Oz are moving steadily south, even to Tassie. So Koonin is being very simplistic and misleading, but if course he is not a climate scientist.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        ” So Koonin is being very simplistic and misleading, but if course he is not a climate scientist.”

        Perhaps climate science needs an impartial but expert reviewer. Koonin seems to fit the bill.

  • Neville says:

    Another new climate study has found no warming in Antarctica for 70 years and UAH V6 satellite data also shows no warming for 42 years.

    Here is the link to the Nature study, but scientist’s modeling are hopeful that in time Antarctica may start to warm. But so far this is probably just more wishful thinking.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-020-00143-w

    • Chris Warren says:

      Stupid Neville,

      Of course you may not find warming elsewhere where ice is on the top of mountains such as Mt Everest etc. The authors explain the reason for lack of warming as:

      “The orography of the AIS, which towers nearly 4?km above sea level at its highest, is possibly the most obvious factor which could account for weak (or non-existent) warming over the Antarctic continent.”

      Warming does not have to happen everywhere at the same time.

      But more than this – the authors state that if the continent was flat – warming would occur, so again this stupid, noxious Neville has posted stuff which contradicts his own argument.

      But worse than this pile of falsification. Next Neville claims that: “UAH V6 satellite data also shows no warming for 42 years.” when UAH data measures temperature ABOVE the Antarctica, and the data from Roy Spencer shows a warming trend (anomaly) of atmosphere over South Pole land at 0.09. See bottom of latest data set here: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

      As Spencer’s data does show warming over South Pole land – Neville again has posted stuff that directly contradicts his own argument.

  • spangled drongo says:

    And hysterically stupid blith.

    Net South Pole warming is moving very slightly either side of absolute zero.

    Plus or minus nothing.

    What might the error range be, I wonder.

    • Stu says:

      “ Net South Pole warming is moving very slightly either side of absolute zero.”. Bloody hell SD I had no idea it was so cold in Antarctica. How does anything survive at minus 273°C and how is it possible to be a degree colder than “absolute” zero?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Very amusing stueyluv. But read again what blith said. “Roy Spencer shows a warming trend (anomaly) of atmosphere over South Pole land at 0.09.”

        Either side of absolute zero anomaly.

  • Boambee John says:

    Don

    My apologies for causing you some moderation work. I think the problem was an inadvertent change to my email address.

  • spangled drongo says:

    This mindless imbecility is heading our way and no doubt will really impress the likewise mindless climate religious here:

    https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/great-reset-law-europe-america-next#toggle-gdpr

    • Stu says:

      Ah yes “the blaze”.

      “ Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Failed Fact Checks
      Bias Rating: RIGHT
      Factual Reporting: MIXED
      Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
      Media Type: TV Station
      Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
      MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

      History

      Founded in 2011, The Blaze is an American conservative pay television network and website founded by talk radio personality Glenn Beck, based in Irving, Texas. The Blaze has studios and offices based in the Las Colinas urban district in Irving and Los Angeles. On December 3, 2018, The Blaze’s television arm merged with CRTV, the subscription video arm of Conservative Review.”

      But yep.

      • Boambee John says:

        Criticism from a lover of wild alarmist conspiracy theories obout the eeevviil Mudrock and Trump.

        Utterly convincing – not!

      • spangled drongo says:

        And as usual our stu-pid can’t handle the message.

        But shoots the messenger as his answer.

        Whatta guy!!

  • Neville says:

    Peter Ridd continues his long struggle against JCU and now there are new allegations of scientific fra-d.
    He says that the scientists who’ve taken them on are heroes and do so at high risk to their careers and future incomes.
    Of course the claim is the old one of failure to replicate the original + peer reviewed result in the journal Science.
    The study claims different types of odd fish behaviour because of increased ocean acidity, but these claims could not be replicated by the present research team.
    It’s well known that there are a certain percentage of scientific studies that cannot be replicated by later research and a percentage of Medical studies seem to follow a similar pattern.
    Yet some of the more extreme alarmist scientists want to cover up these allegations. Big surprise NOT.
    Here’s the last few paragraphs of Dr Peter Ridd’s article at the GWPF and the link.

    “The Science article, by Martin Enserink, is long, thoroughly researched, but well worth the read. It shows how corrupted the scientific establishment, from the funding bodies to the journals, has become. But it also shows that there still are scientists who value the truth over all else – and will jeopardise their careers to find the truth.

    It also shows that we need a formalised system for replicating important science results – especially if it is being used for public policy decisions. The present system of peer review, which is now well known to have, roughly, a 50% failure rate, is a pathetic apology for a quality assurance system.

    In Australia, I have been advocating for an Office of Science Review that would fund the type of work that the Magnificent 7 took upon themselves – replication, checking, and testing of important scientific work. My interest is the Great Barrier Reef. I believe much of the work claiming damage to the Reef has serious flaws. But most importantly, almost none of it has been subjected to rigorous replication or checking.

    It is time that the science organisations stop pretending there are no quality problems. This denial of the quality assurance problems is far worse than any possible fraud that may have been committed by individual scientists.

    The major institutions are deceiving the public about the reliability of their work.

    We are supposed to trust them but how can we?”

    Dr Peter Ridd — peterridd@yahoo.com.au

    https://www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-does-co2-cause-coral-reef-fish-to-alter-behaviour/?mc_cid=1f7bd1017d&mc_eid=80ee5bb983

  • Stu says:

    A reasonable question to ask Peter Ridd is “has any of his science been replicated”?

    • spangled drongo says:

      On anything specific?

      Or is that just another stu-pid question?

      With no bearing on the subject at all.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      That question should always be asked about any claims made in scientific “studies”.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That particularly applies to claims that require major changes, at huge expense, to existing processes. Like the claims made by climate “scientists”.

      I am sure that you would agree? Rather than pointing us to interminable papers reviewed by maaates, perhaps you could point us to replications by former sceptics?

      Note that former alarmists who have changed their opinions seem to be more common than those going the other way.

    • Stu says:

      Come now guys, don’t get all defensive. Ridd has laid out a log of claims about the reproducibility of scientific studies (specifically the GBR) and called for a new system of quality control of such science. In the process he directly criticised the science papers of more than a few of his contemporaries. Some of them have responded in journals to those claims. I am not aware he has responded to those papers. And given the thrust of his claims it is reasonable to ask if any of his own work has been peer reviewed and or replicated. Acknowledging of course the point Ridd makes about the difficulty in funding of studies which only repeat other work. But my understanding of the sort of science studied on the GBR is that there is frequently overlap and the citation often reflects that.

      Bj, regarding climate science there seems to be abundant cross checking given the now long period of study, repetition of studies on an annual basis (e.g. much cryosphere science which is difficult to sustain year round) and the many other studies which are replicated periodically and regionally, etc, etc to assess the range of change.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Stop evading my point. Do you or do you not agree that peer (“maaates”) review should be replaced by active attempts at replication?

        Or do you accept the attitude exposed in the Climategate emails, that climate “scientists” should be able to conceal their data, lest sceptics attempt to discredit (ie, replicate) their results?

        • Stu says:

          I am not a research scientist. I think peer review is worth preserving, it is often more than just “mates” depending on the quality of the journal. But also replication is a good idea for science changing studies, but not everything would warrant that treatment.

          As for “climategate’, that has been debunked many times over, there was no case to answer, except for the perpetrators of the break in (who remain unpunished) and attempted discrediting of honest scientists doing their job.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Ah, the good old “debunked”. Was it proven that the emails were bogus? If so, why the mention of “perpetrators”?

            If they were genuine, they can’t be “debunked”. They are what they are, a record of the inner workings of alarmism, complete with excluding anyone not part of the “in group”.

            As for your earlier comment that “abundant cross checking given the now long period of study, repetition of studies on an annual basis (e.g. much cryosphere science which is difficult to sustain year round) and the many other studies which are replicated periodically and regionally, etc, etc to assess the range of change”, replicated by whom? The original researcher? Better than maaates review, do it yourself.

            Climate science has no credibility until it opens itself up to review and debate with its opponents, not just the “in group”.

            PS, we know that you are not any kind of a scientist, much less a research scientist.

          • Stu says:

            “ PS, we know that you are not any kind of a scientist, much less a research scientist.” et tu, Brute.

          • Aynsley Kellow says:

            Only somebody who has not read the Climategate emails could possibly say they have been ‘debunked’.
            Let me quote for Stu mis discussion of the issue in my chapter in ‘Climate Change: The Facts’ – and then challenge him to state how they have been ‘debunked’:

            Climategate revealed that editors were actively seeking negative reviews. For example, Keith Briffa stated: ‘Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting – to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can.’ There was evidence of ensuring papers were rejected and evidence of regret that some ‘slipped through the cracks’.

            This from Michael Mann:
            While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers, perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn’t see the light of the day at J. Climate, it was inevitable that such papers might slip through the cracks at e.g. GRL …’
            Mann also demonstrated a desire to counter research that might not be ‘helpful’, seeking early access to an advance copy from the leading journal Nature:
            we think it will be important for us to do something on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its [sic] likely that naysayers are going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere. Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature’s embargo (i.e., we wouldn’t post any article until the paper goes public) and we don’t expect to in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure that the right message is emphasized.

            Mann had suggestions as to how non-compliant journals should be treated after Climate Research published a paper critical of Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’:
            I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels – reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute …

            Tom Wigley went further:
            Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work – must get rid of [Editor-in-Chief] von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

            This ‘Community’ also played a gatekeeping role in IPCC reports, where its members occupied key positions as authors and editors. For example, Phil Jones wrote to Michael Mann, promising ‘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!’

            They also helped shape media reporting of climate research by assisting journalists – from the BBC to the New York Times – by providing helpful interpretations. The close relationship between environment non-government organisations (NGOs) and climate scientists demonstrated by Donna Laframboise (2011), was also apparent, with Barrie Pittock (a CSIRO scientist in Australia) complaining to Mike Hulme at CRU that material for a WWF leaflet was insufficiently alarmist:
            I would be very concerned if the material comes out under WWF auspices in a way that can be interpreted as saying that ‘even a greenie group like WWF’ thinks large areas of the world will have negligible climate change.

            Climategate revealed that members of the ‘community’ themselves had reservations about controversial research such as the Hockey Stick, a reinterpretation of the temperature record of the past millennium using tree rings and other proxies used in IPCC Third Assessment Report to support conclusions of alarm. For example, Ed Cook wrote: ‘I have my doubts about the MBH camp [Mann, Bradley and Hughes – authors of the Hockey Stick paper] … They tend to work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways.’ He also wrote: ‘I do find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event to be grossly premature and probably wrong.’

            He was not alone in these thoughts. Tom Wigley wrote: ‘At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work – an opinion I have held for some time.’

            Keith Briffa was also sceptical: ‘Between you and I, I believe there may be problems with the analysis of the Bristlecone data [a key element of the Hockey Stick paper]. We can talk by phone about this.’ These problems had been identified by sceptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick, but the ‘community’ did not support them publicly.

            An important issue surrounding the Hockey Stick controversy was the refusal of Mann to release data to those who wished to scrutinise his research, a refusal hardly consistent with good scientific practice (Montford 2010). This was not an isolated example, and complaints about the lack of data archiving have led to an improvement in this practice by some journals, including greater expectation of the scrutiny of data by referees.

            Colleagues at CRU repeatedly discussed tactics to avoid releasing data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. While they provided data to ‘trusted’ scientists, they gave numerous excuses for concealing the data on which their findings and temperature records were based. Scientists were even advised to delete data, which when done after a freedom of information (FOI) request was a criminal offence, Jones (BBC 2010) later stating he sent this email ‘out of frustration’. It emerged subsequently that much of the original raw data upon which its research and its temperature series were based had been destroyed.

            Given the centrality of data transparency to the scientific method, the response by Jones to a request from Australian sceptic Warwick Hughes for access to temperature data was remarkable. After initially suggesting an arrangement with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) precluded this, Jones wrote to Hughes:

            Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it (Hughes 2005).
            As it happened, another Australian, John McLean, later undertook an audit of CRU’s global temperature record (HadCRUT, data driving the climate models) and found numerous embarrassing mistakes, acknowledged by the UK Met Office and IPCC (McLean, 2017). In some cases, ships reported ocean temperatures from locations up to 100km inland.

            The emails provided clear evidence of a corruption of the scientific method – noble cause corruption, as I have called it.

            Now – debunk that, Stu.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “Et tu Brutus”

            Actually, as I have mentioned before, I do have science qualifications.

          • Boambee John says:

            Aynsley

            Stu doesn’t like to read that sort of thing, it might cause the scales to fall from his eyes.

  • Stu says:

    Classy not. All along the issue was about a small group contributing to the East Anglia group. Surely even you know that the field of climate science is much broader. E.g.

    “ Some critics claim that the e-mails invalidate the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world scientific body that reaffirmed in a 2007 report that the earth is warming, sea levels are rising and that human activity is “very likely” the cause of “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century.” But the IPCC’s 2007 report, its most recent synthesis of scientific findings from around the globe, incorporates data from three working groups, each of which made use of data from a huge number of sources — of which CRU was only one. The synthesis report notes key disagreements and uncertainties but makes the “robust” conclusion that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” (A robust finding is defined as “one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models and assumptions, and is expected to be relatively unaffected by uncertainties.”)

    The IPCC has released a statement playing down the notion that CRU scientists skewed the world body’s report or kept it from considering the views of skeptical scientists:”

    But you stick to your science conspiracy theory diatribe if it makes you feel good.

    And remember actual climate trends continue to refute your position.

    • Aynsley Kellow says:

      Of course it was centred on CRU – that’s where the emails were leaked from!

      But note other mentioned in the small selection:
      Dave Stahle – Uni of Arkansas
      Michael Mann – Penn State
      Tom Wigley – Uni of Adelaide, UCAR
      Barrie Pittock – CSIRO
      Ed Cook – Columbia

      As for ‘science conspiracy theory diatribe’ – please read some sociology of science before embarrassing yourself by demonstrating your ignorance of the area. Start, perhaps, with Kuhn.

      As for ‘actual climate trends continue to refute your position’! A strong statement, given that observations track below the model projections.

      Ironic that you cite the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report. I was an Expert Reviewer for that. I have seen how the sausage was made, to quote Bismarck.

      • Stu says:

        So to summarise you suggest that East Anglia is (was) the effective centre of global climate change research. I am sure East Anglia would be chuffed, but I do not buy that story, sorry. To link particular emails from certain individuals from elsewhere with East Anglia as part of a grand global conspiracy is a long bow, what ever went on, which is disputed anyhow. You sound a little like the recalcitrant Arizona Republicans with their vote audit.

        As for your “expert reviewer” status un 2007, how many others were also classified as such, and what was their competence? I recall the infamous (non science trained) Lord Monckton of Brenchly also claiming that title. Good for you Dr Whatever.

        Oh and as for “ As for ‘actual climate trends continue to refute your position’! A strong statement, given that observations track below the model projections.”. I thought you guys keep rubbishing models. What I am talking about is trends in actual climate measurements. A good example is the last few years in the Siberian Tundra and significant changes in key glacial water sources in significant lications. But you stick with rubbishing the models if you think it helps your case.

        • Aynsley Kellow says:

          You again demonstrate why it is simply a waste of time engaging with you. If you cannot grasp the point that a leak of emails from CRU might be a little CRU-centric, you are beyond rational discourse.

          As for citing the Siberian Tundra and a couple of other locations as evidence of global climate change!

          I suggest you read Dr Koonin’s book – where he points out that the media discourse you follow is not supported even by the IPCC or the US National study. That about half the observed warming is likely anthropogenic; That RCP8.5 is highly unrealistic – and the basis for claims of ‘climate emergency’ by the autistic child and the senile president – and note how it was pushed by hedge fund operators Steyer and Bloomberg to advance their interests.

          But, as for you Stu – I will engage no further. You are beyond reason and evidence.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          No, Aynsley did not “suggest that East Anglia is (was) the effective centre of global climate change research”. He stated that the emails came from there. For that reason the discussion of the emails centered on there, but other research centres were also mentioned.

          Your defence of the climate scientists is becoming fanatical.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “link particular emails from certain individuals from elsewhere with East Anglia as part of a grand global conspiracy is a long bow, what ever went on, which is disputed anyhow”

          Did you read the quotes provided by Aynsley? Don’t just dismiss them, explain why the plain meaning of the words is incorrect.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Missed this little gem last night.

          “As for ‘actual climate trends continue to refute your position’! A strong statement, given that observations track below the model projections.”. I thought you guys keep rubbishing models. What I am talking about is trends in actual climate measurements.”

          That is exactly what Aynsley was saying. The models do not match measured reality.

          Still, it is good to see that you now realise the weakness of the models, even though you were defending them only a couple of weeks ago.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the IEA 2020 TOTAL energy graph showing countries and regions from 2010 to 2019 and forecast out to 2040. China has seen the biggest increase in TOTAL energy, but India + Africa and SE Asia etc will dwarf China in the next 20 years.

    The EU and USA or OECD countries will have fallen even further behind by 2040. And while those same stu-pid OECD countries are either freezing or sweating in homes, businesses or factories etc the new energy giants will be forging ahead to a very prosperous and VERY POWERFUL future. S&W are a TOXIC disaster and will regularly fail for the OECD leaders or morons plus their citizens.

    This graph spells out our future and it won’t be a bright one. Just ask the so called developing countries as we head towards 2040

    https://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/change-in-energy-use.jpg

  • Stu says:

    “ Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations. However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with “more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data – right down to the computer codes they use – to allow their findings to be properly verified”. Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.”

    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
    Science Assessment Panel
    Pennsylvania State University
    Independent Climate Change Email Review
    United States Environmental Protection Agency report
    Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce
    National Science Foundation

    Our retired professor does not wish to engage any further but I note he did not comment on my reference to his “expert reviewer status”. To clarify that point here is what the IPCC say:

    “ Experts are invited to register for the review through the website of the IPCC Working Group or Task Force responsible for the report. Because the aim of the expert review is to get the widest possible participation and broadest possible expertise, those who register are accepted unless they fail to demonstrate any relevant qualification. Sometimes the Working Group or Task Force Bureau concerned will also invite specific individuals to register to take part in the expert review, for instance if they have a particular area of expertise to contribute. This does not give them more legitimacy than any other expert reviewer. Expert reviewers may submit comments on one sentence or section of a report, or a whole chapter of the full report. They may consider scientific substance or the structure of the report. Often they will point out a published paper that the report authors may not have included in their assessment, but which could be relevant.”

    “Expert reviewer” is therefore perhaps an overblown title to claim.

    Quite a few, like Monckton overplay the title to boost their credibility. What was Kellow’s role in that report? What was his “relevant qualification” that was accepted for the role. Does he agree he is more of a political science policy wonk than a scientist. Certainly he is long active as an advocate for the negative forces in the climate issue. His “expert reviewer” status is certainly a key factor in the IPA listing of his credentials, taking up one line of the seven they quote.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Penn State, EPA, to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”

      So you do accept that the emails were genuine? You just claim that it was all a big misunderstanding? Riiigghhht!

      Trust is a valuable commodity. All the whitewash in the world won’t bring it back, it has to be earned again. So far the alarmists have been very reluctant to do that.

  • Neville says:

    Don’t forget that if our stu-pid, TOXIC S&W ENERGY generation DEPENDS on the WEATHER we can never be sure when we will be able to GENERATE enough ENERGY.
    Our demands may be great when it is very cold or very hot or when the factories etc require maximum energy but our ability to generate enough all depends on the weather.
    Not enough wind or too much wind + rainy or cloudy days + no Solar energy generated at night guarantees very high risk for any country stu-pid enough to go down this path.
    OH and that’s before we factor in their most stu-pid idea of a changeover to EVs and more super toxicity to come for our landfill environment, FOREVER.

    • Stu says:

      You must cry into your soup every night. All these terrible, “stupid”, things you worry about like S&W and EV’s are all happening faster than ever. What are you going to do about it, other than quietly bleat here?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Do try to keep up. Even in uber-woke California people aren’t jumping on the EV bandwagon; some are even jumping off.

        And an EV is utterly useless without reliable continuous power to re-charge it. As even you have admitted solar and wind are not currently adequate for the task.

      • Neville says:

        Here’s my comment earlier, so please check the IEA forecast for world energy by 2040 and then please start to WAKE UP.

        Here’s the IEA 2020 TOTAL energy graph showing countries and regions from 2010 to 2019 and forecast out to 2040. China has seen the biggest increase in TOTAL energy, but India + Africa and SE Asia etc will dwarf China in the next 20 years.

        The EU and USA or OECD countries will have fallen even further behind by 2040. And while those same stu-pid OECD countries are either freezing or sweating in homes, businesses or factories etc the new energy giants will be forging ahead to a very prosperous and VERY POWERFUL future. S&W are a TOXIC disaster and will regularly fail for the OECD leaders or morons plus their citizens.

        This graph spells out our future and it won’t be a bright one for the OECD. Just ask the so called developing countries as we head towards 2040.

        https://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/change-in-energy-use.jpg

  • Stu says:

    I missed this bit “ because the review is essentially open to all through a self-declaration of expertise, it follows that having been a registered expert reviewer does not by itself serve as a qualification of the expert or support their credibility in a different context.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    The perfect essay on climate change:

    Cloud Feedback, if there is any, is Negative

    Author: M Jonas

    Affiliations: None

    ABSTRACT

    Virtually all the climate models referenced by the IPCC show a strong positive cloud feedback. Cloud feedback is the process by which a changing surface temperature affects cloud cover, which in turn affects surface temperature. In this paper, all monthly satellite data for sea surface temperatures and cloud cover over the oceans, for the whole available period of July 1986 to June 2017, is analysed, in order to test this feature of the climate models. As expected, the trends for the overall period are of rising sea surface temperatures and of falling cloud cover. But the analysis also shows an unexpected relationship between sea surface temperature and cloud cover: increases in sea surface temperature are associated with increases – not decreases – in cloud cover over the next few months. Moreover, the cloud cover increases tend to intercept a greater proportion of incoming solar radiation than they do of outgoing ocean radiation. The inevitable conclusion is that cloud feedback is negative. In any case, the observed reduction in cloud cover over the oceans between 1986 and 2017 could not have been a feedback from rising temperature. The implications for climate models are devastating.

    • Stu says:

      Hang on a mo, have you not been arguing that the models do not take account of clouds? Which way is it pal?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        The point has always been more technical, that modelling the formatiin of clouds is, at best, in its infancy.

        The basis of this paper is empirical measurements over an extended period, which demonstrate that the models have been inaccurate in their assumptions about clouds.

        Sloppy try at a gotcha by you, fail!

      • spangled drongo says:

        What do they call your problem, stu? CD?

        I have been trying to tell you about the models and their completely incorrect assumption of positive feedback for clouds.

        They certainly don’t ignore clouds, they just assume they do the opposite of what is basic commonsense.

        Read what the first line says; “Virtually all the climate models referenced by the IPCC show a strong positive cloud feedback.”

        And later;

        “The inevitable conclusion is that cloud feedback is negative…..The implications for climate models are devastating.”

        This is the stu-pidity that now rules.

        • Stu says:

          So think about that for a minute. If the models are poor because they assume negative feedback from clouds that implies they are underestimating the warming effect, which you say does not exist.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Read the first words of that abstract again stu.

            The models assume POSITIVE feedback.

            It’s not just your evidence that is lacking.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            With that kind of reading comprehension, it’s no wonder that the alarmists were able to deceive you so easily.

            And that you couldn’t understand the deceptive practices shown up by the Climategate emails, which destroyed trust in climate science.

          • Stu says:

            You are correct, my bad. It is just that you guys collectively post so much waffle that one starts to skim it looking for gems. I stand corrected on this one.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “I stand corrected on this one.”

            Thanks for that but to pursue it just a little further;

            If those models were reprogrammed to show clouds producing cooling rather than warming, what would you suspect their projections might then be?

            No warming?

            Actual cooling?

            Which means that the present mild warming is being most likely caused by natural climate variability.

            As it always has been.

            It undermines the whole theory of CAGW.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “you … post so much waffle that one starts to skim it looking for gems”

            Fixed to refer to your occasionally manic posting of alarmist drivel. Perhaps if you read and thought about much of what you post you might decide not to post it.

            Certainly we find few gems.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Will this ever come to Australia?:

    “UK universities forced to protect freedom of speech.

    “New legislation to be introduced in the UK will force university student unions to protect freedom of speech on campus and see them fined if they “cancel” speakers or gag academics.

    “The new law, outlined in the Queens Speech on Tuesday, is part of a two-pronged attack by the British government on “cancel culture,” with the second aimed at social media.

    “Under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, responsibility for freedom of speech will be placed on student unions for the first time. Visiting speakers, academics or students will be able to claim compensation if a university’s duty to freedom of speech is regarded as having been breached.”

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/uk-universities-forced-to-protect-freedom-of-speech/news-story/aa50832ba9d683f7055f5384b240d1fc

    • Neville says:

      SD I just wish we had the same laws here in OZ, but so far no go.
      Who knows perhaps the Coalition might grow a set and try and force this through the parliament and hopefully be supported by the so called liberal states.
      But I’ll believe it when I see it and the L W loonies will continue to shout down sensible people and do their best to cancel them at every opportunity.
      At the moment unis are a place for LW cowards and con merchants and if you have a different, sensible ( even mainstream opinion) opinion you can be cancelled and be stripped of any chance of publicly voicing that opinion.

  • Neville says:

    More on the DEMs idiocy of the TOXIC ,RUINABLES S&W changeover in California by 2045. That’s supposed to be 100% of 15% of their TOTAL ENERGY by 2045.
    Electricity makes up about 15% of the TOTAL energy of Cal, so their quest is a TOTAL waste of trillions of $ for a ZERO dividend or return for the poor taxpayers.
    So they will waste Trillions $ down the drain, have ZERO change on SLs, extreme weather events, tornadoes, rainfall, droughts, etc, etc and the entire TOXIC MESS will have to be buried every 20 years and ongoing FOREVER.
    OH and the other 85% of the energy required to run the rest of their economy will be sourced from what—????
    Meanwhile the developing world’s energy growth will see soaring co2 emissions that will far exceed China’s growth in ENERGY for decades to come.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/12/californias-zero-carbon-plans-can-anybody-here-do-basic-arithmetic/

  • Neville says:

    BTW I think I should link to the REAL WORLD IEA ( EU link) ENERGY graph every week until our donkeys wake up.
    The historical data are in light brown while the projected data are in blue. Note China, India, Africa, SE Asia, Middle east, Latin America data until 2040 and then look at projections for OECD countries until 2040.
    WAKEY, WAKEY?

    https://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/change-in-energy-use.jpg

  • Neville says:

    BTW to add up the “Millions tonnes of oil equivalent” numbers for the OECD and NON OECD countries from the above IEA graph.
    By 2040 the non OECD would have added another +2,635 million tonnes oil Equiv and OECD would have REDUCED by minus -475 mils tonnes oil equiv. THINK ABOUT IT.

    • Chris Warren says:

      So what is the temperature impact – THINK ABOUT IT

      • Boambee John says:

        Less than you (and the IPCC) think. Particularly if recent work mentiined above eventually proves that clouds provide negative, not positive, feedback.

  • Neville says:

    Mark P Mills in the WSJ has written an informed article explaining why Biden’s so called GREEN ENERGY transition is a bogus disaster.

    He uses the latest IEA report as his source and it just supports everything we’ve been trying to say here over the last few years and on other blogs online. He even throws doubt on whether TOXIC EVs would save very much in co2 emissions. Here’s the article and the link.

    https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2021/05/12/bidens-not-so-clean-energy-transition/
    “May 12, 2021 • Opinions, U.S.
    “Biden’s not-so-clean energy transition ”

    Credit: “The International Energy Agency exposes the hidden environmental costs and infeasibility of going green. | By Mark P. Mills | The Wall Street Journal | May 11, 2021 | http://www.wsj.com ~~”

    “The International Energy Agency, the world’s pre-eminent source of energy information for governments, has entered the political debate over whether the U.S. should spend trillions of dollars to accelerate the energy transition favored by the Biden administration. You know, the plan to use far more “clean energy” and far less hydrocarbons—the oil, natural gas and coal that today supply 84% of global energy needs. The IEA’s 287-page report released this month, “The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,” is devastating to those ambitions. A better title would have been: “Clean Energy Transitions: Not Soon, Not Easy and Not Clean.”

    The IEA assembled a large body of data about a central, and until now largely ignored, aspect of the energy transition: It requires mining industries and infrastructure that don’t exist. Wind, solar and battery technologies are built from an array of “energy transition minerals,” or ETMs, that must be mined and processed. The IEA finds that with a global energy transition like the one President Biden envisions, demand for key minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metals would explode, rising by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040.

    The world doesn’t have the capacity to meet such demand. As the IEA observes, albeit in cautious bureaucratese, there are no plans to fund and build the necessary mines and refineries. The supply of ETMs is entirely aspirational. And if it were pursued at the quantities dictated by the goals of the energy transition, the world would face daunting environmental, economic and social challenges, along with geopolitical risks.

    The IEA stipulates up front one underlying fact that advocates of a transition never mention: Green-energy machines use far more critical minerals than conventional-energy machines do. “A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired power plant,” the report says. “Since 2010, the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables has risen.” That was merely to bring wind and solar to a 10% share of the world’s electricity.

    As the IEA notes dryly, the transition is a “shift from a fuel-intensive to a material-intensive energy system.” That means a shift away from liquids and gases whose extraction and transport leave a very light footprint on the land and are transported easily, cheaply and efficiently, and toward big-footprint mines, the energy-intensive transport of massive amounts of rocks and other solid materials, and subsequent chemical processing and refining.

    Spooling up production can’t happen overnight. The IEA observes something every miner knows: “It has taken on average over 16 years to move mining projects from discovery to first production.” Start tomorrow and new ETM production will begin only after 2035. This is a considerable problem for the Biden administration’s plan to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035.

    In what may become the understatement of the decade, the IEA concludes that such long lead times “raise questions about the ability of suppliers to ramp up output if demand were to pick up rapidly.” The conditional “if” is a discordant qualifier given the IEA itself has endorsed, and nearly all its member states have already pledged, a rapid transition. The clear consequence is that “deployment of clean energy technologies is set to supercharge demand for critical minerals.”

    Credit the IEA for acknowledging that this will require a global mining boom that leaves in its wake all manner of environmental implications. “Mining and mineral processing require large volumes of water”—a serious issue when around half of global lithium and copper production takes place in areas of high water stress—and “pose contamination risks through acid mine drainage, wastewater discharge and the disposal of tailings.”

    The IEA falls backs on the usual admonition that mitigating these risks will require “strengthening international collaboration” for everything from pollution to labor practices. But the history here isn’t promising. IEA data show that expanded ETM mining will occur mainly in countries with “low governance scores” where “corruption and bribery pose major liability risks.”

    The IEA may be the first major agency to flag the geopolitical risks of the energy transition, again with copious data. Today the oil-and-gas market is characterized by supply diversity. The top three producers, among them the U.S., account for less than half of world supply. The top three producers for three key ETMs, however, control more than 80% of global supply. Here we find China utterly dominant while the U.S. isn’t even a player.

    Well buried in the report is a warning about the “high emissions intensities” of ETMs. Energy use per pound mined is even trending up. This is no arcane nuance. It’s the key hidden factor that determines whether, or to what extent, a clean-energy machine actually reduces carbon-dioxide emissions on net. The IEA data show that, depending on the location and nature of future mines, the emissions from obtaining ETMs could wipe out much or most of the emissions saved by driving electric cars.

    Worse yet, radical increases in demand will raise commodity prices, which reverberate throughout the global economy. When it comes to batteries, the IEA notes this could “eat up” the anticipated reductions in manufacturing costs expected from the “learning effects” of increased production. It’s an outcome that runs counter to the narrative of inevitably cheaper green-energy machines over time.

    If such a report had come from a pro-hydrocarbon organization, the group would be dismissed, if not canceled outright. Credit the IEA for boldly going where few policy makers have gone before. As President Obama might say, we can’t dig our way out of this problem.”

    “Mr. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a partner in Montrose Lane, an energy-tech venture fund, and author of “The Cloud Revolution: How the Convergence of New Technologies Will Unleash the Next Economic Boom and a Roaring 2020s,” forthcoming in October.”
    Source: The International Energy Agency exposes the hidden environmental costs and infeasibility of going green. | By Mark P. Mills | The Wall Street Journal | May 11, 2021 | http://www.wsj.com

    • spangled drongo says:

      You’ve got to wonder, Neville, how the majority of a smart population could ever get that stupid to put up with this.

  • spangled drongo says:

    When govt agencies repeatedly do this to reverse the facts and promote their propaganda, you would think there would be laws brought in to make them tell the truth:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/13/caught-inconvenient-u-s-wildfire-data-has-been-disappeared-by-national-interagency-fire-center-nifc_fire/

  • spangled drongo says:

    It’s all about the wokeyness of cancelling history and culture as we go evermore ignorant and socialist.

    More detail on this govt fraud:

    https://realclimatescience.com/2021/03/biden-administration-erasing-more-climate-history/

  • Boambee John says:

    Interesting to read on the It’s Time to Go thread the number of comments by former alarmists converted to climate scepticism by Don’s essays.

    No confessions so far by sceptics converted to alarmism by Stu and Chris.

  • Stu says:

    Have you nervous nevilles noticed that Tesla is shifting production to zero cobalt batteries. Isn’t science and technology wonderful?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      It is. What is Tesla using instead? Hamsters?

      • Stu says:

        No. Look it up. They have a new technology using silicone and no cobalt tabs. Too techy for me to explain. But another step on the road to a new world. Good news for those folk in the Congo in one way but they will need a new income some time in the future.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Where were hamsters ever used to generate electricity??

    • spangled drongo says:

      So are all the EV-makers, stu because by doing away with cobalt, EV-makers will be able to lower the cost and price of electric cars by up to a third.

      But you really mean Tesla’s battery suppliers, not Tesla.

  • Stu says:

    Tesla is the most vertically integrated vehicle manufacturer including joint projects with their battery suppliers. The big question is whether they decide to share the technology. Fork in the road I guess

  • spangled drongo says:

    Having lived with the incredible burden of batteries and wind generators that were nearly as efficient as today’s, but which always needed the instant backup of ICE generators for any serious work, to the point where we would pay the price of a house to connect to the grid when it became available, the thought of relying on batteries to travel this land when we already have a much better system in place, fills me with dread at the stupidity.

    I can understand it working to some extent in short-distance, high-traffic situations but this is Australia, not Belgium.

    And what problem does it solve, anyway?

    • Stu says:

      Oh you poor dear with such unhappy memories of old technology. We have travelled this road here before, but anyhow. Keep in mind you seem to be referring to an isolated farm type environment with small scale generation and probably lead acid battery storage, with manual checking, maintenance and control. No wonder you opted to connect to a grid when available. But now we have grid scale generation and storage and in the future little need for ICE based backup. With distributed storage, like with EV’s there us now very sophisticated battery management improving reliability and longevity. Look at the figures for the proposed KurriKurri gas unit, the latest information indicates a very low (1% ish) utilisation if built.

      We may not be Belgium, but we are one of the most urbanised nations, contrary to myth. The bulk of private cars operate most of the time in the urban areas. For those needing to travel further the network of charging facilities is expanding rapidly. I have friends who travel often with an EV who report no difficulty.

      Even our illustrious PM has walked back his “death of the ute” rhetoric, so you can relax. Although the current by-election is giving the “Scone to Canberra” range a run again. Also it sounds like ICE powered vehicles will be around long enough for you and not just as museum curiosities.

      “ And what problem does it solve, anyway?” Good question. Ask the auto manufacturers why they are shifting to an EV future. We are on the threshold of a new industrial era where big parts of existing supply chain will be replaced. Great strides are being made in the longevity of storage systems (already longer than 10 years for cars) and in the recycling of components, reducing the stress on supply of core elements. Throw in the era of autonomous control (not necessarily restricted to EV’s) and you change whole industries with reduction in accidents, hence smash repairers, tow trucks, police, ambulance, parking etc. Much of the coming change is beyond most peoples imagination at this stage, but that will change rapidly.

      Another benefit will be the reduction in noise in city areas as trucks and buses (as well as cars) become almost silent. I look forward to a world where the peace is not destroyed each week end by noisy petrol powered mowers and line trimmers etc. And that change over has started. I am told that the pristine snowy areas of the world will soon be rid of the smelly and noisy snowmobiles and serenity restored with electric variants. Perhaps we will see the same on the water with the wretched jet-ski flotilla changing over also.

      Just relax, aversion to change and fear of the future is a common affliction of the ageing, but it does pass, one way or another.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “But now we have grid scale generation and storage”

        Bridge for sale. Grid scale storage can perhaps cover a couple of hours with current technology, then nothing until the sun shines again, or the wind blows again.

        Come back when batteries are much higher capacity, and when you have a recharge system independent of the weather.

      • spangled drongo says:

        And stu, who has never provided one iota of evidence for CAGW, never given us a single personal observation on what’s going on outside – just reads the propaganda and believes this silly religion – pontificates on the magnificence of it all.

        If you had any technical experience of those early 3 bladed wind generators you would know that at least they had an automatic gearing system that allowed them to function effectively in all wind strengths, unlike the current ones.

        And if you want to know what doesn’t work, what does and to what degree, just go off-grid with your unreliables and you will get a wonderful education that you are sadly lacking.

        Does it ever dawn on you why no govts ever do a c/b analysis of any of their off-grid renewable generators?

        It’s because they are worse than a 100% failure.

        I know plenty of similar true believer hippos who vow to go off-grid to prove their belief and virtuosity.

        Somehow they never quite get around to it.

        But it’s no wonder “scientists”, politicians and MSM have such an easy and profitable life these days when their fakery is lapped up so eagerly by the “kiddies”.

        You wont last 5 minutes when your silly religion comes to pass, stu

  • Neville says:

    This report on EVs + batteries was made last year for the GWPF. Here’s a quote and the PDF link for that study.Here some facts about Professor Kelly. And the so called end of cobalt hasn’t taken place yet and there are many other TOXIC components in the mix.

    “About the author Michael Kelly is the Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge. He was a Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department for Communities and Local Government. He is a fellow of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is a trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This paper is an update and expansion of an article published at RealClear Energy.1 The author thanks both Andrew Montford and Gautam Kalghatgi for helpful comments on both facts and style.”

    “And the size of the battery means that they require huge quantities of materials in their manufacture. If we replace all of the UK vehicle fleet with EVs, and assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries, we would need the following materials:3 • 207,900 tonnes of cobalt – just under twice the annual global production; • 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate – three quarters of the world’s production; • at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium – nearly the entire world production of neodymium; • 2,362,500 tonnes of copper – more than half the world’s production in 2018. And this is just for the UK. It is estimated that the manufacturing capacity for EV batteries would have to increase more than 500-fold if we want the whole world to be transported by electric vehicles. The vast increases in the supply of the materials described above would go far beyond known reserves. If there are shortages of batteries, electric cars will be idled, and internal combustion engines taken out of mothballs on a large scale. Finally, it is worth considering the environmental impact of these materials; some of them are decidedly toxic when mined, handled and processed.”

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/05/KellyDecarb-1.pdf

  • Neville says:

    Here Mark Mills provides 41 reasons why the changeover to “S&W or EVs or the new energy economy” etc are delusional nonsense. And he comes from an Engineering background and the physics + maths are very clear.

    https://fee.org/articles/41-inconvenient-truths-on-the-new-energy-economy/

  • Stu says:

    And to paraphrase Galileo “but it is still happening”.

    • spangled drongo says:

      But you’re too obtuse to understand why.

      Oh, dear!

      • Stu says:

        Too obtuse to understand why the world is turning to S&W, batteries and hydro etc and away from coal. Please explain. In spite of all the pitiful pieces you post from the usual sceptic sources, “it is still happening”, people in places that matter are not listening to you and your ilk. That is the pity of Don packing up shop, how can we someday say “told you so” if you are not there to hear it.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu wants me to please explain why he is: “too obtuse to understand why the world is turning to S&W, batteries and hydro etc and away from coal.”

          This sorta wokery thing, stu:

          ‘This cult is so powerful’: Mona Lisa of woke unmasked
          Her tirades against colonialism and gender-biased dog owners have made Titania McGrath a Twitter darling. Now the man who created her reveals the joke is on the left.

          https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/queen-of-woke-titania-mcgrath-is-a-titan-of-social-satire/news-story/9897ac592e69f9a348bbd20b8267807e

          Still too obtuse?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “It is still happening” only in the tiny minds of perpetual Pollyannas like you, who believe that as soon as an interesting line of research is mentioned, then the research has been completed satisfactirily, and the new technology is already widely deployed. Check two figures for yourself: what proportion of total electric power generation last year was supplied by ruinables, and what proportion of total energy use last year was supplied by ruinables.

          PS, how is your EV going? When did you sell/trade in your last ICE vehicle? And how are you going since you went off-grid, to rely solely on ruinables?

        • spangled drongo says:

          She said” we should give all newborn babies numbers instead of names until they are ready to determine their own gender identity”.

          And sure enough Elon and partner confirm their baby’s name; XAEA-12.

          Climate change is only one of your lesser probs, hey stu?

      • Stu says:

        SD Wtf are you talking about, That is just verbal diarrhea that you produce.

        And as for your mate bj, can’t you guys read, or are you really just trolls?

        Look again, your bleating is ignored, the world is changing, you cannot stop it. Tell me again how I don’t get it as the world continues the shift to S&W.

        And never mind the % of S &W last year, compare the previous year with last year, and this year, and projections for next year etc. Back to your dugouts boys. You really must live in an information cocoon.

        How much do you have invested in the fossil fuel edifice? It seems like it must be a lot, it could not be just emotion surely. If it is it indicates a deep psych problem and you need help.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          So what are those percentages that you are comparing? Or don’t you know, you just babble on perpetually?

          Come on, you said to “compare”. You must have the data (world wide, not just the bogus ACT data)?

          • Boambee John says:

            PS, you mention “projections”. More models? Will you ever learn?

          • Stu says:

            So show me the numbers that show S&W is not growing exponentially and that more and more of our energy is coming from coal. You really do live in dream land you poor old soul. Actually it is quite funny the level of ignorance that you project. The history that will be preserved by Don’s son is going to show you in a harsh light of total denial. It is one thing to claim that AGW is not real and humans are having no impact, but quite another, and totally laughable, that the world is not switching (rapidly) to renewable energy. You may debate the former but the latter is incontrovertible. Your emperor has a very fine suit.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “So show me the numbers that show S&W is not growing exponentially”

            You are the one who said we should compare the year on year numbers. Surely you did before making that suggestion? Or aulre you just making an assumption?

            Come on, show us the numbers that caused you to be so confident.

            PS, you forgot to answer my questions about your personal contribution, repeated for your convenience.

            “how is your EV going? When did you sell/trade in your last ICE vehicle? And how are you going since you went off-grid, to rely solely on ruinables?”

            POS, the useful growth is in percentage of actual output, NOT installed “capacity”.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu doesn’t even get what his wokery is doing to the world.

          ” the world is changing, you cannot stop it.”

          But only changing because of woke subsidies.

          Not by the free market supply/demand system.

          That’s socialism, not freedom.

        • Stu says:

          “ ” the world is changing, you cannot stop it.”

          No, that is just the far side of the circle where left meets right, the sceptical doomers meet the do nothings. We can stop it but have to start making the right moves, which collectively, we are doing. Doomism is a key part of the so called sceptics response to the issue, all designed to facilitate the ongoing profits of the fossil fuel players for as long as possible.

          And that is the part of this that is just like the Y2K issue. Because action was taken there was no problem, but of course the sceptics then claimed there was never any problem. I wrote some code that was in use before 2000 that would have been a problem if left unchanged. The issue of legacy systems.

          Same now with climate, as one of the ditherers here keeps writing, the OECD has reduced emissions but the rest have not. Exactly my point, where would be if that change had not already started. The rest will get on board eventually. Meantime, at least for the much referenced OECD, the ditherers and doom sayers (the do nothings – it is all too late brigade) the game is nearly over, no one serious is taking notice of you. Time to move on.

          And did you realise that the OECD accounts for over 60% of the global economy, a significant block that can influence the world.

          • spangled drongo says:

            And stu blithers on in his never ending, true-believer, evidence-free fashion.

            He is in denial that even if CO2 is the problem he thinks it is, that his methods and philosophy only make things worse.

            If it is not a problem, they make it worse still.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu is even in denial that doomism is what his philosophy is all about.

            He even thinks that he and his mates prevented Y2K with some code and sundry change.

            Whatta guy!

            But it was a great joke while it lasted.

          • Stu says:

            Ah, so the drongo was also a denialist regarding Y2K, why am I not surprised? He probably thinks Trump won the Presidential election, and 9/11 was an inside job. Good for a laugh anyhow.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Doomism is a key part of the alarmists response to the issue, all designed to facilitate the ongoing profits and subsidy harvesting of the Unreliable Energy players for as long as possible.

            Fixed for you. How much do you have invested in renewables?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “The rest will get on board eventually.”

            So there is no actual “climate emergency”, if the world can take its time with the reaction?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “no one serious is taking notice of you. Time to move on.”

            You’re not really on top of actual developments in Europe (as different to Green propaganda) are you?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “the drongo was also a denialist regarding Y2K, why am I not surprised? He probably thinks Trump won the Presidential election, and 9/11 was an inside job.”

            Has the thought ever occurred to you that, just as you claim to be able to identify others’ political positions from their position on climate change, others can identify your political opinions from your position on climate change?

            And did it ever occur to you that this claimed skill says more about your personal bias and prejudice than it says about those whose minds you purport to read?

          • Stu says:

            “ change, others can identify your political opinions from your position on climate change?”.
            No you are actually wide of the mark. But it would appear that clearly you are party based and cannot differentiate issues from party politics. But some of us can. And I am not affiliated with nor aligned with any party.

            The problem with the climate issue is that it gets caught up in the broad picture of issues. Just look at the upper hunter by-election and the 13 candidates. Throw into the mix the interesting, self preservation serving Fitzgibbon pushing coal, alongside the Nationals man pushing essentially the same platform, and you have a fascinating contest. My tip is either an independent or maybe the Shooters and Fishers triumph again, but either way I think the Nationals will lose. Anybody want to make a prediction? One week, plus seven preference distributions till we know the answer. Interesting times indeed.

            After all this is a site run by a political scientist, so let’s talk politics.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “And I am not affiliated with nor aligned with any party.”

            Neither am I. Indeed I despise all of the major parties.

            And 9/11 was NOT an inside job.

            “After all this is a site run by a political scientist, so let’s talk politics.”

            Not doing so well on climate change? Trying to change the subject? Look at the subject of this gread, and try (difficult as it might be) to produce some actual, measured, data.

          • Boambee John says:

            Thread, not gread.

  • Neville says:

    Here again is my comment about the IEA data graph from last week. Our silly donkey couldn’t be more wrong about the REAL world and this is from the IEA.

    Neville
    May 13, 2021 at 10:23 am
    BTW I think I should link to the REAL WORLD IEA ( EU link) ENERGY graph every week until our donkeys wake up.
    The historical data are in light brown while the projected data are in blue. Note China, India, Africa, SE Asia, Middle east, Latin America data until 2040 and then look at projections for OECD countries until 2040.
    WAKEY, WAKEY?

    https://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/change-in-energy-use.jpg

  • Neville says:

    I also did a rough calculation of the increase from the LATEST IEA data. That’s in “millions tonnes of oil equiv.” But apparently our donkey doesn’t think the NON OECD countries are part of our world? Here it is again…..

    Neville
    May 13, 2021 at 11:07 am
    BTW to add up the “Millions tonnes of oil equivalent” numbers for the OECD and NON OECD countries from the above IEA graph.
    By 2040 the non OECD would have added another +2,635 million tonnes oil Equiv and OECD would have REDUCED by minus -475 mils tonnes oil equiv. THINK ABOUT IT.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    With reference to many of your posts yesterday, if you have actual data to support your claims, then post it. If you do not have such data, please stop posting hysterical “Your grandchildren will hate you and your name will be cursed among the nations” rubbish.

    Put up data or shut up. Your hysteria is embarrassing to read.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    In all of the stream of consciousness and propaganda for Unreliable Energy you have not posted today there was not a single bit of measurable data. This despite implying strongly yesterday that you knew the actual levels of Unreliable Energy delivered last year and for earlier years, and had forecasts for future years.

    Did you just make that up? If you have data, post it, otherwise stop wasting pixels on blather.

  • spangled drongo says:

    I wonder if stu has any measurable evidence as to why Y2K would create havoc in computer systems.

    And evidence as to why these systems would have failed.

    Or was it just like climate?

    Evidence-free and all in your water?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had a cutoff date on catastrophic climate change like the Y2K “catastrophe” had.

    When the world could get up the next day and see that it was all just a similar scam put up by the media, the bed-wetters and the system milkers.

    I’m so pleased you brought it up.

    Never forget it, stueyluv.

    • Stu says:

      “ Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had a cutoff date on catastrophic climate change like the Y2K “catastrophe” had.”

      Maybe we will. What will you do then?

  • Neville says:

    SD and BJ our donkeys will never wake up. I’ve even provided the links to the EU IEA data and they STILL don’t understand.
    BTW Prof Ross McKitrick has posted his recent talk on you tube this month. And his talk provides another post at WUWT.
    The so called SCC is ZIP and anyway as we’ve seen since 1990 the non OECD co2 emissions have soared as shown by the IEA data.
    Their mitigation fraud and con trick will change nothing and as I’ve shown many times the combined OECD countries haven’t increased co2 emissions for 50 years.
    Here’s Prof McKitrick’s talk this month and some very interesting graphs and data to think about.

    • Stu says:

      Ah yes McKitrick, another economist posing as a climate scientist. Easy to dismiss. What do they say “it takes at least ten years of hard work to become a credible climate scientist, but only ten minutes on the internet to be a fully qualified climate change denier”.

      • spangled drongo says:

        And evidence-free stu performs another wonder trick of shooting messengers without any ammunition.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Easy to dismiss”

        So show us the actual, measured, data to dismiss him. Can’t? Then shut up.

        • Stu says:

          You want data. Here is some that proves you are losing the battle. In 2010 there were 34 coal fired power stations in Australia. By 2017 only 22 were still operating. More, like Lydell are slated to close soon. So tell me how many new ones have been built in the last 20 years and how do Tasmania, South Australia and the NT get their power without any coal fired units? Oh yes mainly with gas backup to renewables.

          • Boambee John says:

            Eureka (that’s a scientific term Stu). After me telling him for yonks that Australia’s level of Reliable Energy is rapidly approaching a critical level, Stu notices that Liddel will close soon. Of course he forgot to mention Latrobe, but small steps, small steps.

            No Stu, I am not losing the battle. Australia is losing the capability to provide Reliable Energy on a reliable and continuous basis.

            How many gas fired plants will be needed to ensure that once Liddell and Latrobe are gone? And you forgot all those eeevvviil diesel generators.

            As for Tasmania and South Australia (and on occasions Victoria), are you unaware of the interconnectors? What power source do you think they rely on? Why, it’s that eeevvviiil coal. Which will soon not be so readily available.

            Then it will be back to unicorn farts.

          • Stu says:

            “ No Stu, I am not losing the battle. Australia is losing the capability to provide Reliable Energy on a reliable and continuous basis.”. Therefore, you are losing, have lost etc, you can’t say we are going backwards in reliable power and yet claim that government and industry are listening to your tiny voice in the wilderness.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So you regard the destruction of Australian manufacturing and the loss of Reliable Energy as a grand triumph? What a sad, miserable individual you must be, to glory in that.

            I notice that, as always, you focus on the political, not the scientific and engineering aspects of the issue. Those are clearly beyond your comprehension.

            When you have to go to hospital sometime, hope that it is a sunny day, or a windy night, or that the hospital has diesel generators.

          • spangled drongo says:

            It’s the woke who are in the wilderness, stu.

            And you will be begging for the sceptics to come and rescue you shortly:

            “The IPCC and most sceptics believe that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will produce about 1.04 ± 0.1C (Andrews 2012, CMIP5) warming at equilibrium if we assume that there are no feedbacks in the system. This is not controversial.

            “The IPCC then multiplies this by three to get an after feedback warming of 3.0 ± 1.5C largely due to the amplifying effect of extra water vapour and cloud changes. This has been their position for 40 odd years now. It is political death to change your mind, apparently. Positive feedbacks of this size would be destabilizing, utterly improbable, and are likely the result of political interference in the scientific process.

            “These exaggerated feedbacks have caused all the IPCCs projections to fail within 10 years of their announcement. The first of these was James Hansen in 1988.”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/16/the-greenhouse-effect-in-a-water-world/

          • Boambee John says:

            SD

            “The IPCC then multiplies this by three to get an after feedback warming of 3.0 ± 1.5C largely due to the amplifying effect of extra water vapour and cloud changes”

            And as your link a couple of days ago showed, the feedback might be negative, not positive.

            Still, as a couple of Stu’s comments today demonstrate, for the alarmists, it has never been about “Da Science”, it has always been about the politics, ie, power over “The Lives of Others”. Silly Stu thinks he will be one of those wielding the power. Mug!

            Welcome to the Great Reset.

          • Stu says:

            Bj “ So you regard the destruction of Australian manufacturing and the loss of Reliable Energy as a grand triumph? What a sad, miserable individual you must be, to glory in that.”

            You continue to amaze me with your ability to misinterpret, misrepresent and often just invert the written word. Hell of a trick in high school debating but you should have moved on by now.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Perhaps you could point me to the recent expansions in Australian secondary industry? No? Just more of your usual “feelz”, with no detail behind it.

            Of course, much that has been exported in industrial capacity has gone to nations with poorer environmental controls than here. Yes, you have seen an improvement in environmental quality here, but how much has that been offset by decreased quality elsewhere?

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    “Penn State has announced that they will move away from their “male-centric academic history” by banning all language that refers to gender.”

    Penn State, isn’t that the scientific nirvana that hosts Michael “Upside Down” Mann? Follow “Their” science?

    • Stu says:

      You are again showing the standard denial trick of deflection and distraction. What you raise is irrelevant, but it does indicate you might be MCP.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Deflection and distraction are standard alarmist tricks. Like the way you tried to divert this thread from climate change to politics earlier.

        Not sure how a focus on the science of chromosomes makes me an MCP. Explain please. In scientific terms, not political sloganeering.

        • Stu says:

          So you think that climate change has not become politicised, where have you been hiding?

          • Boambee John says:

            Another Eureka moment. Silly Stu has noticed that science and engineering have no impact on the stupidity being inflicted on Australia (and the world) to provide massive profits to subsidy harvesting shonks, all in the name of saving us from a non-problem.

            When your grandchildren are shivering in the dark, they will be able to get momentary relief by burning your letter of self-criticism.

        • Stu says:

          “ Not sure how a focus on the science of chromosomes makes me an MCP. Explain please. In scientific terms, not political sloganeering.”. Because clearly you made reference to it in a pejorative way to denigrate a renowned scientist at that institution.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            He has discredited himself.

            And what does that have to do with me being an MCP?

        • Chris Warren says:

          Where did Penn State claim they were moving away from “male-centric academic history” ??

          • Boambee John says:

            Simple research should find the story.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Obviously beyond your capabilities.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chrissy

            Not really, I was the one who found it originally. Come on, show everyone what a skilled researcher you are.

            On that subject, you keep forgetting to tell us what field of climate science your qualifications are in.

  • Neville says:

    Our stu-pid donkey continues to ignore the co2 emissions for the ENTIRE WORLD since 1990 or 2000 or since Paris 2015.
    We all know that the clueless OECD countries continue to commit energy suicide, while the non OECD co2 emissions have soared for decades. Look up the IEA data I’ve posted repeatedly and start to WAKE UP to YOURSELF.
    He continually boasts about the OECD closures of reliable fossil fuel energy and wants more environment destroying, TOXIC and UNRELIABLE S&W.
    And then he BELIEVES that we’ll somehow be able to charge TOXIC, UNRELIABLE EVs with the same WEATHER DEPENDENT S&W idiocy.
    He should look at TOTAL energy use from the IEA and stop his silly belief in HOBGOBLINS and other FAIRY TALES. IOW follow the DATA and ditch his stu-pid fairy stories.

  • Neville says:

    Just more proof for our stu-pid donkey to consider and from NOAA co2 ppm TRENDS growth rates per decade since 1960.
    Check out the graph 1960 to 1990 and then 1990 to 2020 and then tell us why the OECD should be closing any more RELIABLE coal or gas power stns?
    The growth rate for GLOBAL co2 levels since 2010 are high and yet our donkey wants us to continue to starve ourselves of reliable, safe energy for a GUARANTEED ZERO return?
    The NON OECD countries are forcing co2 levels higher per decade, while the OECD countries are closing the best + most reliable energy for A LITERAL ZERO RETURN ON A VERY LOUSY INVESTMENT.
    Yet our stu-pid donkeys can’t understand simple logic and reason or even understand very simple graphs from NOAA.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html

  • Boambee John says:

    Test

  • spangled drongo says:

    A cold weather observation this morning: we look westward to mountain ranges with a normal horizon of up to 200 klm away and in the clear morning air of the cooler months it is easy to gauge the the amount of coolness in the west by the way the western plains rise up beyond the distant mountains so that the distant western views are much increased.

    This is due to atmospheric refraction, caused by the air being progressively colder, further west, bending our vision beyond the normal horizon because we are viewing from the warmer atmosphere in the east.

    This morning, the distant horizon of those western plains, for the first time in the last 30 years, was higher than the closer [200 klm] ranges, and it was like looking up a gentle slope into eternity.

    It’s not caused by a flat earth, just curved vision.

    And cool climate.

    • Stu says:

      “ And cool climate.”. Maybe just cool weather eh?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Yes, the coolest differential for 30 years.

        What do you alarmists insist we call 30 years of weather?

        • Boambee John says:

          SD

          You simply don’t understand. When the temperature is rising, 30 years is climate. When it is faliing, 30 years is weather.

          Get with the program.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Thanks for getting my mind right, BJ.

          • Stu says:

            30 years of rising temperatures certainly indicates climate. One year fall, which has not happened yet, merely a cold end to autumn, is certainly weather.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Obtuse as always, hey stu?

            Can’t understand simple English?

            I pointed out the observation that the refraction due to colder atmosphere in the west was greater than it had been in 30 years.

            That’s like observing that king tides are lower today than they were in many places 70 years ago.

            And of course, if you have any personal observations of higher temps and tides, we are always happy to hear them.

            But we know from past experience that you are as observation-free as you are evidence-free.

            Funny that.

  • Boambee John says:

    The International Energy Authority has done a report on the critical minerals required for the so-called Clean Energy Transition.

    Summarised conclusion: the required mines and processing plants are currently nowhere to be found, and develooing them will be “daunting”. Lithium demand, as an example, will rise by 4200%

    But no need to worry, the mines and processing will mostly be in undeveloped nations, so we won’t see the pollution.

    • Neville says:

      Yes BJ and further suffering and abuse for poor black kids. Like in the Congo where loss of life from these hell holes would be a scandal if carried out in a modern western country.

      But it’s okay when it’s “out of sight, out of mind” and as long as wealthy people can drive around in TOXIC environment destroying EVs etc. And so many of these mining projects are financed by China and I’m sure the Pres of the CCP wouldn’t lose any sleep over any of these kids and their working conditions either.

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764208/Child-miners-aged-four-living-hell-Earth.html

    • Stu says:

      Lithium. Big opportunity for Australia which has the second largest reserves of ore after China.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Please prepare a draft Environmental Impact Statement for the mine, and another for the processing plant.

        • Stu says:

          Yeah, lets just keep ripping the guts out of the Hunter valley, making dust and polluting the air where we actually burn the stuff. Did I mention those toxic ash pits at the power stations here? At least all the energy required to create renewable energy is repaid many times over (that is why it produces very low cost power) unlike the never ending process to feed dirty coal into those big polluting plants. But never mind they are all closing.

          Meantime it is funny that the coal lobby in Upper Hunter keeps portraying EV’s as inherently evil. If they had a think they would realise EV’s might just prolong the coal power jobs, whereas they get nothing back from feeding gasoline to the ICE vehicles.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “all the energy required to create renewable energy is repaid many times over (that is why it produces very low cost power)”

            Excellent! Time to abandon all subsidies to Ruinable Power. End the RET, allow all forms of generation equal access to the grid, bidding for guaranteed blocks of delivered power, with penalties for failing to fulfil a contract.

            The cheapest will win! You know it makes sense.

          • Stu says:

            “ Excellent! Time to abandon all subsidies to Ruinable Power.”

            You overlook a key feature of subsidies is to overcome inertia and convince laggards to make the switch. But I guess there are always folk like you who remain impervious to new ideas so the subsidies continue.

            Have you seen the latest IEA report on energy? It is called “net zero by 2050” and contains interesting stuff that confirms your whining is not working. Sell your oil shares.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “overlook a key feature of subsidies is to overcome inertia and convince laggards to make the switch.”

            Weak as … Can’t you come up with a better talking point than that?

            How many decades do you think the subsidies will be needed?

            What investments do you (or your superannuation fund) have in Unreliable Energy?

            That latest IEA report, is that the one that discusses the impracticality of mining the specific minerals needed for the energy transition? The one I mentioned above, that you ignored?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Two questions about subsidies for Unreliable Energy.

            Are Unreliables still the cheapest source of power (ignoring the reliable and continuous issues) without the subsidies?

            If they are the cheapest, why are subsidies necessary to convince the recalcitrant? Is it the unreliability problem?

  • Boambee John says:

    This comment yesterday by Stu deserves a wider audience than being buried in a sub-thread.

    “Stu
    May 17, 2021 at 9:16 am
    So you think that climate change has not become politicised, where have you been hiding?”

    Neville, SD and I have often posted here statements by various UN, IMF, World Bank, EU and other international luminaries to the effect that climate change is useful cover for changing the world economy fundamentally. Stu has sneered at such suggestions.

    Now the World Economic Forum has joined the chorus. The WEF recently put out a propaganda video on the Great Reset. It included the statement that “You will own nothing, and you will be happy”.

    Now that Stu recognises that the climate change push has political reasons, will he now look more closely at the politicised “science” behind it? Probably not, he is too blinded by climate “science” to accept reality.

    • Neville says:

      BJ this is what Rowan Dean had to say about the Great Reset 5 months ago. And that German clown is like something out of a very bad James Bond movie.
      And Prince Charles is totally clueless as usual.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcAO4-o_4Ug

      ‘You will own nothing, and you will be happy’: Warnings of ‘Orwellian’ Great Reset
      13/12/2020|8min

      A terrifying coalition of big business and big tech are so confident and brazen they are promising the public “you will own nothing, and you will be happy” in an advertising campaign for a global reset, according to Sky News host Rowan Dean.

      “What they should have added is ‘we the very rich will own everything and be even happier’,” he said.

      The Great Reset is a proposal set out by the World Economic Forum for a new globalised fiscal system which would allow the world to effectively tackle the so-called climate crisis.

      Mr Dean said the plan intends to use the “tools of oppression” implemented during the pandemic, such as lockdowns and forced business closures as well as other measures destroying private property rights, to combat the coronavirus to achieve climate outcomes.

      “I’ve spoken before about the insidious phrase Build Back Better which sounds like common sense but is in fact just one of several slogans for the Great reset, another being the Orwellian phrase the fourth industrial revolution”.

      “This is as serious and as dangerous a threat to our prosperity and freedom as we have faced in decades.”

      Mr Dean warned viewers to think again if they believed this was just “crazy old Rowan with his conspiracy theories”.

      “This garbage is already deeply embedded into our state and federal governments.”

    • Stu says:

      “ Now that Stu recognises that the climate change push has political reasons, ”. There you go again, we should call you Chubby Checker. I do not recognise it has political “reasons” (your word) but it has certainly been politicised by the reactionary forces clinging to the status quo, i.e. stuck in the mud.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Do you deny the statements were made? Do you deny tge announced WEF plans for a Great Reset? Do you deny all of tgosexstatements about the climate change push being merely a cover for re-ordering the world economy? Do you deny that climate change has been politicised by so-called “progressives” to enable economic change?

        Are you a denialist?

        • Stu says:

          You should read up on the WEF. Hardly a left wing outfit in foundation or participation. The politicisation has been of the issue, science is generally not interested in politics, merely facts.

          Do you deny your favourite players and the organisations they associate with are very definitly political in intent? I refer to the favourites like GWPF and Heartland etc, throw in the IPA here, not to mention the Murdoch controlled media empire.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Your knowledge of politics seems narrow. Multi billionaires have no qualms about cooperating with governments and bureaucracies to advance their interests. That is the basis of corporatism/fascism.

            You should also re-read your comment, where you stated that I seemed unaware of the politicisation.

            Again with Murdoch. You are obsessed with him. Get a life.

            “science is generally not interested in politics, merely facts.”

            Real science is, climate “science” is a very political beast.

            Not going to answer my questions?

  • Neville says:

    Prof Steve Koonin’s new book continues to ALARM the liars and con merchants and of course his claims are from the main historical climate data and used by all the credible sources.
    And if it annoys donkeys like upside down Mann or the Biden ADMIN, plus the clueless DEMS we should count that as a bonus.
    At this GWPF link you’ll find many other links to prove his research. It just proves you don’t have to resort to lies and con tricks to prove your case against these donkeys.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/marc-a-thiessen-an-obama-scientist-debunks-the-climate-doom-mongers/

  • Neville says:

    Germany continues to place a noose around its own neck, but Merkel knows that they can’t ditch coal despite some court’s decisions to leave their people at risk from more RUINABLES now and into the immediate and long term future.

    https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/merkel-rejects-bringing-forward-germanys-exit-from-coal/

  • Neville says:

    Another very accurate article from Rupert Darwall focusing on Biden’s deceptive shell game of so called NET ZERO and jobs.
    Meanwhile China is flat out building + financing many more 100s of Coal power stns at home and in developing countries abroad.
    If RUINABLES could do the job you’d think that China, India, Africa, Asia etc would forget about Coal energy and just build more RUINABLES for a prosperous future? We all know the reasons, but apparently stu-pid OECD countries believe in their ongoing delusions and fairy tales?

    https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/04/29/the_net-zero_shell_game_and_joe_bidens_deceptions_774987.html

  • Neville says:

    Anyone feel like a bet on the Upper Hunter by-election on Saturday?
    Here’s Sportbet’s odds for all parties at the moment and who knows Labor or Shooters, Fishers,Farmers at $4.50 could be reasonable odds?
    The Nationals at $1.40 are firm favs, but outsiders do win sometimes.
    Interesting that the Coalition Govt has chosen this week to announce a new Gas power stn to be built in NSW to make sure NSW has reliable energy after the closure of Liddell.

    https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/nsw-politics/upper-hunter-by-election-5763978

  • Neville says:

    Andrew Bolt cleverly proves that their so called climate crisis is just another silly religion.
    The Pope and the DOPE, very funny and so very accurate.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu has the hots for subsidised Unreliable Energy, but he won’t answer these questions:

    “PS, how is your EV going? When did you sell/trade in your last ICE vehicle? And how are you going since you went off-grid, to rely solely on ruinables?”

    Unreliables for thee, but not for he?

    • Neville says:

      Yes BJ so very true and the Pope’s HIPPO DOPE in the Bolt video married into the Heinz empire and has at least 5 mansions and his own private jet etc,etc.
      So very much like all these vile creeps of the so called left, it’s one rule for them and another for the deplorables.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Thanks Neville, for some more commonsense from Andrew Bolt. No wonder the wokies hate him, He gets right to it on all their special subjects and shows them up for the stu-pids they are.

        • Stu says:

          If you think that the rant by Bolt is sensible, even credible, it says much about your intellect. Remember his show caters to a small and very right wing group of non thinkers who are easily swayed by propaganda. It seems you have been sucked in also. There are holes all the way through his painfully drawn out rant.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “caters to a small and very right wing group of non thinkers who are easily swayed by propaganda”

            Remember that climate alarmism caters to a small and very left wing group of non thinkers who are easily swayed by propaganda.

            Fixed.

          • spangled drongo says:

            When are you ever going to get enough awareness to realise that you deal with the message and not the messenger.

            I know you hate any rational person but you simply can’t falsify a rational message.

            So you just spread hate and poison.

            Use it on the mouse plague, by all means, stueyluv, but not in climate debate.

    • Stu says:

      That is once again classic denialist strategy, bring it back to individual responsibility and action. No, sorry this where think global, act local is bull shit. It requires collective action. And BTW, I have not sold a car in over ten years, I drive old clunkers, through economic necessity. How are you going with your third Merc?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        I take it that this is your response to my questions.

        How convenient for you that “this where think global, act local is bull shit”. You can continue your comfortable existence, relying on coal power, driving an ICE vehicle, taking pleasant holidays, and leave it to others to make the sacrifices.

        The question about selling your car, btw, related to your oft mentioned enthusiasm for EVs. I had rashly assumed that you would have exchanged your polluting ICE vehicle for a “carbin” free EV. Apparently even that step would be too disruptive to your pleasant lifestyle.

        What’s the word I am thinking of? Starts with “h”. It’ll come to me.

        If you think that there is a climate “emergency”, then you should act as if there is one.

        PS, you really should try to break your habit of stereotyping people. I have bever owned a Merc, nor a BMW, nor a Jag, nor a Rolls, nor any other “luxury” car.

  • Stu says:

    “ The International Energy Agency isn’t exactly a renowned nest of green-left climate activists. In fact, it’s long been criticised for underplaying the role of renewables and overstating the lifespan of fossil fuels.

    The Morrison government has typically clung to the IEA as a “rational” international voice in favour of maintaining the fossil fuel status quo.

    Resources Minister Keith Pitt has been fond of pointing out “the International Energy Agency still says there’ll be very large demand for coal” into the future. Even Malcolm Turnbull made a similar point as prime minister, arguing:

    “There is nobody of any credibility or authority in the world energy sector, from the International Energy Agency, take your pick, that will not tell you that coal is going to have a big part to play, although a diminishing part in percentage terms, in the world’s energy mix for many, many decades.”
    This week’s shift from the International Energy Agency is, therefore, a very big deal.

    In a report, titled “Net Zero by 2050; A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector”, the IEA has laid out with some precision what the world needs to do right now if there’s to be any chance of addressing the climate crisis. The IEA, originally established to deal with the 1970s oil shock by expanding supply, is now laying out a pathway to a zero emissions future, without any coal or gas.” — David Speers

    Hmmmm!

    • Boambee John says:

      How dare they! Sceptics must be unpersonned immediately.

      That’s sarcasm Stu. You really, really do hate dissenting views, don’t you?

      • Stu says:

        WTF are you talking about?

        You love the IEA but now they are running counter to your view you won’t even comment on it. Says it all really.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          WTF are you talking about? I referred you to that IEA report earlier, in relation to their well-founded concerns about the practicality of the large scale mining expansion necessary to meet the “net zero” goal.

          You ignored that, as you also ignore the actual data from the IEA on relative amounts of world energy coming from Reliable and Unreliable sources. You hate actual data, because it contradicts your feelz.

  • Neville says:

    Our silly donkey is becoming more clueless every day and by his comments we also know he refuses to understand
    I’ve provided the data and easy to understand graphs from the IEA, NOAA and Wiki uses their data as well for countrie’s co2 emissions since 1970 and 1990 etc. IOW COMPARE OECD to NON OECD.
    He STILL prefers his fantasy world and wants to BELIEVE donkeys like Biden, Kerry, the Pope etc to sustain his fairy tales.
    BTW here’s another video from the Bolter and he and Rowan Dean pull apart more of Biden, Kerry and other school kiddies’s nonsense over the last few months.
    Kerry is beyond logic and reason and apparently hasn’t heard of N-U-C-L- E- A- R ENERGY and now even MODULAR Nuclear energy? What a pathetic delusional fool he is, but he is a good climate mitigation EXPERT ????? for their clueless UNSCIENTIFIC Biden ADMIN.
    And we also know these cretins still prefer TOXIC, UNRELIABLE , RUINABLES like S&W.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, but stu-pid Kerry has the hubris to say that “scientists” claim that the zero emissions solution will be 50% due to technology that we don’t even know about yet.

      How crazy is that?

      We just “know” that things we don’t know will solve this invented problem.

      When we have a 100% solution to this non-problem in our backyard?

      But at least he admits that the S&W won’t cut it.

      He and Joe just need more kiddy lessons.

      From smarter kiddies.

  • Neville says:

    More evidence that La nina events could be connected to Solar variability and not co2 levels.
    It seems to make sense but the exact mechanism is still not known, but the solar data seems to hold true since the 1960s according to this study. Certainly we know that la nina events do cause global cooling ( last 12 months) and el nino events cause warming.

    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-04/ncfa-nst040221.php

  • Neville says:

    More data concerning clueless RUINABLES like S&W and so called battery storage to run our Electricity networks in the future.

    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-5-17-add-the-wall-street-journal-to-the-people-who-cant-do-basic-arithmetic

  • Stu says:

    Come now Nev, explain the change of heart by the IEA. Here is the link to their report to save you looking.

    IEA (2021), Net Zero by 2050, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a very good recent interview with Michael Shellenberger and below the video you can select the topic you’d like to listen to anywhere over the more than 2 hours of audio.
    I like Shellenberger because he’s a sort of reformed lefty and he was decent enough to apologise for his past exaggerations about their so called climate crisis / apocalypse etc.
    You can choose to listen to the facts about Nuclear and the reason for their alarmism etc over the years.
    He had a nasty raw deal from the Democrats during an earlier Senate hearing but since that time he’s had a fairer hearing and has been allowed enough time to be able to state his case and answer any questions from both sides.
    The Republicans must enjoy calling on Michael to help them explain IPCC reports etc + the science a number of times this year.

    • Neville says:

      Sorry but you’ll have to find that Shellenberger interview yourselves on You tube if you want to select from their list of topics below the audio .

  • spangled drongo says:

    It seems that the value of Tesla shares had a bit to do with Bitcoin values:

    “Watching the drama was Wall Street legend Michael Burry, who back in February and March had shorted Tesla shares around the $US800 level. Delighted, he watched Tesla shares in the early hours of May 20 trading close to $US550—he had made yet another killing.”

    “Burry was depicted in Michael Lewis’s book “The Big Short” and the subsequent Oscar-winning movie. One of the reasons Burry shorted Tesla was that he believes that Tesla’s reliance on regulatory credits to generate profits is an impediment to the company’s long-term future.”

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/markets/bitcoins-plunge-sparks-high-drama-on-wall-street/news-story/fcf94a440baa6ec3efdbf0cbe4db81b2

    • Neville says:

      SD I found the “Big Short ” online last night and it’s an amazing movie so far.
      I will finish watching it later on today I hope, but you have to pinch yourself to understand that this type of thing really happened. Perhaps it may be partly exaggerated but I’d certainly love to have the maths, computer and software skills etc of those (mostly) young blokes.
      Also why I admire, Willis Esch, Steve McIntyre, Christy, Pielke, Spencer and McKitrick etc so much as they tracked down and analysed data over the years.

  • Neville says:

    Stu I think that IEA wish list and thought bubbles are about the silliest load of BS that I’ve read for a very long time.
    So what about the NON OECD countries and why would they change by 2050 or 2060?
    That’s where the growth in emissions have come from over the last 50 years and 30 years and why would they suddenly change to unreliable TOXIC RUINABLES like S&W?
    S&W are a disaster and a complete waste of time and money and will only further wreck the environment above and below the ground.
    Why is this so difficult for the left to understand and we could follow this idiocy to the letter and there would be no change to temp or climate by 2100 and beyond.
    I’ll use the IEA data + the EIA + BP etc about the Energy changes + co2 emissions since 1970, but their S&W endorsement for our future is totally clueless and is the worst possible choice we could make. EVER.

    • Boambee John says:

      Neville

      Stu stated above (in the context of him taking personal action) that only collective action would work, not individual action.

      Fine by me, I am happy to wait until China, India and Africa are ready to act collectively with all other parts of the world.

      • Neville says:

        It’s easy to be flippant BJ, but IF stu really believes the stuff he writes I feel sorry for him.
        We’ve provided the co2 data for years to these donkeys and YET they still BELIEVE in their fantasies.
        And then they come back and ask the same stu-pid nonsense AGAIN and then expect us to join their fantastic fraudulent idiocy and frolic with their fairy tales.
        At least Shellenberger admitted he was wrong and apologised for his decades long campaign misusing and abusing the data.

  • Neville says:

    Andrew Bolt and Alan Moran try to explain the disastrous loss of our coal power stns and more to come over the next few years.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Let’s face it, with today’s stu-pids, climate is whatever we say it is:

    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/what-is-gender-fluidity/ar-AAKcDMs?ocid=msedgdhp

  • spangled drongo says:

    Any self respecting business should be able to handle a regular 35,000% spike in power price. {thanks to the cheapness of renewables}:

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/05/nsw-power-so-erratically-expensive-an-aluminium-smelter-powered-down-three-times-in-a-week/

    • Boambee John says:

      Well, if it was run by the gubbiment …

      • Boambee John says:

        SD

        Speaking of which, it is going to be fun watching the “manufacture” of “green” hydrogen. The demand for electricity will make aluminium production look like a minor blip on the network. Plus keeping it liquid will require lotsa electricity.

        Powering down the cooling system when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing will be a laugh (on the poor taxpayers, who will be paying).

    • Neville says:

      SD you beat me to it AGAIN, but don’t worry I’m sure our pig ignorant donkeys won’t lose a wink of sleep over any of these minor problems? SARC.
      I’m just waiting to see what happens today in the Upper Hunter by-election and at least Scomo has been honest about NSW requiring more reliable gas power to help GUARANTEE their energy needs into the future.
      Not enough I know and we’ll need more after Liddell closes down. But wasting billions on TOXIC UNRELIABLE S&W is a disaster and we’ll reap the whirlwind sooner than most people understand.

  • Neville says:

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

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/

  • Neville says:

    Upper Hunter B-Election—–Sport’s Bet now has Labor at $3.70 , Nationals $1.45 and Sp Shooters Fishers have blown out to $8.00.
    But today’s voting is using optional preferential voting and about 13 candidates are standing, so the results could be very messy. Who knows?

  • spangled drongo says:

    An IPCC report may not be the perfect essay on climate change but always worth reading.

    Particularly between the lines:

    Advancing Our Understanding
    Executive Summary
    Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute,
    and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to
    project future climate changes. In particular, there is a need for
    additional systematic observations, modelling and process
    studies. A serious concern is the decline of observational
    networks. Further work is needed in eight broad areas.

    14.2.2 Predictability in a Chaotic System
    The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that
    components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are
    feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central
    processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear
    manner:

    https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf

  • Neville says:

    Zoe Phin’s latest study supports all the other studies/ data that shows no trend in hurricane intensity over the last 170 years.
    This co2 as a control knob is starting to look a little deficient. SARC. And BOM data shows OZ region has had a lower trend since 1970 and the 2015-16 season is the only season without a severe cyclone for 50 years. WAKEY, WAKEY, hands off ……

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/23/co2-cyclone-doomsday-flat-out-refuted-170-years-absolutely-no-trend-in-hurricane-intensity-frequency/

    • spangled drongo says:

      In my neck of the woods, Neville, in a lifetime of living by the coast, serious cyclones have been virtually non-existent for the last 40 years compared with the first 40 when they never stopped.

      Today’s climate is absolutely magnificent!

      The kiddies of today just don’t know they’re alive.

      But how DARE I point that out!

      • Neville says:

        Yes SD and DITTO from me, and the brainwashed kiddies should one day consider suing their teachers for teaching ZIP about the real world and wasting years of their lives plus a waste of endless billions $ AND all for a guaranteed ZERO return.

  • spangled drongo says:

    A good ally for Peter Ridd, Walter Starck tells us plainly how the GBR really is and the wokery going on there today:

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2021/05/simple-clear-evidence-the-great-barrier-reef-is-fine/

  • spangled drongo says:

    How bad is today’s science?

    “It’s so bad that the junkier articles in Nature and Science that couldn’t be replicated were cited 300 times as often as the more boring papers that could be replicated. In other words, the supposedly best two science journals, and the industry that reads them, have become a filter for eye-candy-science-junk.”

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/05/modern-science-is-just-clickbait-the-most-cited-articles-in-top-journals-turned-out-to-be-flops/

  • Neville says:

    Dr Jim Steele tells us AGAIN about the history of wildfires and why we must get rid of forest floor rubbish during the winter months.
    The Aboriginals carried out these winter clean ups on a regular basis for thousands of years and a young Charles Darwin described their careful use of winter burning during his stop over in SW WA about 170 years ago. Here’s Dr Steele’s link.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/24/fact-checking-the-wildfire-climate-link/

  • Neville says:

    The latest study on rainfall in the SW of WA by O’Donnell et al has found that rainfall since 1900 is the highest for the last 700 years. And the 1830s to 1840s measured rainfall matches that part of their very long study.

    IOW wheat farmers since 1900 have been growing wheat during the very best of times. Although rainfall has dropped by about 20% overall in the more recent decades. Again that’s for just SW WA.

    OH and the entire WA area has had much higher rainfall over the last 50 years. See the BOM data since 1900.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-021-05782-0
    “Abstract”

    “Declining winter rainfall coupled with recent prolonged drought poses significant risks to water resources and agriculture across southern Australia. While rainfall declines over recent decades are largely consistent with modelled climate change scenarios, particularly for southwest Australia, the significance of these declines is yet to be assessed within the context of long-term hydroclimatic variability. Here, we present a new 668-year (1350–2017 CE) tree-ring reconstruction of autumn–winter rainfall over inland southwest Australia. This record reveals that a recent decline in rainfall over inland southwest Australia (since 2000 CE) is not unusual in terms of either magnitude or duration relative to rainfall variability over the last seven centuries. Drought periods of greater magnitude and duration than those in the instrumental record occurred prior to 1900 CE, including two ‘megadroughts’ of?>?30 years duration in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. By contrast, the wettest?>?decadal periods of the last seven centuries occurred after 1900 CE, making the twentieth century the wettest of the last seven centuries. We conclude that the instrumental rainfall record (since?~?1900 CE) does not capture the full scale of natural hydroclimatic variability for inland southwest Australia and that the risk of prolonged droughts in the region is likely much higher than currently estimated.”

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks for the stats, Neville.

      In spite of all their blither, the religious non- scientists always fail to come up with evidence of anything bad happening as a result of all this marvelous aerial fertiliser.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a comment I made in 2015 at Jo Nova’s blog about Andrew Bolt’s very telling interview with their ABCs Robyn Williams about a possible SLR of 100 metres by 2100.
    Robyn should be reminded of this teaser by the Bolter every year and GEEEEZZZZZZ he has a lot of catching up to do or ONLY about 99.98 metres to go in the next 79 years. SARC.

    Neville
    November 10, 2015 at 10:07 am
    The Bolter has a post about Robyn Williams who is their ABC science guru. He’s the one that told Bolt that 100 metres SLR was possible by 2100.
    This taxpayer funded nong has just informed us that he refuses to interview sceptics because they won’t change their arguments about his CAGW. They evidently will not change their views about SLR, polar bears, extreme events, Greenland/ Arctic/ Antarctic ice build up, no warming for over 18 years, recovery from the LIA, droughts, floods, snowfalls etc. So silly sceptics just accept the observable science and not the endless nonsense emanating from useless models, sarc.
    But their taxpayer ABC will continue to allow any delusional left wing pollie or misinformed dummy to parrot any nonsense that suits them. Yet their charter states that this mob are supposed to be unbiased in their reporting. What a 1 billion $ per year joke on conservatives and libertarians. Here’s the link to the Bolter’s post.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_wonder_robyn_williams_has_given_up_interviewing_sceptics_like_me/

  • Neville says:

    More on SLR at the Battery gauge in New York and Kip Hansen has to correct another new so called study that’s just more BS and fra-d.
    No doubt about it, this is a new kind of denialism and certainly no sign of any AGW signal since 1860.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/29/a-new-kind-of-denialism/

    • spangled drongo says:

      Great minds think alike, Neville. That link fired me up too.

      If only the climate religious would read it and learn what hippos they are.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Prof Humlum’s state of the climate report and STILL no sign of donkey Biden’s EXISTENTIAL threat.
    And Dr Goklany agrees that global SLR is about 1 to 1.5 mm a year or about 4 to 6 inches by 2121. So why do these donkeys want to waste endless trillions $ on this NON PROBLEM?

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/05/State-of-the-Climate-2020.pdf?mc_cid=6bbc559cee&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

  • Neville says:

    The Biden donkey + DEMS seem to have lost the ability AGAIN to use proper logic and reason.
    They want a new economy built on rare earth minerals but haven’t understood that China is the only place where most of these materials are currently available and things are looking grim for new mining ventures in OECD countries.
    What a mess and a case of putting the cart before the DONKEY AGAIN.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/31/a-viable-alternative-to-chinese-minerals-hegemony/

Leave a Reply to Aynsley Kellow Cancel Reply