A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper




The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX

Nine poll shows 69% of Australians “don’t believe” in man-made global warming

Channel Nine asked it’s readers “Do you believe in man-made global warming?” Over 122,000 people responded.

The final tally emailed to me this morning was:    Yes: 38,311     No: 84,240

The tally at 1:50pm EST.

As far as I know, the link to it was not posted on any major skeptical blog except possibly in comments (correct me if I’m wrong). In other words, the poll may be a reasonable representation of the web audience of one of our major free-to-air TV Channels.

A few weeks ago ABC Radio national did an online poll asking their readers if the IPCC was right about a four or five degree warming this century.   That was too extreme, even for ABC readers: 91% of 3101 voters said “No”.

A new US poll finds that even though most Americans identify with what would be called environmental values, hardly anyone thought climate change mattered. The Washington Post:

…”64 percent ‘feel a deep connection with nature and the Earth.’”  

Just 5 percent of Americans thought climate change was the most important issue in the U.S. today.”

Amber comments on climatechangedespatch: “5% must be the university profs and the donation seeking green blob to get it that high.”

Believers may have the run of the old media, but Skeptics are all over the new media. And that’s no accident. (Think preaching from the pulpit versus the printing press, when the latter appeared a few hundred years ago.)

h/t to Matty, Chris and Jim

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (15 votes cast)

Google Engineers give up on renewables fixing the climate (but they still miss the point)

Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?

Two engineers who worked on the Google  RE<C project admit with candour  that they used to think that renewable technologies could help prevent climate change, but they now know that was wrong, saying “Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?” The brutal answer eventually is “we don’t know”. The RE<C project started in 2007 and was buried in 2011. Google invested $850 million in clean energy. (For a tiny $100,000 I could have saved Google $850 million dollars. If they only asked skeptics instead of Al Gore…)

Ross Koningstein & David Fork admit with admirable honesty that their assumptions about renewables were wrong. But they still haven’t realized their assumptions about climate models are wrong too. Next year perhaps?

Most of their article is about the engineering hurdles of dispatchable and distributed energy. But they also talk about the Google time management philosophy, their 70-20-10 rule (70% core work, 20% cutting edge but viable, 10% “crazy” possibilities). What they don’t seem to realize 70:20:10 is pointless if 100% of their time is spent solving a problem that doesn’t exist. The Google innovation approach is a pot-luck dip. Five percent of any project — and it’s the first 5% — should be about testing all the assumptions and right back to the very first one. If Google did this research it would have been obvious, and years ago,  that not only were renewables unlikely to reduce CO2, but that reducing CO2 was pointless, and indeed, probably counter-productive.

It’s not just about wasting time and money. What if you spend years trying to improve the weather, and not only failed to do that, but had the perverse side-effect of reductions in crop growth, and increases in food and energy prices? What if your main success was to increase the size of deserts — CO2 feeds plants and extra CO2 has the biggest effect on plants in arid zones. How would you feel if you tried to hold back the tide (which is barely rising) but children died of starvation instead?

For the record, the  assumptions they should have tested were 1/ whether climate models are better at predicting the climate than any roulette wheel. 2/ whether there is any empirical evidence that climate feedbacks (especially water vapor in the upper atmosphere) are positive and amplify the effect of CO2 (they aren’t and they don’t). The evidence has been there for years that temperatures drive carbon dioxide, and that if carbon dioxide amplifies the temperature the effect is so small it can’t be measured with modern technology and the best data we have.

Spectrum IEEE

Google’s boldest energy move was an effort known asRE<C, which aimed to develop renewable energy sources that would generate electricity more cheaply than coal-fired power plants do. The company announced that Google would help promising technologies mature by investing in start-ups and conducting its own internal R&D. Its aspirational goal: to produce a gigawatt of renewable power more cheaply than a coal-fired plant could, and to achieve this in years, not decades.

As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach. So we’re issuing a call to action.

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (58 votes cast)

UK voters tired of “big” or “bigger” government. UKIP wins again!

Government, Opposition, what’s the difference? It’s all become shades of “bigness”.  With the UK Big-Government orbiting in the  shadow of the Mega-Government in the EU, is it any wonder an alternative had to spring forth? And Lo…

In case you haven’t heard, Mr Reckless left the UK Tories, joined UKIP (the UK Independence Party) and just won the byelection becoming UKIP’s second member of Parliament. It surprised quite a lot of people.  Analysts are abuzz: the electorate was not as old or white as the first seat UKIP won, and it was ranked 271st on the list of seats UKIP “might win”. Labor won just 16% of the vote.

People seem to like the idea of small government, lower taxes, and politicians who don’t promise to change the weather. Who would have thought?

Perhaps the mighty English will one day even win the right to buy powerful hairdryers, and serious vacuums? We dare hope!

BBC News

UKIP’s victory was in many ways even more impressive than their triumph in Clacton. The ease with which they demolished a 9,000 Tory majority was striking and this after the Conservatives had strained every sinew to halt the UKIP bandwagon.

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (84 votes cast)

Peter Spencer versus The Commonwealth — starts Monday in the Federal Court. Help Needed!

It’s a trial described as potentially “bigger than Mabo”

Peter Spencer’s story is one I didn’t think could happen in Australia. He is the farmer in New South Wales who bought a farm and then lost 80% of it when rules changed to stop people clearing native vegetation. Unable to use most of his property, he was slowly bankrupted. Though he broke no law, he lost his life’s work and his beloved farm in late 2010. There was no way out. He couldn’t sell the property — who would buy a piece of land that could not be used? Farmers all around Australia lost billions of dollars in assets as the value of their land and produce declined. The legality of this is finally being tested in the Federal Court in Sydney starting this Monday, November 24, and continuing for the next three weeks. Hold your breath. This could be an enormous case, with implications for land holders across the continent.

Much of his farm was native forest. This is the northern edge of Spencer’s property (Saarahnlee)

The Federal Government can’t take your assets  without paying, but the state governments can

The Native Vegetation Acts were brought in by the states to stop farmers clearing native plants — but no compensation was ever paid to farmers. The Federal Government used the carbon credits contained in that vegetation to meet Australia’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, yet the burden of supplying these credits fell on some farmers and not on other Australians.

The Commonwealth is not allowed to confiscate assets without due compensation — it’s in the Australian Constitution. But states can do it. So what if the Federal Government makes an arrangement with the states for the states to make the confiscatory laws instead — does that get around the Constitution, is that ok?

Carbon credits stored on farms are worth a lot of money

If Australia had emitted more than it was allowed to under the Kyoto Treaty then the Federal Government would supposedly have had to purchase carbon credits from overseas. As it happens Australia did meet its Kyoto obligations — our average emissions during 2008 through 2012 did not exceed 108% of the emissions in 1990 (the base year). In the event, after 2012, the countries that failed to meet their Kyoto obligations did not actually purchase credits, but when the Treaty was signed and when the Native Vegetation Acts were passed it was widely thought that they would have to. Some of the touted carbon credit prices were quite high– the recent Carbon Tax was $24.15 per tonne, for instance — and national emissions are measured in billions of tonnes.

Australia met its Kyoto obligations by stopping land clearing, but otherwise pretty much pursuing business-as-usual. The cost of meeting Australia’s obligations thus fell almost entirely on those farmers who were prevented from land clearing, and it was the Native Vegetation Acts of the states that did the preventing. In the 1990 base year, about 23% of Australia’s emissions were due to land clearing. By stopping land clearing, Australia could emit about 31% (= 8% + 23% ) more in the average year in 2008 to 2012 than in 1990, in all other sectors combined.

The Native Vegetation Act also has the perverse incentive of discouraging farmers from planting native plants. It now makes more sense to plant foreign species. What farmer could afford to let Australian trees grow?

Peter Spencer is doing this on behalf of all property owners in Australia and is determined not to give in

Peter Spencer

The funding ran out mid year,  so he is representing himself. Spencer applied to the judge in October for more time to raise funds and find a lawyer to represent him, but the judge decided that the case was of public importance, had been delayed far too long already and he should go ahead without a lawyer. Spencer feels he has no choice but to make the most of it.

A satellite image of Saarahnlee It is almost all mountainous native bushland. Yellow markers show significant points on his farm.  (Click to enlarge).

Peter Spencer’s fight has been going on for years. Remarkably, he soldiers on, undaunted, long after most men would have given up. Read this ABC interview from 2005 for a little background.

His farm, Saarahnlee, was possibly the highest altitude working farm in Australia, near Adaminaby at 1,500m.  Spencer was involved in research and development toward high altitude projects like Merino breeding programs with CSIRO, trout farming, Korean Ginseng, and forest harvesting of Mountain Gum and Mountain Ash. At the highest point of his property a study on wind farming with a hydro pump system was under development with the ANZ Bank. The aim was to make it profitable without government subsidies. Spencer was pursuing creative and experimental projects related high altitude farming in Australia.

Should Australia be  a country where honest work and personal assets can be randomly destroyed without compensation by the governmentShould a few citizens be forced to bear the costs of the many, or do we share the load fairly?

If we want Australia to be a free and fair land,  we need to do something: to draw the line — and stand up for what we know is right. The creeping power of capricious bureaucrats must be halted.

What kind of country do we want to live in?

He needs our help.

Saarahnlee is just south of the ACT (Click to enlarge).


More information:

Peter Spencer’s new blog: (add your voice)

Support Peter Spencer on Facebook.

Details of the Federal Court Case in Sydney Please go if you can!


How you can help

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (77 votes cast)

Fossils show models can’t predict how climate affects animals

Fossils show those dang mammals lived in all the spots they weren’t supposed to live in. Climate models don’t predict the climate, and animal distribution models don’t predict (or in this case hindcast) animal distribution either. How little we know, and how adaptable is biology?

This calls into question all the headline prophecies about the extinction of cute furry critters due to climate change.

The modelers were sure that animals would be unable to cope with temperature changes and would not have lived in the same places as they do now during a climate so different. By crikey, it was an ice age!  Yet those small mammals, whose defining biology is that regulate their own temperature, flummoxed the models by living nearer the glacier sheets where the models predicted they would not live.

All the alarming forecasts of local extinctions of mammals come from assumptions built into modern models that fail in multiple ways. The temperature changes from the last 20,000 years show that these mammals have already survived massive shifts, both colder and warmer, and that anything we face in the next century is but a flea on a hippo.

In the graph, the dots are the fossils, the blue marks the hypothesis — the zone where they were supposed to be confined. The stripes mark the ominous ice-cap-from-hell. (Where will those Canadians go?)

Figure 1. Paleodistribution maps for the five mammal species under consideration. Points highlight fossil occurrences, blue-shaded areas indicate ENM hindcasts, hashed area indicates extent of glacial ice. Red points are from the high confidence window (both maximum and minimum ages within 40–17 ka) and yellow points are added in the inclusive window (only maximum age estimate within 40–17 ka).
Panel (A) shows the distribution of all LGM fossil sites in the conterminous USA from the FAUNMAP II database.


How devastating are these results?

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (56 votes cast)

Study namecalling at Queensland University

Would you too like to learn how to misinform people, mangle English, and toss cherry-picked factoids that avoid the real point? How about studying to be an apologist for scientists who take your taxes, but hide their data? Or perhaps you’ve always dreamed of being an obedient useful fool for the State, to help promote propaganda that governments can change the weather if the people just pay enough money?

Are you looking for a cause to pick up that you can brag about at parties to prove your social superiority, impress teenage girls, or hide your low self-esteem? Do you crave an outlet where you get the thrill of being a namecalling bully, but with the excuse that you are “saving the planet” and “being scientific”?

Good news, Queensland University is dumping any pretense that its science faculty uses logic or reason or has an interest in observable evidence. The university is advertising that abusing English definitions and words meets its standards of higher education. After all, no one denies we have climate, and “climate deniers” don’t exist, but it’s a useful propaganda term to fog, veil and clog up the public debate about climate science. John Cook who runs the course even admits that it’s an inaccurate term, but he won’t stop namecalling. The last thing we want of course, is a polite discussion of a complex topic. If fans of the man-made climate crisis have to provide evidence, or answer questions, the facade would crumble.

The best defense is offense, and the best offense is to be really offensive. Bring on the namecalling, derision, and character assassination. Skeptics are scum like holocaust deniers, and have a brain like a lizard. Don’t listen to them whatever you do!

Come learn these stone-age techniques: serve the names up with half-truths, lies by omission, and be a better useful idiot. Big bankers, parasitic industries, and self-serving politicians need you!

Calling all bullies, sign up now for Making Sense of Climate Science Denial at UQ.

Tony Thomas can’t wait: “I’ve only about 120 sleeps to the start of my Denial 101X course. I hope to be a  John Cook Laureate.” Reader, Pat has signed up too.

Denial101X is a MOOC – massive online open course. It’s free for you, but sucks money from workers around Australia.

About this Course

In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.

In the climate science community there is little controversy, because most people who question the hypothesis have been sacked, attacked, find it hard to publish papers and are subject to name-calling, exile, intimidation, and “climate apostasy“. There are no grants for skeptics, and monopolistic funding has purchased a “consensus”.

John Cook’s unscientific 97% study started as a logical fallacy, and ended by using irrelevant and mis-assigned papers to claim that a 0.3% consensus by their own definition was actually a 97% consensus (by quietly using a different definition). Nonetheless it is a quasi proxy for funding ratios in climate science, though it overestimates skeptical funding because many skeptical papers are written by volunteers. The real funding ratio is not 97 to 3 but more like 3500 to 1.

  1. The study can’t be replicated. (Legates et al)
  2. The data is hidden. Either Cook et al didn’t keep it (and are incompetent) or they did but it does not reflect well on them and they won’t release it (they are incompetent and deceptive too?).
  3. The definitions changed between the claims in the abstract and those in the paper. (Legates et a;)
  4. The raters were not independent. 7% of the ratings were wrong, and biased.
  5. The ratings data shows inexplicable patterns.
  6. Cook et al fail to report that their data fail their own validation test. 
  7. Most of the papers were irrelevant. Those authors were writing about “impacts” or “mitigation” of climate change and not about the cause of climate change. Obviously skeptical scientists will not write about “mitigation” or “impacts” of climate change, so including these papers (and there are thousands) served the purpose of increasing the total number of papers claimed to be surveyed and also increases the percentage of “consensus”. That is an utterly predictable outcome. Good PR, lousy design.
  8. It’s not a representative sample, and Cook did not test to see if it was.
  9. The paper is used to make profoundly unscientific statements in the media. Cook et al endorse the fallacies.

In the wider scientific community there is so much controversy that skeptics outnumber believers, scientific associations have had revolts about climate change, scientists have quit their failing institutions, protested by hundreds on blogs.

I’ll help John with his course:

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (99 votes cast)

Germany gives up on emissions target. Japan emits more CO2 than ever

So much for momentum on climate change. Reality bites. Without nuclear power, Japans emissions have hit a new record high. At the same time, even with 17% of its energy from Nuclear power, and with 23,000 wind turbines, Germany stands no chance of reaching its emissions targets. The rich, technologically advanced nation that has spent more than any other on green energy admits they’ve failed.

Those who want to stop producing CO2 have billions of dollars to spend on advertising and pointless windmills, but in the end, chemistry and physics can’t be bought. If renewables could provide cheap reliable power, they wouldn’t need subsidies. Everyone would buy them.

Germany to Abandon “Strict” 2020 Target – 40% cut not possible

Breitbart London

Germany’s Vice Chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, has indicated that the country will abandon its commitment to reducing CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2020, from a 1990 base level. In doing so he has won the ongoing clash with his own environmental minister Barbara Hendricks over energy policy, telling her that he will tolerate no further resistance to the change of direction, according to Der Speigel.

Keep reading  →

VN:D [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (57 votes cast)

Gullible leaders, journalists, swallow advertising and cheer it on?

Let’s all jump on the ghost of a bandwagon!

The front page of The West Australian declared  “Barnett backs Obama’s climate plans”

The dead-horse is getting flayed a bit longer and the spectators are cheering louder than when it had legs. A foreign, lame duck President, who just suffered a major defeat in the midterm elections has managed the “feat” of getting the Chinese to shake his hand and solemnly promise to keep doing what they are doing for another 16 years. (After that, they agree to change what was probably changing anyway.) Those who spent millions on climate-scare in the US election are licking their wounds. Gallup polls show the public just don’t care — ranking it 13th out of 13.

Despite those hard numbers, those who forecast the horoscopes on herd movements are getting very excited. Andrew Probyn, political editor of The West, exclaimed “The politics of climate change are again in the ascendancy”. It’s political astrology.

As I keep saying, the media IS the problem. With journalists like that, we get politicians like this.

Colin Barnett, conservative leader of my home state, is mimicking the David-Cameron style unconservative, big spending, non-leader and dutifully joining the chorus. In 2100, how historians will mock the song and marvel that state leaders seriously fell for the idea that wind-mills would turn back the tide, and solar panels could stop the floods. Look out. Global warming causes global cooling, and a tax can change the weather! Hey but it’s just as likely as the Chinese volunteering to curb their economy because we asked them nicely.

Colin Barnett has “embraced Obama’s demand for stronger climate change action, saying Australia needs to be bolder in its emission reduction targets”. He thinks we should phase out of coal and into gas. Mr Barnett runs a state with lots of gas and not much coal. Did anyone notice? Not so much. Political editors saw the “momentum” they were hoping to see, aligned the planets, and proclaimed the mood is shifting. Any excuse will do in the rush to follow the herd.

My letter to The West Australian today:

To the Editor

Let’s get serious about the climate and start talking numbers. How much does that insurance cost, and how many degrees, exactly, will it cool the planet? The cost is measured in trillions, and the degrees are measured in one hundredths.  If Colin Barnett is serious about the climate he needs to be serious about the decimal places. If it doesn’t have the numbers that matter, it isn’t science.

Buying insurance for insurance sake is something a salesman would push. Has Barnett been fooled by the advertising? There’s a word for people who are not sceptical — and it’s “gullible”.

Global Carbon markets were worth $176 billion a year at their peak and almost a billion dollars a day, globally, was invested in renewables. There are billions of reasons to try to control the weather, but they are all dollars, not satellite measurements, ice core results, or data from weather balloons.

And since we are doing the maths, lets talk about the numbers Obama has in the US Congress. This is a lame duck President freely offering other people’s money to stop storms and hold back the tide. How about some healthy scepticism?

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (125 votes cast)

North Korea — the ultimate low-carbon ideal

No nation has been more successful at reducing their carbon emissions than North Korea. Over the space of a few years, the carbon footprint of the entire nation was reduced by a massive two-thirds, thanks mostly to centralized planning with some help from famine, disease and the odd gulag. Anyone for Pine-bark cake? — Jo

Decarbonizing an economy – North Korea

Guest Post by Tom Quirk

The North Korean famine and general economic crisis from 1994 to 1998 is an extraordinary example of the failure of central planning and management. The results of what is called the Arduous March[1] are best illustrated by this image the Korean peninsula at night taken in 2014 (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Night image of the Korean Peninsula in 2014 shows that North Korea is almost completely dark compared to neighboring South Korea and China (source NASA).

The North Korean disaster led to the estimated death of between 220,000 and 2,000,000 people, 1% to 10% of the population. The famine, which continues to this day, has led to food rationing, black markets and a government keen to get foreign currency by any means — including drug smuggling and nuclear technology sales. The disaster has led to a decarbonizing of the economy, which can be seen from the estimates of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels shown in Figure 2.

figure 2: Estimated fossil fuel emissions of CO2 for North and South Korea, per capita (left) and total  (right)  (source CDIAC).

North Korean per capita CO2 emissions fell by more than two thirds from 1990 to 2000.

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.8/10 (84 votes cast)

weekend unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 6.9/10 (21 votes cast)