The Canadian humourist Rick Mercer has had a series called ‘Talking to Americans’, and in one interview he asks a group of women what they think about the Russian proposal to bomb Chechnya and Saskatchewan. ‘Should they bomb both, or only one?’ There is a pause and then one of the women says, ‘They should bomb both.’ The others then agreed. Now his program is designed to make Canadians laugh, in this case at the sheer ignorance of those below the border. There’s a moral in it as well. People will feel that they ought to have an answer, especially when, as in this case, they are being filmed as well. It would take some courage to respond ‘That’s a silly question.’ Mercer has told them something that isn’t so, but they finally agree. It seems that they don’t know that Saskatchewan is a province across the border
Years ago, when I was deeply involved in survey research, I came to the conclusion that people took their cues about political questions from what their party said, rather than the party’s developing its policies from what their supporters said, unless the policy questions touched them personally. An example might be the war in Vietnam (this was the 1960s) or the abortion issue. Well, as a tangent, a big new survey in the US is arguing, from the evidence, that the vast bulk of voters have embraced false and harmful dogmas that accord with their political views, meaning, in this case, the presidential candidate they voted for last November.
Here are two interesting examples:
- 76% of Trump voters think that the average income of middle-income households fell during the Obama administration. In reality, their inflation-adjusted average income rose by $5,300 during this period.
- 88% of Biden voters think that police are more likely to use lethal force when arresting black people than white people. In reality, police are 42% less likely to use lethal force when arresting blacks than whites.
I thought that the middle class had lost ground in those years, so I would have given the wrong answer. No less interesting is the finding that the media have influenced voters even against their likely ideological attitude to an issue. For example, nearly 40 per cent of Trump voters thought that tornadoes have increased since the 1950s, a common statement in the mainstream media, whereas the evidence suggests that if anything the number of tornadoes has slightly decreased As for the Biden voters, 88 per cent agreed that tornadoes had increased.
It is fascinating stuff. Yes, we are supplied daily with ‘news’, and from time to time we will be told something that doesn’t seem right, or not told of counter news that would provide some balance. Voters were offered a selection of two or more possible answers, one of which was true. You could say you weren’t sure, but only 10 per cent did so, which reinforces my comment about Mercer’s victims above. Ten per cent is just too small a percentage, at least in my view, to be unsure about many of these questions, that is, if yours was an honest answer. This study shows that most voters gave the wrong answer.
For all 10 of the questions in which the electorate was most deluded, the wrong answers they gave concurred with progressive narratives propagated by the media. Moreover, the false answers they gave were often far removed from reality, not just slightly mistaken. For example, 66% of voters thought that doubling the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour would raise the average income of families in poverty by 25% or more. The real figure is about 1%.
In the ‘global warming’ part of the study, participants were asked whether or not they thought the Earth’s average sea level had risen since the 1990s. It has, of course, indeed it has been doing so since at least the 1860s. Who thought so? Well, 72 per cent of all voters, 96 per cent of Biden supporters and 45 per cent of those who voted for Trump. What about land area — has it declined since the 1980s? It hasn’t. On the contrary, it has increased. But only 7 per cent of Biden voters thought so, compared to 49 per cent of Trumpists. Has the level of CO2 increased since the late 1700s? Yes it has, and 86 per cent of all voters said so, 96 per cent for Biden voters and 76 per cent for Trump supporters.
Here’s another I didn’t have a right answer for. Did life expectancy in the US rise or fall after the implementation of Obamacare? Well, given that life expectancy almost everywhere has been rising for a long time, I would have said ‘risen’. I would have been wrong: it went down by 0.1 years. Why? I doubt it was Obamacare. The decline is pretty small, and may be a function of errors of several kinds. Of comparable interest, drug overdose deaths rose, as well.
This seems to have been a careful and professional survey, conducted in live telephone interviews. The sampling errors are given for different subsets, and the party breakdown and locations of the respondents almost precisely match the population of likely voters. The questionnaire design is also sensible, so I give it a tick.
What are the take-home messages? First if you are intending to conduct a survey about citizens and their political views you need to be scrupulous about your methodology. I learned that in the US in the 1960s, and I tried as hard as I could to practise that rule when I did my own. This rule applies especially to question design. Do not lead the respondent, as Rick Mercer did, knowingly and for fun. The answer must come from the mind and knowledge of the respondent.
Second, be aware that the respondent and we as well, are guided to some degree by what we think we know, and that comes in large part from the mainstream media. The media are highly selective in what they give us — it can’t be otherwise — and if they have house rules about what side to take in an issue conflict, and climate change is an obvious example, then you will be getting one aspect of the issue. How else to explain the partisan differences in this American survey over climate change questions? Even the Trump voters were highly influenced by misinformation.
Finally in both our countries it would be wonderful if we had really individual media outlets, and you could decide what papers to take and what channels to watch. It was like that in the UK, when I first lived there, at least with respect to newspapers. But the power of the media in converting all sources to a single view in this climate change area is staggeringly large. I don’t at the moment see any likely change, until nature itself denies some of the mistruths, perhaps via a long cold spell, and I don’t look forward to that with any joy.
And remember, the alarmists remind me,
When in danger
Or in doubt
Run in circles
Scream and shout
Join the discussion 141 Comments
There was a young fellow who worked as a shop assistant in the produce section of a Los Angeles supermarket.
A man came in and asked to buy half a head of lettuce. The lad told him that they only sold whole heads of lettuce, but the man replied that he did not need a whole head, but only a half head.
The shop assisant said he would go ask his manager about the matter. He said to his manager, “There’s some asshole out there who wants to buy only a half a head of lettuce.” As he was finishing saying this, he turned around to find the man standing right behind him, so he added, “and this gentleman wants to buy the other half.”
The manager okayed the deal and the man went on his way.
Later the manager called on the boy and said, “You almost got yourself in a lot of trouble earlier, but I must say I was impressed with the way you got yourself out of it. You think on your feet and we like that around here. Where are you from son?” The boy replied, “Saskatchewan sir.”
“Oh really? Why did you leave Saskatchewan” asked the manager.
The boy replied, “They’re all just whores and hockey players up there.”
“Really?,” replied the manager, “My wife is from Saskatchewan!!”
The shop assistant replied, “No kidding! What team did she play for?”
Don even Dr Rosling had some fun with his 2014 TED talk about what people don’t know about the world.
He was a world expert about health + wealth over the last 200 years and he was amazed at the journalists and so called tertiary educated people’s responses to some of his questions.
Unfortunately he died a few years ago after a short battle with cancer,but he worked hard around the world to try and tell us we have a lot to be optimistic about. Here’s his TED talk link.
Thanks Don. Yes, we’re going to have to endure enough “extreme cold” to get the MSM excited to the point of converting to cold climate catastrophe instead of the warm variety.
And here’s one pollie who doesn’t take his lead from his constituents:
“Last time Kerry was in the briefing room he told oil workers who have lost their jobs as a result of President Joe Biden’s so-called “green” energy agenda, which includes killing thousands of Keystone XL pipeline jobs, to “build solar panels.”
“What President Biden wants to do is make sure those folks have better choices, that they have alternatives, that they can be the people to go to work to make the solar panels,” Kerry said earlier this year.
“As a reminder, the majority of solar panels are made in China.”
“ But the power of the media in converting all sources to a single view in this climate change area is staggeringly large. I don’t at the moment see any likely change, until nature itself denies some of the mistruths, perhaps via a long cold spell, and I don’t look forward to that with any joy.”. Has it occurred to you that maybe the “single view” widespread as it is might be the correct view? How ate you going on the fairly single view of Covid and vaccination?
Stu still pushing for his own chapter in the next edition of Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds? And still commited to the complely false “science by consensus” philosophy.
Stu, Yes, of course I would concede that I could wrong. I’ve said so many times. I can’t see the evidence for it, that’s the trouble, as I can’t see any sign of a climate crisis or emergency. As for Covid, I decided a while back that I wouldn’t get involved in this, because I don’t have anything like the right background, and so much of the evidence is not publicly available. I have enough to do today as its is.
Willis Eschenbach has a nice summary of the ‘climate emergency’ on WUWT.
How about the most recent claims that Aussies are racists and young white male students are made to stand up and apologise for being white, male and Christians? This is insane and only a Marxist fool would believe this nonsense and yet the left persist with their extremist agenda to divide us by race.
And the TV show inferring racism can cause brain tumors is surely about as barking mad as they can go?
Andrew Bolt discusses this with Bella D’Abrera from the IPA.
Based on that diatribe, I assume you are a fascist fool??
Then you must be a communist idiot?
So why do so many people BELIEVE in nonsense when the DATA tells us the reverse is true ? Everyone on our GREENING planet today is much better off, but US Pres Biden + so much of the MSM, pollies, scientists, schoolkids tell us that we are facing an EXISTENTIAL threat or climate crisis or climate emergency.
Dr Christy, Dr Humlum, Eschenbach, Shellenberger, Lomborg, Koonin , Spencer, Happer, Lindzen etc have all regularly looked at the data and found little chance of an EXISTENTIAL threat or crisis or emergency. Again this is supported by some of the UN IPCC data that is quoted in their books.
Here Bolt , Kroger and Costa poke fun at “Biden’s Climate Summit ” and some of the Mystics, Earth worshipers and other left wing loonies etc used by Biden to try and support his crazy agenda.
Of course no measurable change by 2050 or 2100 and beyond EVEN IF we followed Biden’s stupidity to the letter.
Only a moron would respond like that. Fascism is a totalitarian capitalism communism is communism.
Even recent heroes of the left can be destroyed by “cancel culture” as these fools manage to throw logic and reason out the door.
Richard Dawkins asks a simple question and then asks for a discussion, but then finds he has been cancelled and loses a US humanists award etc.
What’s the problem and his question is a VERY legitimate one and why wouldn’t the left wing loonies not want to discuss this with him?
The Bolter and Rowan Dean have a field day discussing these dumb ideas about what is okay and not okay according to these lefty extremists.
Peta Credlin discusses “Woke and Cancel culture” with Dr Kevin Donnelly and why it’s so dangerous today.
Although it’s more of a problem in the old Anglo-sphere countries like the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, UK .
Don, I love your column, but I’m sorry to say there is one thing in your latest post that I don’t agree with. Today you say: “Earth’s average sea level had risen since the 1990s. It has, of course, indeed it has been doing so since at least the 1860s”.
As it happens I have visited Fort Denison on Sydney Harbour where there is a line engraved onto the sandstone foundations showing the base sea level at a particular date (can’t remember when, but my memory tells me it was something like 150 years ago), and the average sea level today is substantially unchanged.
This indicates to me that the sea level is not changing in any substantial manner. Since I am always prepared to have my views changed if the evidence tells me, can you tell me your reason for stating that the sea level has been rising since the 1860s?
The Fort Denison story is an old canard.
You can get all the evidence you need from
It indicates that sea level is rising.
Yes, the Fort Denison sea level is rising. At a remarkably steady rate of 65mm per century.
No cause for alarm there.
You could ask NOAA why did they terminate their front page chart for Fort Denison at 2010? Could this have been because it didn’t support their CAGW narrative?
Could it even have been to create breathing space while they seek a plausible fix? They did make a couple of upward fiddles over the ten years since, but keep reverting to that 2010 terminus.
Terry, you’re absolutely right about Fort Denison.
Sydney Harbour is a stilling pond for the Pacific ocean and the latest mean sea level there, March 2021, is 67mm LOWER than the first MSL recording in May 1914.
This is supported by the fact that Pacific atolls are increasing in area.
Science will not know exactly what sea levels are really doing until there are GPS chips on all tide gauges for at least 20 years but when the biggest piece of ocean in the world is not rising then there is really no net land ice melt or any global warming other than the slight natural variability we always have.
A stilling pond is a temporary above ground earthwork structure intended to trap sediment. Doesn’t sound like Sydney Harbour.
A stilling well is a pipe with one or two small inlets that is part of a tide gauge. Doesn’t sound like Sydney Harbour either.
A stilling pond for the Pacific Ocean is any area of sea attached by deep channel to the Pacific that is protected enough to prevent sea surges from occurring to the same extent as happens in the the ocean, thereby providing observable, factual, sea levels of the Pacific.
There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of them.
The reason Port Jackson was chosen over Botany Bay is because it does this so well and is possibly the best there is.
Thereby providing the best Pacific Ocean MSL data available.
I guess that means the Port Kembla tide gauge is no good because it is not in a stilling pond.
How do you use a GPS chip to correct a tide gauge? They are tiny devices typically inserted into animals and birds to track their movements, and have a best accuracy of about a metre. At the moment Continuously Operating Reference Stations do the job, but they are much more expensive than GPS chips.
“I guess that means the Port Kembla tide gauge is no good because it is not in a stilling pond.”
It’s not only in a stilling pond but it also uses GPS:
“How do you use a GPS chip to correct a tide gauge?”
Read about it:
SD rambled as usual “ Sydney Harbour is a stilling pond for the Pacific ocean and the latest mean sea level there, March 2021, is 67mm LOWER than the first MSL recording in May 1914.”
Please explain your concept of MSL that enables you to pick particular months (probably days in your case) in widely separated years and claim any particular relationship compared with long term averages? I think your statistics knowledge is in need of a refresher course.
Is that a bit like selecting particular years to start temperature records, and using them asca baseline when other dates are available?
SD rambling as usual (I wondered who broached the stilling pond distraction). That is why it is best to filter-out drongo’s stuff. The only problem is that you end-up filtering out all the comments nested under a drongo-dropping.
I note that “ Precise determination of a “mean sea level” is difficult because of the many factors that affect sea level. Instantaneous sea level varies quite a lot on several scales of time and space. This is because the sea is in constant motion, affected by the tides, wind, atmospheric pressure, local gravitational differences, temperature, salinity and so forth. The easiest way this may be calculated is by selecting a location and calculating the mean sea level at that point and use it as a datum. For example, a period of 19 years of hourly level observations may be averaged and used to determine the mean sea level at some measurement point.”
So SD tell me again how your figure for a day in 1914 compares with a very particular day in 2021?
Does the first recording and the last recording get through, stu?
So as to encompass the total period of recordings?
Or do you prefer cherry-picking?
“ Or do you prefer cherry-picking?”. FFS you personify cherry picking, that is exactly what you have stated here. Poor soul.
“ Does the first recording and the last recording get through, stu?”. Are you really that stupid?
You really should not criticise the methods of climate scientists. They might think that you are a denialist.
SD if you would like a more complex explanation of the measure you so blithely explain in too simple terms then I have one for you.
“ The term “sea level” has many meanings depending upon the context. In satellite altimetry, the measurements are made in a geocentric reference frame (relative to the center of the Earth). Tide gauges, on the other hand, measure sea level relative to the local land surface (see the tide gauge discussion and FAQ). The satellite altimeter estimate of interest is the distance between the sea surface illuminated by the radar altimeter and the center of the Earth (geocentric sea surface height or SSH). This distance is estimated by subtracting the measured distance between the satellite and sea surface (after correcting for many effects on the radar signal) from the very precise orbit of the satellite. At any location, the SSH changes over time due to many well understood factors (ocean tides, atmospheric pressure, glacial isostatic adjustment, etc.). By subtracting from the measured SSH an a priori mean sea surface (MSS), such as the CLS01 mean sea surface, and these known time-varying effects, we compute the sea surface height anomalies (SSHA). Each point in the global mean sea level (GMSL) time series plots is the area-weighted mean of all of the sea surface height anomalies measured by the altimeter in a single, 10-day satellite track repeat cycle (time for the satellite to begin repeating the same ground track). Our goal is to observe the changes of the GMSL due to less understood factors, such as ocean mass changes from melting land ice and groundwater depletion, thermal expansion and contraction of the oceans, and the interannual variability caused by phenomena such as the ENSO. Gaining more understanding of these different factors using other sources of information such as GRACE gravity measurements allows us to try to close the sea level budget and estimate the causes of GMSL changes (e.g., Leuliette & Miller, 2009 and Willis et al., 2008).
The term “global mean sea level” in the context of our research is defined as the area-weighted mean of all of the sea surface height anomalies measured by the altimeter in a single, 10-day satellite track repeat cycle. It can also be thought of as the “eustatic sea level.” The eustatic sea level is not a physical sea level (since the sea levels relative to local land surfaces vary depending on land motion and other factors), but it represents the level if all of the water in the oceans were contained in a single basin. Changes to this eustatic level are caused by changes in total ocean water mass (e.g., ice sheet runoff), changes in the size of the ocean basin (e.g., GIA), or density changes of the water (e.g., thermal expansion). The time series of the GMSL estimates over the TOPEX and Jason missions beginning in 1992 to the present indicates a mostly linear trend after correction for inter-mission biases between instruments. The GMSL rate corrected for GIA represents changes in water mass and density in the oceans. These changes are thought to be predominantly driven by thermal expansion of the oceans and land ice melt (Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers).“
But you stick with your simplistic explanations because they align well with the rest of your simple, but wrong, explanations of almost everything.
If you understood anything about sea levels you would never quote the stu-pidity of satellite altimetry and the GRACE gravymeter.
Tide gauges are better but only when fitted with a GPS chip on the actual gauge.
SD – even by your own bizarre description of a stilling pond, unknown to any civil engineer or physical oceanographer. the Port Kembla tide gauge can’t be in a stilling pond. It’s on a point facing the Pacific Ocean.
As far as GPS is concerned, I see you no longer defend the use of GPS chips. We seem to agree they are better used for tracking animals. CORS GNSS stations are the way, as the article you referenced describes.
“It’s on a point facing the Pacific Ocean.”
Have another look. The main one is inside with a GPS chip nearby.
And any tide gauge is always built in its own stilling pond whether it is already in a harbour stilling pond or not.
You mustn’t be very familiar with the ocean if you don’t know that any harbour is a stilling pond.
And what do you think CORS GNSS are referring to, if not GPS chips?
The GPS chips used to deduce vertical earth movement are slightly more refined than those used on animals etc.
If people in Australia paid attention to highest astronomical tides throughout their lifetimes in their particular areas they would find that these highest of tides are not increasing.
They are the best way of observing any sea level rise.
As a builder of seafront infrastructure, which requires this data to be used in order to build to the correct levels, I have been doing this for a long time in many areas and there is not one area where these HATs are higher today than they were 70 years ago.
But there are many places where HATs are at least 200mm lower.
So if sea levels are not rising in the Pacific then any climate change is a non-problem.
Answer my questions, your obfuscation is not helping.
Have you ever observed and recorded any HATs over any period at any fixed point, stueyluv?
I didn’t think so.
“ Have you ever observed and recorded any HATs over any period at any fixed point, stueyluv?”
No, no, no. So what, you are talking non scientific drivel, give up. Unless of course you are actually a genius and have discovered something that the rest of the worlds scientists have overlooked. I look forward to cheering when you receive the Nobel prize for your brilliant insights. But I won’t hold my breath waiting.
That’s the way stu.
As usual, you don’t need no steenkin’ evidence.
Sez the hypo who never looks, never pays attention but just believes the religion.
“you are talking non scientific drivel”
This from a self-admitted non-understander of science. The irony, it burns.
It sure does, BJ.
When these climate religious keep spouting non-observable, unscientific, human-fabricated “facts” yet insist that observations of the sea levels that will do us the most harm, i.e. the highest ones, which are there every year for us to observe, are “non scientific drivel” it sure makes you realise just how off the planet they really are.
Or they have an agenda they haven’t got the courage to admit to.
SD – I suppose I should give up – nobody can fight flat out denial of the obvious. If there is a GPS chip near the Port Kembla tide gauge it’s in a dog. The PTKL that you think is a GPS chip is a Trimble GNSS receiver connected to NSW CORSnet run by Spatial Services.
The adjacent body of water to the tide gauge is known as the Pacific Ocean – if that’s a stilling pond then then engineers will have to stop using them on civil works,
If you are that blind, yes, you should give up. But try again. You’ll see there’s another tide gauge inside the stilling pond.
But then if you think that the only stilling pond is a bucket of water that is another good reason to give up.
And if you don’t believe that there are more GPS chips around than are found in dogs that is another reason to give up:
And when you obviously don’t know that the Trimble GNSS receiver is a Global Navigation Satellite System that uses the same ~ 30 GPS satellites as used in all GPS chips, that is also another good reason to give up.
As far as the fabled May 1914 tide gauge observations they are for the last 10 hours in that month. May has 744 hours. Even the worst grasp of arithmetic can’t make that the mean sea level for the month.
So you are not prepared to accept historical records?
What else should we use for evidence?
Have you ever made your own observations of HATs over any period at any fixed point?
Have you checked out Pacific atolls increasing in size?
Seeing red herrings are the go – do you still maintain that the East Coast Current flows downhill?
If you paid attention you would know that FD tide gauge history goes well back beyond 1914 and that first MSL calc is very applicable.
And we can discuss the ECC when you have won a yacht race or two as a result of handling it better than the opposition.
But, despite all claims to the contrary, Tuvalu and the Maldives are demonstrably still above the waves.
Think of the money that’s at stake here.
With the “correct” voting and talking.
Who claims Tuvalu and Maldives are demonstrably below the waves?
Or did you just make this up?
I am astonished that you are unaware of the many (failed) predictions of imminent doom for those two nations.
Who could forget the spectacle of the Maldives Cabinet holding their meeting underwater? Followed swiftly by the same Cabinet approving the construction of new luxury hotels. While Tuvalu regularly has the begging bowl out at South Pacific Forum meetings, to save them from doom.
You are an autistic literalist, unable to recognise sarcasm.
Try their Tourist Bureaus.
“did you just make this up?”
No, Chris, you did. Read what I actually said.
There is no evidence that anyone claimed that Tuvalu and Maldives are demonstrably below the waves?
You have just made-up crap or copied from those scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
Complete falsehoods just to prop-up your private dogma.
I think that is “scraping”, but your propensity to pick fights leaves the other option available.
Don, SD and Bryan (And anyone with an open mind, which excludes Stu)
Go to unherd.com, and read the essay “How Science Has Been Corrupted.
For a good laugh, that is. Unherd.com is a rightwing activist propaganda project founded by one of Boris Johnson’s stable-boys and all round rightwing apparatchik .
And our one-eyed blith once again shoots the messenger and ignores the message.
Chrissy again unable to tolerate a different opinion being referenced.
I did say that only those with an open mind should read the article. You stick to your cherry picked alarmist sites, you will feel much more comfortable if your prejudices are not being challenged.
The recent 2016 Dutch study found that the earth’s coastal land had increased in area over the last 30 years.
Seems to be problematic for their recent so called DANGEROUS SLR claims.
And Claudius’s landing port on the Kent coast in 43 AD has now been found and it’s about 3 kilometres INLAND from the present coastline. More problems for their modern dangerous SL claims.
Of course their ABC’s Catalyst program also found that sea levels were about 1.5 metres higher ( Sydney area) about 4,000 years ago on our east coastline.
And this was at the end of the Holocene climate optimum. And all these much higher, earlier, SL observations were when co2 levels were about 280 ppm. Just more problems for the fantasists to think about.
Again I refer people to the BOM Pacific Sea Level and Geodetic Monitoring Project. The data are tabulated and plotted from 1984. A regression line could be fitted (I’m not going to do it), but if there is any trend, it is not apparent to the eye.
Just leave this to scientists – they know the truth.
Speaking of scientists, you have yet to enlighten us on which field of climate science you specialise in.
SD – you might not think this, but I do find some of your comments interesting. I mean the ones that are based on personal observation and thought. The front lawn at Cleveland as a benchmark, the nail in the wall at Chevron Island, yacht racing, native wildlife, aborigines.
The other regulars on your side just reprint misinformation from other websites or abuse anyone who disagrees with them. I never read their comments.
I think Stu is is trying to create a space where subjects can be discussed in a civil and rational way. You might have more in common than you think.
Throwing rocks from behind the fence was fun in primary school, but I don’t do it now. I do go in for levity, but after all this website is mainly for entertainment.
There is a fine line between entertainment and irritation, and I think that is crossed rather more frequently than is seemly.
“I think Stu is is trying to create a space where subjects can be discussed in a civil and rational way”
You’re new here?
China sees a need for coal.
“China’s energy structure is dominated by coal power. This is an objective reality,” said Su Wei, deputy secretary-general of the National Development and Reform Commission. …
“Because renewable energy (sources such as) wind and solar power are intermittent and unstable, we must rely on a stable power source,” Su said. “We have no other choice. For a period of time, we may need to use coal power as a point of flexible adjustment.”
He added that coal is readily available, while renewable energy needs to develop further in China.”
BJ the important thing to remember is that China will never beggar themselves to suit us and therefore coal will be used there for a very long time. And that means a lot of coal for decades to come.
But the Biden donkey and his loony followers actually believe the world is “about to end unless we do something.” And if we’re stupid enough to vote Labor or Greens we’ll also have donkeys who actually believe the Biden BS and fra-d.
Yes Neville, they have more sense than the West.
Jo explains it very well today:
Here’s the UN data for world population in 2000 and estimated for 2050. For 2050 they use the average of estimated pops. A lot of food for thought here, if you really THINK about it.
Yet the UN also estimates that the average person will be at least 2.50 times richer, although another 3.7 bn more people will be living on the planet. And AGAIN only a very small increase in pop % for the SH up to 2050. But Africa is the stand out increase in pop by 2050 and beyond. By 2050 the EU pop is projected to decrease, but US+ Canada up by about 4.4%.
See pie graph etc at the link.
English: UN population estimates by continent for 2000 and 2050.
Data from UN World Population Prospects 2017. Projections for 2050 are the “median” estimates of the 2017 edition of UN World Population Prospects. color code selected for consistency with File:World population (UN).svg: yellow: Asia, black: Africa, blue: Europe, red: South+Central America + Caribbean, brown: North America, green: Oceania. The two pie chart sizes are to scale (area ratio 1.60, diameter ratio 1.26) Data for Asia is shown divided into three sections, Asia (other), China, India, to represent China and India separately as the two most populous countries.
Data (population in millions):
2000: World: 6144, Asia (other): 1394 [23%], China: 1283 [21%], India: 1054 [17%], Africa: 817 [13%], Europe: 727 [12%], South America: 526 [8.6%], North America: 313 [5.1%], Oceania: 31 [0.5%].
2050: World: 9771 (+60%), Asia (other): 2234 [23%] (+60%), China: 1364 [14%] (+6%), India: 1659 [17%] (+57%), Africa: 2528 [26%] (+209%), Europe: 715 [7.3%] (-1.7%), South America: 780 [8.0%] (+48%), North America: 434 [4.4%] (+39%), Oceania: 57 [0.6%] (+84%).
Average population growth is projected as +60%, or 0.94% p.a. on average. Growth is driven by the disproportionate growth of African population (+209%, 2.3% p.a.), offset
by the near-stagnation in China (+6%, 0.1% p.a.) and in Europe (-1.7%, -0.03% p.a.).
BTW here’s the Daily Mail link to the 43 AD Claudius invasion beach , now found 3.2 klms inland from the present coastline in Kent.
Here’s the link + quote to their ABC Catalyst program “Narrabeen Man”showing SLs were about 1.5 metres higher 4,000 years ago. This is in north Sydney area.
“Dr Macdonald: The date came back at about 4000 years ago, which was quite spectacular we were very surprised.
Narration: 4000 years ago when Narrabeen Man was wondering around this area the sea levels were up to 1.5 metres higher than they are today.
Paul: So that spit would have been much narrower. The water levels in the Narrabeen lagoon would also have been higher and it would have acted like a saline estuary.”
So what? You simply do not understand anything you post. This is a well known phenomena (highstand or high-stand) based on glacial ice-melt as we came out of last ice-age. For Australia;
Holocene highstand varies systematically around its margin. This is attributed primarily to variations in the timing of the response of the ocean basins and shallow continental shelves to the increased ocean volumes following ice-melt, including a process known as ocean siphoning (i.e. glacio-hydro-isostatic adjustment processes).
etc. etc. https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1936&context=smhpapers
Perhaps “a well known phenomenon”? Singular rather than plural?
Post info that sea level was higher but did not realise that this was due to ice-melt and actually demonstrated the future impact of modern ice melt.
Glacier ice melt = sea level rise.
Silly donkey 1 posts a link that provides a dog’s breakfast of multiple choices and also involves some modeling thrown into the mix.
If you want to you can claim no change much since mid Holocene or a high stand that oscillates up and down for thousands of years etc.
Yet there are many studies /references for higher mid Hol levels of 1 to 3 metres and any number of these studies over many decades.
This time I’ll stay with the reference I linked to of about 1.5 metres higher 4,000 years ago.
Silly blith as usual is in complete denial of so much evidence that throughout the Holocene we have had both warmer periods and cooler periods that have had nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 levels.
There are many glaciers that simply did not exist during parts of the Holocene, but they exist today.
What does it tell you, blith, when a glacier melts and tree stumps are found underneath?
Ah! The vexed question of sea level changes both old and new. Recently Geoscience Australia put out a clip for a new app that they had constructed that enabled the viewing of any part of the Australian coastline from satellite imagery first gathered in the 1990s to the present.
The one thing showing up from this great piece of work is that the tidal gauge at Fort Denison is quite unique in that it is somewhat protected from the events that the app is illustrating.
Regarding sea level change, one has to also account for land level change.
“ The increase in ice storage on the Earth’s surface during glacials resulted in a lowering of sea levels by as much as 120 m during the Last Glacial Maximum 20 000 years ago (Murray-Wallace and Woodroffe 2014). This occurred because rivers didn’t return moisture evaporated from the oceans after it was precipitated as snow and rainfall (which became ice) across the landmasses of the northern hemisphere.
The warming climate after 20 000 years ago melted the ice and returned the water to the sea, sometimes as dramatic meltwater pulses after ice-dammed lakes burst. Sea levels rose by as much as 45 mm per year and on average 10 mm per year between approximately 18 000 years ago and about 7 to 8000 years ago. The increased weight of the water onto the now submerged continental shelves resulted in a relative raising of the coast around Australia by as much as 1 to 3 m resulting in a relative sea-level fall (hydro-isostasy – see Box 3) after approximately 7000 years ago (Figure 7). It is still uncertain if this fall was smooth and progressive or was interrupted by stages of relative sea-level stability or possibly small sea-level rises. This sea-level fall ended approximately 2-3000 years ago (Lewis et al. 2013).”
Nott, J. F. 2016: How climate and sea level have changed over the long-term past. CoastAdapt, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast.
Did you read blith’s link, stu? Like your link It admits that “A clearer understanding of past sea-level changes and their causes is urgently needed.”
So they admit there is still plenty they don’t know.
But if you want a simple lesson in what is factually happening with current sea levels, make your own observations, and you will see that there is no SLR.
Something that should get through to even the most obtuse is the fact that ocean front homes that you couldn’t give away 40 – 50 years ago because they were being washed out to sea, now sell for tens of millions.
Even the greatest climate alarmists are buying them.
The fact that MSL at Fort Denison has gone nowhere in over a century in possibly the most tectonically stable country in the world, tells us that there is no net land ice melt and if there is no net land ice melt there is no global warming worth worrying about.
You can relax and spread the good news.
I should have added that those ocean front homes 40 -50 years ago were frequently experiencing high sea surge due to the many cyclones of those days that often raised sea levels by 2 metres above high tide, locally.
Since the great Pacific climate shift of the late ’70s, the east coast climate has improved to such an extent that these high “sea levels” are rarely experienced.
“Regarding sea level change, one has to also account for land level change.”
Is there a computer model for that?
I would commend you have a view of the latest app of Australian modern tidal changes from Geoscience Australia that gives a view of sea level variations since 1998 on an annual basis. It is quite mind blowing given the variations over short distances around the coastline. The example via LinkedIn is a short – from there you an go to the app itself and look at in some detail what has been going on around Australia in recent times.
Neville thinks true science is a dog’s breakfast because he lacks the ability to comprehend it.
Melting glaciers = sea level rise. Thus spake science.
Dog’s breakfast? Thus spake Neville.
Blith sez: “Melting glaciers = sea level rise. Thus spake science.”
Except that he and they conveniently forget that it has been going on forever.
And nothing to do with CO2 levels.
Is the penny ever going to drop in your tiny mind, blith?
SD I think I’ll give up on Donk 1. He yaps the obvious then says I don’t understand his revelation about where the higher Hol optimum SLR came from and why it lasted for thousands of years.
I thought I told these donkeys this about 101 times, but perhaps we should link to a lot more of those earlier, WARMER Hol studies AGAIN to try and wake them up?
More on some of the wealthy , crazy con merchants and activists who never seem to practice what they preach.
Obama yapped about so called DANGEROUS SLR for 8 years, then buys a mansion right on the seashore.
And Bill Gates is another super wealthy yapper who suddenly seems to worry a lot less about SLR in the San Francisco area. I mean who cares what he chooses to spend another LAZY 44 mil $ on? OH and ditto for HIPPO Al Gore, just another seashore junky.
Gotta love these con merchants and fra-dsters, one law for them and another for the great unwashed.
Melinda apparently is fed up with Bill’s new-found wisdom with his “Great Reset” and will probably relieve him of the house to prevent his concern over any SLR:
Another top article from Dr Curry and what a frenzy these clueless idiots have worked themselves up to over the last few decades.
Now “Climate Change” is responsible for all of the IMAGINED problems for humans around the world.
IOW their so called CC is EVERYTHING. Certainly a lot of frenzied imagination and yet ZIP data and evidence to back it up.
How many times has it been now that Neville has posted stuff that actually disproves his own dogmas?
Fewer than the number of times you have posted comments that demonstrate your limited knowledge of the scientific method?
An incompetent comment from an eccentric denialist troll.
Dry your tears, why are you so upset by an “eccentric denialist troll”? Keep demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the scientific method with your silly comments.
Yes SD it seems Melinda is not impressed with their anti-human “great reset” BS and fr-ad etc.
Let’s hope she takes him to the cleaners and hopefully then uses her billions $ to promote a more secure + reliable energy future for the poor and elderly in the USA and around the world. Go Melinda.
Now a Japanese Inviro minister joins the lemmings and jumps over the cliff.
Just another super expensive mission impossible and thanks again to Willis for checking the proper data /evidence to once again prove his case.
But this was just another “vision” by the minister and certainly straight out of the usual fantastic approach to maths and science?
Two recent comments by you.
“Just leave this to scientists – they know the truth.”
“Melting glaciers = sea level rise. Thus spake science.”
Science (genuine science, not the perverted “climate science”) does not “know”, it enquires, always with an open mind. Nor has it “spake”. That you make such silly comments is a comment on your lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Scientists seek the truth, but on a subject as complex as world climate, with its many “unknown unknowns”, it is not possible for the complete “truth” to be known and spake.
Go back to your computer models, you will be happier there than in the real world.
“ Scientists seek the truth, but on a subject as complex as world climate, with its many “unknown unknowns”, it is not possible for the complete “truth” to be known and spake.”
How true, especially for your side of the discussion where you lot ignore almost all the actual science and therefore operate with a very high level of “unknowns”, whereas the climate scientists are narrowing the gaps all the time. There is a heavy preponderance of evidence supporting the AGW theories, mostly from actual measurements and research in the field all over the world. You on the other hand rely on disproved theories emanating from people like Willie Soon claiming it is all about sunspots etc, which the solar researchers have debunked many times or no theory at all, just objection to the work being done. And models help but they are not the main story so stop carping about them and misquoting their robustness for prediction. Likewise, rabbiting on about people buying houses near the sea is just a classic denialist distraction ploy and irrelevant.
“How true, especially for your side of the discussion where you lot ignore almost all the actual science and therefore operate with a very high level of “unknowns”, whereas the climate scientists are narrowing the gaps all the time”
Keep dreaming. The “gaps” remain a million miles wide. Come back when the infamous models can reliably “predict” cloud cover.
The rest of your comment is the usual alarmist boilerplate, with your usual obeisance to the long discredited models and lots of warm inner glow babble.
PS, show me where I have ever quoted Willie Soon.
“ Keep dreaming. The “gaps” remain a million miles wide.”. Oh, come now, “a million miles”, that is a huge claim that is unsupportable.
“ Come back when the infamous models can reliably “predict” cloud cover.” Once again standard denialist trick of exaggeration and seeking unrealistic and unnecessary requirements for “proof”. Why do they need to “reliably predict cloud cover”? Take account of it, yes, estimate its effects yes. Go and look at what the models do, how they are structured, what they are intended to do, how successful they have been when retroactively run against know inputs.
“The rest of your comment is the usual alarmist boilerplate, ”. Oh, contraire, there is no standard alarmist boilerplate, only very standard denialist boilerplate, honed over decades. Would you like a list of books and papers spelling out those denialist tricks for what they are? Probably not.
“ show me where I have ever quoted Willie Soon.” I accept that but ask that you recognise my comment was more general about you and your fellow travellers on the denial express bus. On that score I recognise that you are not as emotive, unrealistic, and as reactionary as at least one of your cosy fellow travellers, and that is a good thing, it leaves room for sensible debate.
“whereas the climate scientists are narrowing the gaps all the time”
An unsupportable claim. And when all of the models are plotted tigether, they start off quite close together, then their “predictions” fan out with ever increasing divergence. “Retroactively run against inputs” is a fancy way of saying “once the outputs are fudged to match newly measured reality”.
I you don’t know why clouds are important, you must never go outside.
Then there is more of the usual boilerplate added.
Silly stu sez about models: “Why do they need to “reliably predict cloud cover”? Take account of it, yes, estimate its effects yes. Go and look at what the models do..”
Yes, we have, stueyluv, and if you had a brain in your head you would know that all your beloved models show cloud feedback as positive.
Based on pure assumption.
When, overall, the complete opposite is the case, particularly in the warmer parts of the world where they have a huge negative [cooling] effect.
And your other gem: “There is a heavy preponderance of evidence supporting the AGW theories, mostly from actual measurements and research in the field all over the world.”
That’s really funny, I have been asking you to supply this for years and you have never been able to.
Have you just discovered it?
Quick! Quick! Tell us! Tell us!
“standard denialist boilerplate, honed over decades. Would you like a list of books and papers spelling out those denialist tricks for what they are?”
A serious question.
It seems that alarmists are willing to spend significant time and effort writing books that will only ever be read by a very few people outside the climate change debate.
Yet they are unwilling to debate sceptics in public fora, where they could reach a much wider audience. After all, even a failing show like Q&A can still get an audience of 200,000 in Australia. How many more would a debate in a major international network get? Certainly more than the numbers a book will reach.
With all that measured data and the models at their fingertips, surely any competent alarmist could wipe the floor with those ignorant and misguided sceptics? Yet they refuse to debate in public. Why?
“ An unsupportable claim. And when all of the models are plotted tigether”. How about you go back and look at the timelines. As usual the negative view quoted by you and proposed by others is typically of old models run some time back and you never allow for the development of the models, which, when run more recently, show close alignment with actual events. Are you still saying we are not seeing an uptick in global temperature?
“ Yet they are unwilling to debate sceptics in public fora”. Funny that. The actual scientists are usually happy to debate with other scientists who challenge their view. That is the nature of science. But the scientists are reluctant to get caught up in vacuums often run by extreme right wing media, with non scientists. QED. Your guys do not publish serious scientific papers supporting a counter view, they usually just argue with scientists papers and not in the usual fora. Where are their counter hypotheses? Non existent or flimsy at best.
“which, when run more recently, show close alignment with actual events”
Run before or after the actual events?
Sd “ That’s really funny, I have been asking you to supply this for years and you have never been able to.”. Sorry there is just too much evidence to know where to begin. This site is just not big enough. You can find it yourself easily if you have an open mind. Go and have a look.
And once again a ducking, dodging, lying stu runs a mile and hides when he is asked to produce any measurable evidence.
All blither, bluster and bed wetting but no facts.
What a sad, bag of wind you are, stueyluv.
“Your guys do not publish serious scientific papers supporting a counter view, they usually just argue with scientists papers and not in the usual fora”
That’s sweet Stu.
Arguing with the actual papers is debate, potentially more productive that throwing unrelated papers at each other, and all ignoring the lot.
Putting aside the actual evidence of the Climategate emails, that showed collaboration in keeping contrary views out of “the usual fora”. Or has that bit of petty politics now been abandoned?
So it seems more likely that the climate scientists prefer “in-house” discussions (all in a collegiate fashion, of course, old chap) to defending their work before a wide audience?
Here’s Wrightstone’s work on their so called mass extinction and of course the real data since 1870 shows that things have improved. See the graph since 1870.
But if we changed to their DILUTE, TOXIC S&W disaster we would need to use up to 500 times the area of current land use.
And their TOXIC LANDFILL MESS would also ruin the environment below ground as well , FOREVER.
Boambee knows nothing about science. There is both scientific truth and scientific enquiry – every time you get into an aeroplane you put you life at risk based on the machine basing its behaviour on scientific truths. When you have a general anesthetic you also put you life at risk knowing that the doctors are fully versed on the necessary scientific truths necessary in your sedation.
Only denialists get stuck on this fact. There is enough truth in modern climate science for sensible people to see the issues and threat to future generations. Even school children can run simple experiments to verify a range of climate associated truths. While any particular scientific truth can be over turned – it can only be overturned by equivalent or better science. This just means the level of truth rises.
So boambee should just piss-off and stop making trolling noises.
“Even school children can run simple experiments to verify a range of climate associated truths”
The old “CO2 released into a cylinder trick”? Surely you are not still pushing that one?
So tell us some “truths” from climate science. The ever more reliable models? The rising sea waters? Which “truths” do they know? Give us the benefit of your extensive knowledge. Something that can be demonstrated experimentally, as aerodynamics can.
Your denial is always amusing, and alarming, a bit like Covid denial. How do you explain how we have a world with a finely balanced environment, where clearly carbon has been shown to be a major influence, but you claim our current carbon appetite has no effect. Do you accept the fact that in 100 years we have burned the carbon that the earth took 100 million years to sequester? How do you explain that such an event in a unique time frame has no serious results for our planet? Looking at paleo data etc takes us somewhere, but there appears to be no match for carbon shift in earths history (in such a short timeline) so how do you really claim all is well? Where are the hypotheses making a case for earths carbon neutrality? I have seen none. All of climate denial lies in discrediting standard science, never an explanation for the contra view.
So name one thing that is happening with today’s climate that hasn’t happened more often and to a greater degree in the recent past when CO2 had absolutely no bearing on the situation.
And don’t run away this time.
Tell me something that happened more often in the past and prove it scientifically. And show me how our up and down climate history, run by normal forces, is not now being overtaken by new forces, unleashed by man, and that where we are is “normal”. We should be on the downslide towards an eventual new ice age, but seem to have turned a corner. Your reference to past extremes does not cut it.
“Do you accept the fact that in 100 years we have burned the carbon that the earth took 100 million years to sequester?”
That is, at best, an estimate. How do we know how much carbon was sequestered each million years? How many million years did ut take to sequester all of the currently sequestered carbon? How much is left?
That is speculation piled on guesswork, buttressed by (yet again) more models.
As for “carbon has been shown to be a major influence,” again that is still a contested claim. If CO2 is the major evidence, why was the climate warmer at previous times of lower atmospheric CO2 levels?
But since you again raise the issue that “carbon has been shown to be a major influence,” why are you happy to allow some nations to continue increasing their already massive emissions because they must be allowed to catch up? Either there is a crisis/emergency, or there is not.
Denialist – hoisted and skewered.
Of course if you increase CO2 in a cylinder – it will block IR radiation.
Our troll just failed primary school.
Alarmist hoisted and skewered.
What happens when the CO2 is released from the cylinder?
Some facts for the climate blitherers:
“Make no mistake, measurable scientific evidence makes it clear that global warming is not going to cause the world to end in 10 years, 100 years, or 1,000 years. In fact, a warmer world has always been a better world for human health and welfare, and this is not going to change in the foreseeable future.
“The notion of an imminent climate crisis is a carefully crafted delusion, plain and simple. The more that objective science has debunked alarmist climate claims, the more that climate activists and their media allies have ratcheted up their rhetoric and sought to deflect attention away from real scientific evidence. Here are a few important scientific facts:
“During most of the period since the dawn of human civilization, global temperatures have been significantly higher than they are today. And even without modern technologies, humans survived and thrived in those warmer conditions.
“Colder climate periods have typically been associated with more famines, plagues, and severe extreme weather events, as well as with reduced crop yields and declining human populations.
“Warmer climate periods have typically resulted in comparatively fewer famines, plagues, and extreme weather events. They also usually have higher crop yields and are more likely to produce golden ages of higher human population numbers and living standards.”
“ Make no mistake, measurable scientific evidence makes it clear that global warming is not going to cause the world to end in 10 years, 100 years, or 1,000 years.”. That is classic denialist misdirection. No one says the world will end. But we may disappear. It may end up being better off without us, sooner or later, that is another story. But the world will go on. We only arrived during the last blink of an eye, but it will go on after we are gone. Long live the cockroaches. Meantime the question is how will our descendants in 2100 view our role. How will your history be viewed?
“No one says the world will end. But we may disappear.”
I hate to be seen to show excessive concern for my grandchildren, but if we disappear, our world goes with us. What remains will be a different world.
That is classic alarmist obfuscation.
And how will your history be perceived in 2100?
How will your grandchildren view your willingness to allow China, India and others to continue to increase their CO2 emissions at a time of what you consider to be an emergency caused by increasing CO2 emissions?
“ How will your grandchildren view your willingness to allow China, India and others to continue to increase their CO2 emissions”. So you finally agree CO2 emissions are a problem. Good, we are getting somewhere.
No, YOU believe that there is a problem, but are not willing to apply YOUR proposed solution on a consistent basis.
How about YOU explain your inconsistency, then we might start to make progress in this debate.
PS, nice try at another classic alarmist diversion from the actual subject, but, fail!
“Facts”. Which ones exactly support your non scientific view? You seem to be just stating opinion.
Wonderful. Someone who has admitted to not understanding science now claims others have a non-scientific view, while demanding facts, but being unwilling or anable to actually provide any.
“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 it can all be solved by models based on incomplete assumptions that do not even cover the “known unknowns” such as clouds, much less the “unknown unknowns.
And the tooth fairy is real!
Yes BJ, I was about to supply the same detail for the benefit of our stu-pid stu who runs a mile from true facts.
We never stop supplying him with empirical science and he never comes up with anything to support his waffle.
For instance, he has never been able to produce the fundamental, measurable evidence as to why cloud feedback is positive as is programmed into all the GCMs, which automatically destroys their ability for factual projections.
Here’s some more from Koonin for stu-pid:
Yes SD and he refuses to accept the lack of any dangerous + observed SLR off our east coast for over a hundred years.
And SLs were about 1.5 metres higher about 4,000 years ago as I’ve linked to many times.
Here the Bolter uses the latest DATA to condemn the ALP and Greens for trying to convince us of their so called climate emergency.
See the video at about 1 min 20 secs for that very interesting photo comparison of Balmoral beach Sydney. The earliest photo is from 1905 and the later one from 2019 and no observable SLR AT ALL.
That’s 114 years between photos and yet our religious fanatics STILL BELIEVE in their loony cult?
Here’s a good FOX News interview with Dr Koonin about a month ago.
Most of this is just plain common sense, but our loonies don’t understand that either and just cling to their BS and fra-d.
One of the echoes there keeps asking about evidence. Here is a site with 18 pages of references you can follow up, mainly pertaining to Australia, which is where most of us are interested in.
And for those here interested in the science (not many it would appear), this site is worth checking. There is a lot of good information there on all aspects. Statistics and graphs on ocean heat, arctic sea ice, the sun’s energy, snow pack, sea level, CO2 etc. Contrary to what is usually inferred by some on this site the subject does not stand or fall on the merits of the models, it is supported by thousands of different studies of all aspects of the earth and weather which over time indicate trends in climate. The models are just a tool to help make sense of the big picture.
A good short primer on the subject is “the physics of climate change” by Lawrence Krauss.
Given much that has been written to this site I would guess few people contributing here have ever actually followed through with any of this material.
Unfortunately you can lead fools to facts, but you can’t make them think.
And stu-pid stu and blithering blith simply hand-wave over “thousands of different studies of all aspects of the earth and weather” that we have all read but somehow missed the measurable evidence that we are asking them to provide to make any sense of their argument.
Now stueyluv or even blith [but that’s even more unlikely] show us your brilliance and give us a direct quote from your reams of science to illustrate that same “evidence” that the current slight warming is caused by man made CO2.
But the fact that they are both so stu-pidly vague tells us that this is never going to happen.
But please prove us wrong.
But when you can’t, please have the decency to admit it and just stop wasting our time.
Come on now jolly jumper, if you can come up with proof that the CO2 atmospheric concentration is not affecting climate you will be guaranteed a Nobel Prize. Why has no one gone down that path I wonder.
We all know you are pretty thick, stu, but I always thought you were bright enough to understand that not only can you not prove a negative, but that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And when you wish to change the world, as you climate alarmists do, the burden of proof lies with you to show that your claimed human-caused global warming is factual.
It’s called the Null Hypothesis.
We have been through the concept of the Null Hypothesis with Stu before. He is not interested in it, presumably because it doesn’t suit his “narrative”.