What the EU elections might tell us

By June 5, 2019Other


The recent EU elections, so close to our own, have prompted me to write about the climate-change business from a different perspective, and I have drawn on a piece by Ben Pile, who is not a warmist at all, and writes at Spiked. What he points to in his essay is the sheer confusion around the energy issue, with all sorts of claims being made. Much of it is relevant to us in Australia.

These EU elections, not much reported here, showed a continuing rejection of the major parties that we have been witnessing in our own country. Who were the winners? The Greens picked up support, and won nearly eleven per cent of the vote, much the same as in Australia. Why? One British MEP (Member of the European Parliament) explained to The Guardianthat this surge was due to ‘the accelerating climate crisis’. Exactly what such a crisis might be, and how it is shown to be accelerating was not made clear, but readers might note that one of the new terms with which activists describe global warming is indeed ‘climate crisis’. I guess it sounds more alarming.

The Greens’ gains were more than matched by the gains made by groups on the other side of politics, leaving the major party groups, the centre-left and the centre-right, with less than fifty percent of the vote. Not only that, the Greens’ share of the vote was markedly different across Europe. They lost votes and seats in Sweden, Spain and Austria, and lost all the seats they had in Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary and Estonia. Where they gained seats was in northwest Europe — the UK, Germany and France. As in our own country, the Greens seem to do well in metropolitan wealthy constituencies, where rising energy costs can still be absorbed into household budgets without much fuss. Elsewhere, the ordinary voters are by and large unconvinced by Green arguments.

And some EU countries, Poland and Hungary are two, want to hang on to coal-fired electricity generation. One reason is that they have coal, plenty of it, and another is that without that coal they would be dependent on Russian oil and gas, a prospect that worries their leaders. The call for complete replacement of fossil fuels by wind and solar by unlikely dates such as 2030 has no attraction there. In every country there are rival calls for a slowdown in this transfer, and for a re-examination of the whole issue. Some 340,000 German households are no longer connected to the electricity grid because the residents have not paid their electricity bills. Exactly how they cope I don’t know. Those who live in apartment buildings get central heating as part of their rent, so they are not sitting around shivering under blankets. Still, the great transfer to alternative sources, the so-calledEnergiewende, meaning ‘energy transition’, has not been a success at all, and while its supporters ask for patience, its detractors call for a return to sanity. (You can read much more than you want to by searching just for ‘Energiewende’ on your computer.)

Altogether there is the same sort of puzzlement in Europe as I think there has been in Australia about the direction of politics. In Britain, of course, there is the additional issue of Brexit, and perhaps there will be some certainty as to what direction Britain will take on that vexed question once the new Prime Minister is known and able to make decisions. In Europe there is the paradox of Germany’s closing down nuclear power plants while next-door France obtains more than 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear energy, which Germany buys when it needs to. There are calls for an accelerated transition to alternatives, at the same time as a reduction in subsidies to make their use more attractive.

What is the cause, or what are the causes? It seems to me that increasing wealth in Europe, as here, has caused activists of all kinds to put forward noble ideas that are neither well-backed by the evidence nor easy to implement. In our country ‘climate action’, the NBN, and the NDIS are all good examples. In Europe there was Angela Merkel’s welcome to hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, and her subsequent discovery that other members of the EU had no great wish to join her. In Britain growing irritation at the numbers of East European migrants taking jobs in Britain certainly fuelled the Brexit feeling. Walls are being built in some countries to keep refugees out, an action that is in flat contradiction to EU rules.. 

What began as a noble idea to prevent wars between European countries ever occurring again seems to have become a great bureaucracy in Brussels issuing directives to all member countries, and without accountability to the European Parliament. The notion of a common currency was attractive, especially when it was seen as the way in to large loans for infrastructure, or even, as in the case of Greece, for maintaining what could seem over-generous welfare payments. When the bills came in, however, there was great reluctance to pay. The prospect of a country’s defaulting is so worrying to the EU’s finance system that loans have been forgiven, or even quietly forgotten about.

Britain’s decision to leave the EU is no less worrying. If it can do so without much pain, then other disgruntled countries will most likely wonder why they can’t do the same. Therein lies the prospect of the break-up of the noble experiment. Of course the best and brightest want it all to succeed. So do all those who have global jobs, or jobs with global reach: it is so much easier to walk past the immigration barriers than it is to have to (as once long ago) queue with other tired people.

I’ve written before about the ‘nation-state’, and my feeling is that it remains the best mechanism for ensuring a good life for a large population. The EU is a challenge to that concept, at least in part. The nation-state requires a common language, or at least a common pair of languages that nearly everyone understands, a well-understood national history that everyone learns at school, and a decently shared sense of and pride in ‘us’, and what makes us special. We are only at the beginning of the global business of turning nation states into a federation, so that what might be done communally, for the good of the whole of humanity, is done in a slow and steady way. I speak as an incrementalist. Those characteristics of the nation-state tend to mean that people want to hang on [not ‘handgun’ as first appeared, thanks, alert readers!] to their cultures, not submerge them in a vague ‘other’.

The energy debates within Europe and Australia show us that top-down instructions from political leaders are not the best mechanism. We need long periods of public discussion. There is no ‘climate crisis’ of which I am aware, or at least there is no evidence that there is one, even one that might be here by 2030. We need to look carefully and publicly at all claims that something radical must be done about X, so that the world and ourselves are not endangered. Yes, governments have to make the final decisions. That is what they are for. But the EU elections tell us, once again, that political elites have too much confidence in their own intelligence.

Join the discussion 74 Comments

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Surely it is obvious that the only climate ‘crisis’ that would concern humanity is a sudden, catastrophic, rise is sea level, for which there is no actual evidence whatsoever, and against which it would be impossible to prepare ourselves. Storms, floods, droughts, we have survived over generations.

    If the Millenials think they’re going to die, well, they probably will, but it will not be as a consequence of climate change.

  • Joe Roach says:

    “Handgun” (second last paragraph) sounds slightly Freudian, Don, but I am confident it is the spellcheck running amok!

  • david purcell says:

    How about a real climate crisis caused by unexpected ( probably not in the immediate future) massive volcanic eruptions or perhaps an asteroid collision with Earth similar to what occurred about 66 million years ago; any such asteroid would only need to be a few hundred meters in diameter to make life on earth instantly difficult!

  • Neville says:

    So just what is this climate crises or emergency? Can anyone even attempt to explain it and also tell us what we can do about it? But you must be able to provide the proper data to back up your claims.
    The evidence obviously shows that we now exist at the best and easiest time to be alive since humans first stood upright on two legs. But if I’m wrong it should be easy to dispute my claims, by quickly providing us with the evidence.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    David, that’s been true for centuries, but we haven’t had a ‘climate crisis’ about it.

  • JMO says:

    The Snowies have had their best early winter snow dump in at least 20 years. I heard a guy who has lived at Perisher for 40 years and he said this was the best early snow he has seen. I am heading up for a ski next week. I still remember back in 1989 the predictions within 20 years there will be no more snow in the snowies, Lake Jindabyne will be dry and Jindabyne will be a ghost town, In 2012, a great ski season, a climate “scientist’ from Macquarie Uni ( I think) she said there be no snow by 2020.

    Every climate catastrophic, doomster prediction has failed and I have heard some beauties like the 50 milllion climate refugees in the Pacific by 2010, result- just 1 and his case was dismissed in a Auckland court. We have 5 years to save the planet said Penny Sackett (as Chief Scientist) in 2009; the world will go in a major tipping point in 100 months – this ended 31 Dec 2016. And so it goes on.

    All this nonsense due to a wimpy IR absorber which is also a great plant food.

    John Tyndell, the discoverer of the IR absorbing properties of numerous gases in early 1860s, said in his lecture “On Radiation” on Tuesday May 16 1865 at chapter 14 that CO2 ” is one of the feeblest absorber..” of what he called the calorific rays. He included O2 and N2 in that -which have just about zilch absorption. And the greatest absorber he found (and reported at chapter 13) by a country mile? Water vapour. It left all the other gases for dead, It is at least 10X higher concentration than CO2 (at 410ppm) and 40 to 50 times higher IR absorption than CO2 which is a WIMP.

    But as we know all this climate “emergency” has nothing to do with CO2; it is merely the vehicle for fear and control. Luckily the mob, the quiet Australians are seeing through this. “The mob will always work you out “says Graham Richardson. We have had now 4 Federal election whic refuted a CO2 price

    There is no climate crisis or emergency.

  • Neville says:

    So SD what is their climate emergency or crisis? These fools have been telling us this nonsense for 30 years and even longer if we look at their idiotic forecasts in 1970. That’s Ehrlich and Holdren’s etc first Earth day delusions.
    It’s not Polar bears , it’s not Antarctica, it’s not Greenland temps, it’s not dangerous SLR , it’s not droughts, it’s not cyclones, it’s not death from floods, it’s not our much longer life expectancy, ( see UN data) it’s not deaths from heatwaves, ( moderate cold is the big killer all around the world see 2015 “The Lancet “study) it’s not desertification, ( our world is Greening see last 30 year CSIRO data) It’s definitely not famines, but obesity is and could remain a problem into the future. ( just look at the data from around the world and OZ data backs this up)
    it’s not economic growth, because the world economy has doubled in size in less than 30 years ( 1990 to 2018) . So where are their so called disasters that they keep yapping about, because nobody seems to want to offer us any proper data or evidence? Will they ever wake up?

    • Boambee John says:


      “Will they ever wake up?”

      They are already awake. Like all the previous “ecological” crises, this has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with the lust for absolute power over others. No matter what the crisis du jour happens to be, the solution is always to give power to unelected, self selected, so called “elites”, most of whom are pretty average types, but all of whom lust for power.

  • Doug Hurst says:

    Agree with all who see no evidence of a climate crisis. This leads me to see no need, or benefit, in spending billions to reduce CO2 production, especially by continuing the failed experiment with wind and solar and reduced coal consumption. Thus, I now oppose all climate action and am calling, whenever I can get a letter published, for a review of all our climate and energy policies with a view to realising huge cost savings and restoring facts-based decision making in government.

  • Neville says:

    Spot on Doug and BJ. I agree it’s difficult to have letters published and I always include data for my claims.
    But the mitigation fra-d is also a very big problem. Even their GURU Dr Hansen told us in 2015 that Paris COP 21 was just BS and fr-ad. See the Guardian link and Lomborg’s PR study showed that COP 21 would have no measurable impact even if every country carried out all their obligations to the letter.

    And Lomborg estimates those countries obligations are NOW costing one to two trillion $ a year. All for no measurable change to temps or climate by 2040 or 2100 and beyond.


  • Neville says:

    Don’t forget that humans are very adaptive and have always lived under extreme temp variation for untold thousands of years. That can be minus 35 c or lower and over plus 45 c and we need to understand this every time silly people urge us to be worried about warming or cooling.
    Here’s 5 mins of Lomborg trying to explain why Trump was right to pull out of the Paris agreement. Oh and Lomborg isn’t a so called sceptic but he just understands that Paris won’t make much difference. IOW he agrees with Dr Hansen that Paris is like a belief in the Easter bunny and the Tooth fairy. Just BS and fr-ud.

  • BoyfromTottenham says:

    Great article as usual, Don,

    You said: “It seems to me that increasing wealth in Europe, as here, has caused activists of all kinds to put forward noble ideas that are neither well-backed by the evidence nor easy to implement.”
    Perhaps increasing wealth is partly responsible, but what about the ZIRP effect which has persisted in the EU for almost a decade? As I am sure you know, project viability used to be tested against the ‘risk free rate of return’ on government bonds, but if this is zero (or even negative!) and looks set to stay that way indefinitely, then every project appears to be economically viable. Add in the fact that most if not all large scale ‘renewables’ projects are heavily subsidised by either the government, electricity consumers, or both (e.g. the LRET), then these dud projects become even more attractive, even if commonsense analysis screams ‘scam!’ to the average joe.
    Underlying this – if this whole ‘renewables’ boondoggle crashes, it will be down to the EU leaders who spent the last couple of decades building a thicket of legislation to support it, purely because of their ideological fixation on the evils of CO2. According to Stein’s Law, which he expressed in 1976 as, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”, this madness will stop at some stage. But what will cause it to stop, I wonder?

  • Neville says:

    SD here is an interesting 2016 study on the GBR that has used fossil coral beach rock to measure the early Holocene SLs. Some photos of the coral rock. This is about 20 km SE of Heron island. Do you know this area at all?


    Using this method the SLs in the early Hol were estimated to be up to 2.85 metres higher than today. Here is the location, see also at link.

    “LOCATION “One Tree Island lies in the Capri-corn Group on the Great Barrier Reef and is accessible through the Heron Island resort. One Tree Island lies about 20 km windward (SE) of Heron Island, its geology described by Jell & Webb (2012) and the cay island is composed of pebble-cobble sized coral rubble and shingle* beaches”.

  • Neville says:

    Here are another 80 studies that show much higher SLs from the earlier Holocene. These studies are from all around the globe and some from Australia, NZ, SH as well.


    • spangled drongo says:

      Very interesting stuff, Neville, but far too honest and factual to impress our house alarmists who are in real world denial.

      Rafe explains it well:

      1. Climate change is not a “planetary emergency.”

      2. The climate catastrophe narrative is concocted out of overheated climate models, inflated emission scenarios, political hype, and unmerited pessimism about human adaptive capabilities.

      3. All metrics of human well-being show the state of the world is improving; sustaining such progress requires greater access to affordable energy.

      4. The very real costs of climate “solutions” hugely exceed their hypothetical benefits.

      5. Citizens have more to fear from the climate policy agenda than from climate change itself.


  • Aert Driessen says:

    Don, this issue does not need any more debate. We already know and understand the science that tell us that there is no crisis and that climate variation is natural. This urgently needs political leadership but, alas, we don’t have any leaders, despite the number of politicians, with one exception – Donald Trump. We need a Donald, here in Australia. Scomo doesn’t cut it. Abbott came closest but missed his chance. A Churchillian leader would call this out, walk away from Paris, and even build a coal-fired power station, (to set an example) that could be sold later. And Science needs to return to Evidence and declare Models (the ‘predictive’ types) a failure. I think that Nigel Farage in the UK might turn out to be a Donald.

  • Neville says:

    So called “climate change” policies are now threatening millions of auto jobs worldwide. But why are they retooling factories at a cost of 100s of billions $ when some studies doubt that electric cars save any co2 emissions during their manufacture and average EV life,
    EVs are also very poor value for money and govts still have to build the new expensive infrastructure to allow these EVs to be recharged in about 40 minutes. Then we have the toxic materials to handle when the battery expires after 7 years.
    But none of this idiocy will change the temp or climate or co2 levels by 2100 and beyond.


  • spangled drongo says:

    Don, could this possibly be also what the EU elections are telling us:


  • Neville says:

    Ross McKitrick revisits the appalling behavior of Obama, Holdren and other Dems when they attacked Roger Pielke jnr, because he insisted on telling the truth about extreme weather events and the lack of correlation to co2 emissions.

    He was correct but many gutless so called scientists stayed quiet and refused to support him, even though the message from the IPCC reports backs up Pielke’s research and not the nonsense from Obama, Holdren etc.


    • Chris Warren says:

      But Neville

      Your behaviour is even worse.

      • Boambee John says:

        “Chris Warren
        June 8, 2019 at 3:25 pm
        But Neville

        Your behaviour is even worse.”

        So says the poster who routinely abuses those who disagree as “deniers”, “denialists”, “liars”, and fools who do not know anything!

        Pot, meet kettle.

        When you are able to conduct a civilised debate, then you might be in a position to criticise others. And even then, you would still have a lot of atonement due to others.

        • Chris Warren says:

          As I have explained many, many times – denialist is an appropriate term and you should wear it with pride.

          As to any other – as I have stated clearly in the past – denialists will always get paid back kin their own coin.

          This is how it should be, so your plaintive wingeing now only serves as an object lesson in blinded tunnel vision.

          I do not routinely tag people as liars or fools except in reply to a poster who has already served this up. So you have engaged in an unwarranted falsification.

          So do not pretend otherwise and try to focus on the issues at hand – specifically

          Where do you get “other glaciers advancing” ????

          Did you just make this up as a convenient false statement as a typical denialist trick ????.

          • Chris Warren says:


            In scientific denialism, the denialist can deny a cause (carbon dioxide does not cause global warming), an effect (global warming does not occur), the association between the two (the earth is warming, but not because of carbon dioxide), the temporal relationship (carbon dioxide concentrations are increased because the earth is warming) or the isolation of the cause-and-effect relationship (other factors than greenhouse gases cause the earth to warm). Often denialists will practice minimization (the earth is warming, but it’s not harmful) and will use misplaced skepticism in the veneer of being a scientist when it is unwarranted.

          • Boambee John says:

            “Chris Warren
            June 9, 2019 at 10:26 am
            As I have explained many, many times – denialist is an appropriate term and you should wear it with pride.”

            No, if you are not aware of the etymology of the term “denialist”, then you are even less informed than your postings suggest. But since the term is acceptable to you, let me state that you routinely deny the evidence of your own eyes in favour of the output af computer models with a 97% failure rate.

            If I were to bother going back through Don’s archives, I could show that you called me a liar before I ever applied the word to you. Although, given your loose use of language, I suspect that you regard any dissent from your “wisdom” as lying.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Boambee John

            Before you end up with another label around your neck, so you can winge as usual, what is your evidence that 97% of computer models fail?

            Why have you not explained why you claimed that “other glaciers are advancing”?

            It is correct to call people who deliberately lie as liars, and people who deliberately deny, deniers.

            There is nothing to winge about.

          • Boambee John says:


            Please learn to spell the word “whinge”.

            As to the computer modeks, you claim to have been a research officer, sorry, senior research officer. Go away and research the graph which plots the modelled forecasts of temperature increases since the early 1990s with the measured (homogenised) actuality. Some 97% of the models forecast too high.

            As for increasing glaciers, do you own research, and stop bleating.

            Or else, just keep denying, whichever you prefer.

          • Boambee John says:

            “Chris Warren
            June 9, 2019 at 7:55 pm
            Boambee John

            Before you end up with another label around your neck, so you can winge as usual”

            Oh noes, Chris is going to call me another nasty name.

            Sticks and stones, …

  • Peter E says:

    Thanks. Agree on nation state. Napoleon said that there are two levers to move men -fear and greed. ‘Climate change’ is rich in both. The term ‘climate crisis’ is typical hyperbowl with the propaganda status all too apparent.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Peter E

      There was a reason Napolean died in prison. Democrats consider there are two levers to raise humanity – science and democracy. Both are now underpinning the salvation of humanity from the greedy and from the emotional denialists launching from a few forlorn bloggers and fossil fuel allies.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Peter, well said. Our blinkered blith sez; “Democrats consider there are two levers to raise humanity – science and democracy.”

      And is too blind to see they are avoiding both.

  • Neville says:

    So why are people so much wealthier, healthier. better educated and better fed etc today than at any time in human history? Why is the Human development Index increasing since 1870, 1900, 1950 and since 1990?
    The pop is much higher today so we don’t seem to be impeded today by more extreme weather events at all. Yet we’re told that the world only has a very short period of 3 yrs, 10 yrs, 20 yrs etc before the apocalypse. Our Labor candidate included this in her last message to the voters— “if we don’t take action on climate change NOW it will be too late”.
    So I suppose the apocalypse will be in full fury and the end times will have arrived by the 2022 election? But does anyone really believe this delusional nonsense.? I hope not.


    • Chris Warren says:


      What proportion of the increase in human development index was due to fossil fuels, petroleum based products, cement manufacture, and deforestation?

      If you include these does your index go up, or down?

      Drug addicts have a huge increase in their human development index while drugs are incoming, but what happens to their human development index when drugs are no longer at hand?

      • Boambee John says:


        Remove “fossil fuels, petroleum based products, cement manufacture,” and human development will take large steps backward.

        In the wealthier countries with access to “fossil fuels, petroleum based products, cement manufacture,” deforestation has been reversed. The provision of reliable electricity has contributed much to this.

        You and the other denialists of reality whom you follow demand actions that will reverse the advance of human development.

        You are happy to see people starve, freeze in winter and swelter in summer to satisfy your own virtue signalling egos.

        • Chris Warren says:

          “You and the other denialists of reality whom you follow demand actions that will reverse the advance of human development.”

          Fake, false and obnoxious.

          “You are happy to see people starve, freeze in winter and swelter in summer to satisfy your own virtue signalling egos.”

          A deliberate, perverted, self serving lie. The opposite is true.

          You should be ashamed of yourself.

          • Boambee John says:

            Utter rubbish!

          • Boambee John says:


            Your responses comfirm that, like many theoreticians, you have no idea of the (hopefully) unintended consequences of your proposals.

            Modern civilisation, for all the prattling on about renewables and alternative sources of energy, remains criticallly dependent on fossil fuels, petroleum products and concrete. Without them, it would quickly revert to Third World standards.

            It is fantasy to believe that with current technology solar and wind can provide reliable, continuous, electricity at a steady voltage and constant frequency. The current relatively limited usage of these sources already causes voltage fluctuations and requires special means to maintain a constant frequency.

            Any actions leading to de-carbonisation of the economy will have the results I listed, but which you claim to reject. Modern societies will collapse, and people in developing societies will continue to suffer the consequences of using wood and animal dung for cooking.

            But feel free to continue being a denier of reality.

  • Boambee John says:

    PS, one of the most iniquitous results of the anti-CO2 crusade is the diversion of food souces into making fuel fir IC engines. It has almost certainly caused starvation in some poorer countries by driving food prices up.

    Another, hopefully unintended consequence that shoukd have been readily forecast.

    • Neville says:

      BJ you’re wasting your time because Chris is only interested in his fantasy world, just like his heroes in the Labor and Greens parties.
      These fools don’t even understand simple maths and science and here is more proof that this is just a complete, ongoing waste of trillions of $ for a guaranteed zero return.

      Look at the graph for co2 emissions at the IEA link and you’ll understand how futile the reduction for some countries in regard to co2 levels are over the last 40 to 50 years.
      I’ve added in OZ and Germany for comparison to soaring emissions from China. And Germany has achieved little over the last 30 years, but USA has fallen back to about 1990 levels.
      You’ll have to add countries yourself to see more graphs, I’ve tried to set it but it goes back to original numbers of countries.
      This so called mitigation of co2 emissions is the greatest BS and fra-d in human history and even their guru Dr Hansen agrees.


      • Chris Warren says:


        Science is the opposite to a fantasy world, and if you want to pronounce like this then please provide precise examples.

        Remember science says that Earth’s temperature is 60F (15.5C) which is some 16C above freezing.

        Evidence? try this: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/681/solar-system-temperatures/

        If it was not for CO2 at around 270 ppm and consequential water vapour most of the Earth’s water would be frozen. Consequently we can associate a rise of 16C with 270ppm, as a linear trend.

        This linear trend, based on CO2 + water vapour feedback, will continue into the future.


        • Boambee John says:


          “Consequently we can associate a rise of 16C with 270ppm, as a linear trend.”

          No, you are making an assumption. Correlation is not (necessarily) causation. You need to produce evidence of the linear link that you claim exists.

          Easy for a senior research officer!

          PS, what would be the temperature of the earth’s surface absent any GHG? Rather lower than 0 C? Should your linear increase start from there?

          • Chris Warren says:

            The linear trend was posted earlier in another thread.

            Go find it – Fido…

          • Boambee John says:

            “Chris Warren
            June 10, 2019 at 2:17 pm
            The linear trend was posted earlier in another thread.”

            And was just as shonky there.

          • Boambee John says:

            “Chris Warren
            June 9, 2019 at 7:55 pm
            Boambee John

            Before you end up with another label around your neck, so you can winge as usual”

            And now the label has been applied – Fido! I am totally mortified. I must go wrap myself in my security blankie for the rest of the afternoon!

        • Boambee John says:

          “Remember science says that Earth’s temperature is 60F (15.5C) which is some 16C above freezing.”

          The concept of an average global temperature of 15,5C is as sensible as the idea that standing with one foot in hot water and one on a block of ice produces, on average, comfort.

      • Boambee John says:


        You are quite correct about Chris (and the same applies to Stu). They are so psychologically invested in CAGW that they can never admit that they have been gulled. They will still be prattling on about the Hockey Stick and ignoring the sun as their houses disappear under a glacier.

        I don’t post to convert them, they are incorrigible. I post so that casual lurkers are made aware of the deleterious consequences of some of the proposals they support. Consequences that they either do not comprehend, or deliberately ignore.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Just for the sake of the denilists who think glaciers are not melting ….


  • spangled drongo says:

    Poor ol’ blith doesn’t get that glaciers retreat every summer and advance every winter at opposite times in opposite hemispheres.

    That’s why there is no SLR acceleration.

    Or even SLR at all, in tectonically stable countries like Australia.

    When are you going to summon the courage to physically check sea levels for yourself instead of bleating and bed-wetting, blith?

    The real world will cheer you up no end.

    Don’t you think?

  • Neville says:

    It looks like the clueless Dems won’t even allow a so called climate crisis debate between their Presidential candidates. Sniffy Joe is still their ( unbelievable but true) front runner and Trump must be chaffing at the bit to take him on if Sniffy runs for President in 2020.


  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova examines more of the fake news about Aussie coal plants. The life of these older coal plants could be extended for a very long time, with just regular maintenance as required.
    And OZ is a net co2 sink so we have every right to do as we please. Of course zero change to temp or co2 levels whatever we do.


    • Chris Warren says:


      What proportion of the increase in human development index was due to fossil fuels, petroleum based products, cement manufacture, and deforestation?

      If you include these does your index go up, or down?

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris still trying to reverse the advances that have made it possible for him to criticise modern civilisation for making advances that improve peoples’ lives!

        Convert those food grains into fuel, tough luck for those who lose access to affordable food.

        Let those poor people in Asia and Africa keep cooking over wood or animal dung fires. Sure, they die early from lung diseases, but giving them reliable electricity would only encourage them to improve their lives, and then emit more CO2 plant food.

  • Boambee John says:

    Copied from the Labor gone wrong tgread.

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

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

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

  • Neville says:

    Here is the difference in temps for different scenarios from Lomborg’s PR study of the COP 21 Paris agreement. Of course using the extreme case of 8.5 RCP is the most extreme choice and most people would agree that it is the extreme temp outlier.
    There are FIGs 1 to 11 to view and Lomborg uses the agreed MAGICC software as used by the IPCC etc. There is little difference in the worst case and best case in temp by 2040 or 2100. Don’t forget this will cost 1 to 2 trillion $ a year for no measurable change to temp by 2100. Certainly nobody living then would be able to tell the difference at all.


    Here’s his summary of the study.


  • Neville says:

    Interesting comparison between Nth and Sth Korea since partition in 1953. But I suppose this doesn’t matter to the fools who want to “do something about our climate crisis”.
    But this certainly proves Nth Korea made a mess of everything while the two countries had to “endure” the same climate over the last 66 years. Just look at the stats provided by the Guardian to understand what a command economy can do to wreck the opportunities and wellbeing of millions of people.


  • Chris Warren says:

    Global warming 101


    This should be shown to every high school student who will have to deal with future climate catastrophes.

    They will need to know who from their past, now sleeping in their graves – should be blamed.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stick with the message and the science and leave the messenger out of it.

      What’s that, I hear you say?

      You can’t understand the message?

      Bad luck. It’s very simple.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Wouldn’t the MSM and school students love to know about this. Imagine how it would alter their approach [koff]:

    “Reading the WMO report, you would think that global warming was getting worse. But in fact it is carefully worded to give a false impression. The data are far more suggestive of an improvement than a deterioration.”

    And the lack of anything to be alarmed about is clear across a range of measures, says Professor Humlum:

    “After the warm year of 2016, temperatures last year continued to fall back to levels of the so-called warming “pause” of 2000-2015. There is no sign of any acceleration in global temperature, hurricanes or sea-level rise. These empirical observations show no sign of acceleration whatsoever.”

  • Chris Warren says:

    Debunking Monkton ….


    Why would you divide sensitivity by 3? But Monkton does (as a second attempt after dividing forcing by 3.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Do you seriously consider a cherry picked hatchet job on someone who cannot respond, is an honest, scientific debate?

      If forcing and feedbacks play little part in supporting CO2, as Monckton claims, it [ECS claims] should be divided by three.

      Since 1850, with half a doubling of CO2, our 0.8c of Global warming is less than Nat Var so the extra CO2 may have not caused any of the warming at all, but even assuming it is responsible for all the warming [and with the end of the LIA occurring at the same time this seems very unlikely] then the logarithmic warming should be much higher than it is at present, if the ECS is 3c or greater.

      As Monckton rightly claims, with observation of current warming, ECS is much closer to 1c and could well be less.

      There are many peer reviewed science papers that support his claim.

      Here is just one:


      IPCC claims which are based on their GCMs are more extreme but Lindzen and Choi’s paper based on real world measurements is ~ 0.5c.

      Half of Monckton’s claim.

Leave a Reply