Things are really getting serious now. There is not only extinction and endless droughts, but there are depressed dogs. Unprecedented depressed dogs. The chain of effect goes like this: electric heaters cause climate change which makes winters wetter in England and owners don’t like mud, so ipso, ergo, garbo, dogs get stuck indoors, go stir crazy and rip furniture.
I presume the answer to this is to sell the car, cancel the heating, and wait for the world to warm for your dog to get happy?
Leading pet behaviourists told The Independent that the number of depressed and unsettled dogs they have seen in recent months is unprecedented.
Carolyn Menteith, a dog behaviourist who was named Britain’s Instructor of the Year in 2015, says Global Warming might be causing pets to become depressed:
“I’ve never seen our dogs or horses this bored before in 20 years.
Yes, this is the worst in recorded history, or 20 years, whichever comes first.
Horses that have lived happily outside before are saying ‘I actually can’t cope with this mud and wet anymore’…”.
For me, the unprecedented thing here is the talking horse.
Is that climate change too?
Keep reading →
BREAKING BUN FEST: Hysterical. The contradictions in the propaganda are biting back viciously. Isn’t karma a bitch?
If climate change is solved and beyond debate, who needs climate scientists?
CSIRO has announced it will axe 300 to 350 climate jobs, which will “wipe out” the climate division. The head of the CSIRO wants to focus on climate adaption and mitigation instead. Suddenly a lot of Profs who told us the debate was over are squealing that it needs more research. Climate science was “beyond debate” and in need of action, but now we “need to know more about the basic operation of the climate”. Oh the dilemma!
The head of the CSIRO is doing what the Greens say they want — moving beyond the debate and putting more money into adaption and mitigation. Where’s the Greens statement applauding him…?
With up to 350 scientist jobs under fire at maybe $250k per year (including super, admin, and other on-costs), that means there is around $90m at stake.
This is a CSIRO management decision:
“Climate will be all gone, basically,” one senior scientist said before the announcement.
In the email sent out to staff on Thursday morning, CSIRO’s chief executive Larry Marshall indicated that, since climate change had been established, further work in the area would be a reduced priority. — SMH
CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall said the changes would see the organisation move away from measuring and monitoring climate change, to instead focus on how to adapt to it.
“It’s inevitable that people who are gifted at measuring and modelling climate may not be the same people who are gifted at figuring out what to do about it how to mitigate it,” he said.
“Some of the climate scientists will be able to make that transition and some won’t.” — ABC
Scientists are tying themselves in knots to explain why it’s appalling that there is a loss of safe, low turnover jobs to study something that is “proven”. Gee, just as well they aren’t coal miners.
Professor Penny Sackett –a former Australian Chief Scientist who now works for the Climate Change Institute at ANU.
“I am stunned by reports that CSIRO management no longer thinks measuring and understanding climate change is important, innovative or impactful. Paris did not determine whether or not climate change is happening, scientists who generate and study big data did. The big question now, which underlies all climate adaptation work, is ‘How is the climate changing?’”
So we don’t know how the climate is changing? So Penny, when did you mention that all the predictions of floods and droughts and terrible storms were uncertain?
Prof Will Steffen suddenly admits “we” don’t know the basic operation of the climate system:
Keep reading →
A remarkable tribute, composed, scored, and performed on a grand piano. I did not know there was such a thing as a clock tune. The things we learn when we work with polymaths… — Jo
A clock tune in honor of a true man of true science
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The generous businessman who sponsored the successful case against Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy horror movie An Inconvenient Truth in the London High Court in 2007 contacted me recently to say we should take steps to honor the memory of the late Bob Carter, whose testimony alongside that of Dick Lindzen was decisive in defeating Her Majesty’s Government and obliging it to circulate 77 pages of corrective guidance to every school in England before the movie could be shown there.
Hear the Peal | Download the Score
I have many good reasons to be grateful to Bob Carter. On my first speaking tour of Australia I was recovering from 20 years’ grave illness and it was not clear that I’d be fit enough to survive the month-long tour. Bob Carter shared with Ian Plimer the task of serving as my warm-up act. Both were ready to step in and take over if my health failed.
Then and often thereafter, I came to know and love Bob and his wife Anne, both of whom were the soul of gentleness, kindness and truth.
Bob was visibly saddened by the shameful and mendacious abandonment of any semblance of scientific rigor or method on the part of so many academic colleagues when it came to the profitable scam that is “global warming”.
More than any of us, he felt the totalitarians’ sullen, vicious assault on science and reason personally. He was wounded by it. Often and often he agonized over how men of science could have sunk so low.
Yet he remained generally cheerful, and was the sharpest brain and the clearest voice of sanity and reason against the Green Blob. His talks were models of clarity, incision and wit.
That great man was treated with bitchy pettiness by his university in his closing years, solely because he refused to be Assimilated by the Borg. In an act of extreme childishness, his right to use his own university’s library was summarily removed.
Click to down the full sheet music in PDF.
And the poisonous totalitarians who have all but silenced free speech worldwide on the climate issue by their vile personal attacks on any who dare to speak out against the Party Line could not let Bob Carter alone even in death. A number of disfiguringly spiteful attacks on him have been published.
The truth is that Bob Carter made Them uneasy. His assertions of the truth were so clear, so difficult for Them to challenge, that They came to fear him, and – as is usual with Their wretched kind – with fear came hatred.
I had the privilege of spending two weeks in Paris with Bob at the U.N. climate gabfest. One of the hate-speakers in the soulless le Bourget conference center, seeing me pass by, said, “All we have to do is wait. You’re all old. You’ll all die. And what you stood for will be forgotten. And we’ll have won.”
How ironic that, after that remark, Bob Carter should have been taken from us so soon after the Paris nonsense ended.
What then, is to be done to remember that great man? Well, just about the last thing I heard him say was that he liked my piano-playing in the foyer of the Hotel California, just off the Champs Elysees, where the skeptics were all staying.
In the German-speaking princedoms of Baroque Europe, by an elegant custom, composers honoured the dead by composing clock-tunes in their honor. These clock-tunes – or Turmuhrglockenspielmelodie – can be heard to this day from clock-towers all over Germany and Austria, ringing out their merriment every quarter of an hour.
I have decided to revive that charming tradition of recalling those in eternity by counting the hours that no longer imprison them. I have composed a clock-tune in Bob’s memory, and as a very small mark of gratitude for his unfailing kindnesses to me and my lovely wife.
Keep reading →
Remember how skeptics are dying out?
Tens of thousands of Republican voters in Iowa chose the most skeptical candidate they could find. The new landscape of Republican contenders is dominated by skeptics, but the voters wanted the most skeptical. Senator Ted Cruz is flagrantly outspoken, is well read, and brings rare debate on climate issues to Congress.
Voters came en masse for the Iowa Republican caucas. Normally 120,000 Republicans vote in the Iowa caucus, but this time 180,000 turned out. One polling station ran out of ballots. Ted Cruz received more votes than any other candidate has ever received in Iowa.
The last few fringe skeptics of climate change must have all moved to Iowa right?
This is how skeptical Cruz is:
Ted Cruz is the candidate the climate Extremists hate the most.
See the Gullibility Index
The ABC and SMH described Cruz’s win, but did not mention that he was a skeptic. He is just someone who appealed to the evangelical base.
Cruz is not liked by the establishment Republicans at all. Should be interesting!
h/t Jim Simpson.
While the Paris agreement was toothless the bite may well come from a pincer movement with domestic laws. Paris was voluntary and non-binding but may be used to provide a means for National laws that are binding to take effect. The laws within each country may have been put into effect earlier with specially prepared clauses that could be triggered or enabled by the Paris agreement.
Strangely Democrat members, elected democratically, don’t appear to have any problem with this. It doesn’t matter if the elected representatives get bypassed, I suppose — the ends justifies the means, the climate needs to be saved, and the voters are stupid.
I am reminded of Al Gore visiting Australia the week before the Senate was doing climate deals with Clive Palmer. Was that a similar strategy — mix and mesh local and international laws to achieve what cannot be achieved in a democracy via the old fashioned way of convincing the voters. Similarly Chiefio and American Thinker were discussing the TPP agreement and how it ominously meshed with the Paris deal too. The implications of that need to be hammered out too. These local laws that depend on international agreements can suddenly empower those benign looking voluntary deals.
A few weeks ago, a group of 13 prominent environmental law professors and attorneys released a 91-page report outlining this new approach, which would allow EPA to use existing laws to quickly and efficiently regulate all pollution sources, in all states
Here’s how it works: A rarely used provision of the Clean Air Act — Section 115 — gives EPA the authority to mandate that every U.S. state cut its emissions by whatever amount the agency determines is necessary to protect public health and welfare if two things happen.
First, EPA must receive a report or studies from an “international agency” showing that U.S. air pollution is anticipated to endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country. The many reports put out by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the past few decades meet this requirement.
Second, EPA must determine that the foreign country harmed by U.S. pollution has given the U.S. “essentially the same rights with respect to the prevention … of air pollution occurring in that country.” In other words, there needs to be reciprocity. That’s where the newly signed Paris agreement becomes important. The Paris agreement satisfies this reciprocity requirement because there are now nearly 190 countries planning to reduce their emissions, at least in part, to protect one another’s health and welfare.
The means justifies the ends…
Through the completion of an international climate deal, this plan would effectively allow the president to sidestep Congress and take full control over each states’ energy sector. It would give the White House enormous power. States’ rights activists would rightly scream bloody murder.
But while these arguments are justified, the fact is that Congress has proved unwilling to address the looming threat of climate change. Section 115 may not be the best way to do that, but right now it’s the only one.
No Brian, Section 115 is not the only way to address climate change. There’s the old fashioned method of persuading the voters…
Read more: politico.com
h/t Chris D
Another survey that proves Australians still tick “yes” to motherhood statements. (Especially when there is no cost involved, and all choices are “Free”)
A James Cook University researcher has found more than three quarters of Australians regard the Great Barrier Reef as part of their national identity and nearly 90 per cent believe it is under threat from climate change.
But what the media-release doesn’t say is that after 25 years of hearing how the climate apocalypse is coming, people think climate change is going to be slightly worse than beach litter.
In terms of extreme threats, 6% more people think Climate Change will be worse than flotsam and jetsam. As a multibillion dollar marketing campaign endorsed by the UN, WMO, IMF, and western media — that’s got to hurt. Climate change is not much more scary than litter, ships, or runaway fertilizer.
Figure 3: Respondent perceptions of threats to the Great Barrier Reef as scored on a 10-point scale (1=not at all threatening and 10=extremely threatening). The “Top 2%” refers to the percentage of respondents who selected a 9/10 or 10/10. The “Top 5%” refers to the percentage of respondents who selected a score of 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10.
Australian government research at its best?
““We’ve described the personal concern and connection Australians have with the Great Barrier Reef “
Because no one has done that before, right.
How much do Australians care? Look right at the end of the press release:
- 44% of Australians have visited the Great Barrier Reef
So 56% of Australians have not. The PR team tries to reframe this statistic:
Keep reading →
If there were grand profits to be made from renewables the big rapacious energy giants would be buying in to solar and selling out of coal and oil. They’ve done their research. The fantasy fear campaign would have us think that Big-oil is afraid of renewables, but they truth is that if renewables were worth a lot, big-oil would have bought them.*
This week Exxon released their report on the energy outlook for the decades to come. Not much has changed since the last report in 2014, even though 40,000 people met in Paris and did historic breakthrough type things.
Exxon says oil and gas will still dominate energy in 2040
By DAVID KOENIG The Associated Press
The way oil giant Exxon Mobil sees it, the global energy landscape won’t be radically different in 2040 than it is today.
Oil and gas will remain king, accounting for an even slightly larger share of the energy supply. Coal will fall behind natural gas to become the third-largest source of energy.
Exxon forecasts that emerging renewables such as solar and wind power will triple but remain small — just 4 percent of the world’s energy. And carbon emissions will continue rising until around 2030, when cuts in industrialized nations gain traction lead an overall reduction.
Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, told his shareholders in May last year, that ‘his firm hadn’t invested in renewable energy because “We choose not to lose money on purpose.”
That was apparently met with loud applause.
The main Exxon predictions for the world are that oil use will grow by 25%, natural gas will grow by 50%, coal will slip a bit, but all the trendy renewables will be producing only 4%:
Keep reading →
Right now there is a very odd divergence of satellite and surface thermometers. It started about two years ago. It is not like the El Nino of 1998, where all four rose together, and satellites recorded a higher spike than the surface records. This time around the satellites are lower. In the graph below, David Evans uses the older UAH official set, not the new “beta” version which would show UAH much closer to RSS and would make this divergence look even more stark.
According to the theory of Man-Made Global Catastrophe, the satellites, which record temperatures in the lower troposphere, should be warming faster than the surface. Where is that trend?
El Ninos slows ocean turnover, keeping a layer of warm water at the surface instead of stirring it in with the cooler water below. For some reason the thermometers near airports, carparks and cities are picking up the ocean warming better than the satellites. Hmm?
I’m wary of concluding anything at this stage. There was a big gap in 2007 which resolved in two years. This gap is longer, but may resolve soon too.
Then of course, there’s the point that even the past can change, and — who knows what the current divergence will look like with five years of hindsight and post hoc corrections? Remember how the 1970s kept warming for three decades afterwards?
The global “pause” has been running for nearly 19 years. But a whopping 30% of all the human emissions of fossil fuels, ever, has come out since the year 2000. Nearly 40% of all our emissions since 1990.
All that CO2, and nothing to show for it. Half of all human emissions of “carbon pollution” have occurred since 1987.
Here’s your handy reckoning table for human emissions from 1751 – 2014. (I know you’ve been waiting for it). Next time you need to know what percentage of the total human emissions of CO2 has been emitted since, say, Ash Wednesday, Cyclone Tracy, or Napoleon, or whatever, this is the table you need. When we hear that it’s the warmest summer since 1939, this table tells us what the CO2 levels were in 1939.
Keep reading →
20 contributors have published
2165 posts that generated