JoNova

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


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Books

Sea Level scare industry urges plans to panic and evacuate over 1mm rise

Please, sell us your low lying land

Let’s play sea level bingo with the latest advertising from the Merchants of Sea-level Scares.

Hitting the media outlets tonight — the latest “Prepare to Die” news stories claim we must plan now for evacuees, refugees, inundation and homeless koalas. All the usual features of marketing are there — firstly all the images they use are from mocked up futuristic sea level rise. Secondly, it’s not a continuation of current trends, it a sudden acceleration — in this case from 1mm to year to 9mm a year, effectively starting tomorrow.

1 tiny millimeter

Atolls, Pacific, Sea level Rise, measured by satellites. Photo.

From 1969 – 2013 the seas have not changed the beaches around these Tuamotu atolls — or almost any other atoll you can name.

By every method known to man, seas are rising around 1mm a year:

  1. 1,000 tide gauges,
  2. hundreds of studies of beaches,
  3. satellites measuring sea levels, and
  4. satellites measuring beaches.

All anyone needs to know about sea levels is that for the last 50 years sea levels have been rising at 1mm a year as shown by a thousand tide gauges all over the world. There was no acceleration. (Beenstock et al). Some of those gauges were rising, some falling, but when averaged out, it’s almost a wash at 1mm. Nils-Axel Morner took the opposite approach and studied 50 beaches around Scandinavia intensely, figured out which beach was at the centre of the turning crust and calculated that the seas were only rising at 0.9mm a year and for the last 125 years. (Morner, 2014).

Believe it or not, that fits with what the satellites used to say too (Morner 2004). From 1992 – 2000 the satellites recorded a rise of less than 1mm a year, but by 2003 that trend was retrospectively “adjusted” up to 2.3mm/year. As far as Morner can figure out, the satellites were calibrated to one sinking tide gauge in Hong Kong.

It also fits with the 560 odd papers that Nils has written.

Satellites are now tracking every 20m rolling sandspit above the seas — and if seas were rising the beaches would surely be shrinking. Instead of 709 islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans 89% either stayed the same or got bigger. (Duvat, 2018). Not one island large enough to have human inhabitants was getting smaller. Not one.

Most of man made warming is made by adjustments

We don’t need sea walls to stop the rise, just an independent science audit.

Before adjustments:

A lot of the rise here is just the El Nino effect of 1998 in any case.

Figure 5. Annual mean sea-level changes observed by TOPEX/POSEIDON in 2000, after technical “corrections” were applied (from Menard, 2000). A slow, long-term rising trend of 1.0 mm/year was identified, but this linear trend may have been largely an artefact of the naturally-occurring El Niño Southern Oscillation event in cycles 175-200.

After adjustments:

Figure 7. Sea-level changes after “calibration” in 2003. The satellite altimetry record from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellites, followed by the JASON satellites. As presented by Aviso (2003), the record suddenly has a new trend representing an inferred sea-level rise of 2.3 ±0.1 mm/year. This means that the original records presented in Figs. 5-6, which showed little or no sea-level rise, must have been tilted to show a rise of as much as 2.3 mm/year. We must now ask: what is the justification for this tilting of the record?

 

Sea levels have been rising for 2 centuries – the rate hasn’t changed

As far as the eye can see, it has nothing to do with CO2. Fully 85% or more of all our human emissions of CO2 have been produced since World War II and nothing changed.

Sea levels, Global, Little Ice Age, 1800, 1900, 2000. Carbon dioxide emissions.

[Graphed by Jo Nova based on data from Jevrejura et al located at this site PMSML]


There are large natural forces in here that are not well understood — look at the way the rate of change of sea level has rolled in cycles in the last 200 years.

Global Sea Level Rise Jevrejeva, 2008

Source: Jevrejeva 2008

Scream and run soon say the ABC

As usual, Nik Kilvert of the ABC doesn’t do any research or ask any hard questions. He’s just a distant part of the Science propaganda unit. The gloom and doom is based on highly adjusted data being fed into junk models and extrapolated beyond the error bars, but don’t expect Nik to report that. Truly terrible science needs truly terrible journalism to live on long enough to get the next grant.

Climate change evacuation planning needs to start now, scientists urge

Nik Kilvert, ABC

From Bangladesh to the Philippines and the low-lying islands of the South Pacific, the impacts of climate change for many people around the world are going to get much worse, very soon.

Some people will become stateless, and will need to find homes in new countries, while others will need to relocate within their own borders.

Researchers writing in Science today argue that it’s time to begin preparing the retreat of people living in regions that will become uninhabitable due to climate change.

Average global sea level will rise by up to 77 centimetres by the end of the century if warming is kept to 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to IPCC predictions.

Extreme weather events, saltwater incursion and bushfires are also expected to displace people in the near future.

etc, etc, etc

Trust the ABC to throw a bushfire scare into a sea level story.

Ruairi

Small changes in sea-level rise,
Should not come as any surprise,
But a reading adjusted,
Can’t really be trusted,
As it’s not what the reading implies.

Sea levels are always changing and past changes were often larger.

  • Past changes were larger in the Maldives (Mörner, 2007); In Connecticut (van de Plassche, 2000),; SW Sweden – Kattegatt Sea region (Mörner, 1971, 1980);  In the Kattegatt and the Baltic (Åse, 1970; Mörner, 1980, 1999; Ambrosiani, 1984; Hansen et al., 2012). Other sites (e.g. Pirazzoli, 1991). [See the link above for the full references].
  • White et al showed seas around Australia were rising at about the same speed during the depression era as they are now.

Other posts on Sea Levels

REFERENCE

Duvat, V. K. E. (2018). A global assessment of atoll island planform changes over the past decades. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, e557. doi:10.1002/wcc.557

Michael Beenstock, Daniel Felsenstein,*Eyal Frank & Yaniv Reingewertz, (2014)  Tide gauge location and the measurement of global sea level rise,  Environmental and Ecological Statistics, May 2014 [Abstract]

Morner. N.A. (2004)  Estimating future sea level changes from past records, Global and Planetary Change 40 49–54  doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00097-3 [PDF]

Nils‐Axel Mörner (2014) Deriving the Eustatic Sea Level Component in the Kattaegatt Sea,  Global Perspectives on Geography (GPG). American Society of Science and Engineering, Volume 2, 2014, www.as‐se.org/gpg

Jevrejeva, S., A. Grinsted, J. C. Moore, and S. Holgate (2006), Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records, J. Geophys. Res., 111,

Jevrejeva, S., J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted, and P. L. Woodworth (2008), Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611. [PDF]

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (25 votes cast)

British MPs and Oxford dons say “No more cars for you”. Not even EVs!

Turning up the screws

Only dead cars allowed Sign

Ban cars to get better weather!

A UK committee of academics and one of MP’s say cars are not compatible with life as we know it:

Ditch cars to meet climate change targets, say MPs

Roger Harrabin, BBC

The Science and Technology Select Committee says technology alone cannot solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions from transport.

In its report, the committee said: “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation.”

It echoes a report from an Oxford-based group of academics who warned that even electric cars produce pollution through their tyres and brakes.

Naturally, after suggesting a preposterously large, transformative impossibility — the report then just says the government should spend more on more of the same: buses, trains, bikes and ride shares. See the segue? What starts as a huge mission to change the world morphs into an excuse to boost pet projects. The ridiculous gambit claims pave the way to make another round of “more, more, more” look reasonable.

Let’s join the dots that they won’t. How many storms exactly will 1,000 extra buses prevent?

Next, how not to do journalism by Roger Harrabin:

The MP’s go on to say that the big problem is that the punters keep buying big polluting cars because “financial incentives to buy cleaner cars are insufficient.” Which is another way of saying people want big cars and if we don’t punish them enough with punitive taxes they won’t settle for something less. Being a paid PR agent for the government, Harrabin knows which way of phrasing things sounds better for the rulers and he chooses that.

This next line says so much — mostly by what it doesn’t say:

Ministers have held down fuel duty increases in recent years following lobbying from motoring groups.

Obviously, if it weren’t for motoring groups the whole nation would be asking for a higher fuel tax. To a BBC journalist, “the people” might as well not exist.

But the MPs say they should ensure that the annual increase in fuel duty is never lower than the average increase in rail or bus fares.

 Give Harrabin a point for mentioning there was a conflict of interest:

The MPs backed many of the recommendations of the government’s official advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change.

But they complained that its chair, Lord Deben, should have declared the interest of his consultancy firm in Drax power station, the largest recipient of renewable energy subsidies in the country, and Johnson Matthey, which is about to make a huge investment in electric vehicles.

Give Harrabin no points for describing this comically absurd conflict of interest as merely “a complaint”. Here’s the Logo of Debens committee:

The Committee on Climate Change (the CCC) is an independent, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008.

See especially, Strategic policy 3: “Conduct independent analysis into climate change science, economics and policy.”

Thus it’s essentially an industry lobby group. Other industries have to set up their own and don’t get to call themselves “independent”. The big mystery to me is that Lord Deben’s conflicts have been known for years (thanks to David Rose and Christopher Booker), yet Deben’s still in charge?

Could anyone imagine the CCC employing one skeptical scientist?

Car image adapted Andriy Makukha.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (49 votes cast)

Walmart asks Telsa to remove solar panels from 240 stores and pay damages after 7 fires

New rooftop BBQ known as TeslaKebab

Walmart, solar panel, fire. Photo

Photo from the legal paper. Also known as a “money printer” according to Elon.

Walmart installed Tesla solar panels on 240 stores across the US. There have been 7 incidences of fire which Walmart claim  has cost them $8.2m and were caused by negligence on Tesla’s behalf. After a spate of fires in 2018 Walmart de-energized all the panels. Then one more caught fire. Now it not only wants damages paid, it wants Tesla to remove all of the panels.

It’s not that there is something wrong with solar power, just that it’s complex, unnecessary, unaffordable and the companies that install panels can’t afford to train staff or pay guys who know what they are doing:

Tesla is getting sued by Walmart

Elecktrek  @FredericLambert

 One of them in 2012, one in 2016, another in 2017, and then three of the fires happened in the first half of 2018 and it eventually led Tesla to de-energize all 240 solar power systems at Walmart stores:

“Fearing for the safety of its customers, its employees, and the general public, and wishing to avoid further damages and store closures, Walmart demanded on May 31, 2018 that Tesla “de-energize” (i.e., disconnect) all of the solar panel systems that Tesla had installed at Walmart sites. Tesla complied, conceding that de-energization of all the sites was “prudent” and recognizing that it could provide no assurances that the deficiencies causing its systems to catch fire were confined to particular sites or particular components.”

However, Walmart says that there was one more fire even after Tesla de-energized the systems.

Elecktrek have a full copy of the lawsuit at their site.

Reuters claim Walmart gave Tesla 30 days to fix the situation in July. By August 15th, nothing had happened, except for Musk relaunching his solar business and saying ““It’s like having a money printer on your roof.”

The lawsuit accuses Tesla of having untrained workers putting up shoddy installations and showing “utter incompetence or callousness, or both,” court papers said.

The lawsuit is the latest blow to Tesla’s struggling solar business, which it acquired through its $2.6 billion purchase of SolarCity in 2016. Quarterly installations have plummeted more than 85 percent since the deal, as Tesla has cut its solar panel sales force and ended a distribution deal with Home Depot Inc .

Remember, solar is the future.

Walmart is such a large emitter of greenhouse gases that in 2013 it was emitting almost as much CO2 as Chevron:

Nilima Choudhury

“If Walmart were included in the Greenhouse 100 Polluters Index,” the report said, “a list that is limited to heavy industrial firms, such as oil companies and power plants, the retailer would take the 33rd spot, just a hair behind Chevron, America’s second largest oil company.”

In related news, in 2014 there was this story:

How Walmart Became A Green Energy Giant, Using Other People’s Money

Christopher Helman, Forbes

Last year President Barack Obama stopped by here to give a speech about his energy plan. Standing before shelves filled with discount lightbulbs, Obama held up Wal-Mart as an exemplar of corporate responsibility.

…And it’s great p.r. for a company that has been lambasted for a range of corporate sins, …

[But] … the retailer has off-loaded the capital investment–and all the risk–onto partners, like SolarCity, that minimize their exposure by taking full advantage of the federal government’s generous subsidies for investing in alternative energy.

Wal-Mart has installed 105 megawatts of solar panels–enough to power about 20,000 houses–on the roofs of 327 stores and distribution centers (about 6% of all their locations). That’s enough to make Wal-Mart the single biggest commercial solar generator in the country. And it intends to double its number of arrays by 2020.

Walmart’s goal is now 50% renewable energy by 2025.

Solar panels are expensive PR.

h/t Andrew V, Pat.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (62 votes cast)

Bluescope spends a billion in US because “cheap energy”

Add another billion to the cost of the Renewable Energy Target?

Bluescope Steel LogoIn the last few days Bluescope Steel (formerly BHP) has confirmed it will spend US$700m (AU$1b) to expand it’s North Star steel mill in Ohio. So there are multiple headlines. But back in February CEO Mark Vassella explained exactly why they were thinking of it, and his first reason was “energy prices”. Last week, high energy prices were even “a tragedy” for Australian manufacturing. This week however, he’s clarified his position by muddying it up. Now there other reasons and the solution is to fix our gas prices. He’s backpedaling and tossing quotes that happen to help the renewables industry.

Perhaps he’s been heavied by his PR and strategy team? Now he’s saying that energy costs matter, but labor costs do too and “we weren’t ever going to put another steel mill in Australia”. He’s even saying energy costs “did not play a role” — the complete opposite. These will become the quotes the renewable energy fans rely on. Apparently, now what he really wants is cheaper gas — which requires a socialist government-driven solution to fix gas prices, and it’s safe for anyone to mention anything that requires bigger government. It’s not so safe for him to say “get the government out of our electricity market”, “axe the RET”, or “Australia has too much red tape, and too many regulations.” And he doesn’t say that.

Nor does he point out that if we burned more coal, we wouldn’t need to use much expensive gas to make electricity, we’d have cheaper electricity and we could sell more profit-making gas overseas. (But Jo does and you can quote me.)

Which world does Australia get richer in: Burn more coal or fix gas prices?

h/t to Eric Worrall at WUWT, RicDre, and Lance

BlueScope close to $1b US steel mill expansion

Feb 25 2019, Simon Evans, Australian Financial Review

The chief executive of Australia’s largest steelmaker, BlueScope, says much cheaper energy in the United States is a major driver of the company’s preparedness to invest in a $1 billion expansion of its star performer, the North Star steel mill in Ohio.

North America was providing far more growth opportunities than Australia, Mr Vassella said.

He said energy prices in the US were only a third of those in Australia and New Zealand, and that was a big plus, along with North Star’s proximity to customers and the strong market for steel products, which has benefited from trade sanctions that favour US steelmakers in supplying automotive companies and building products.

“It’s part of the package of a competitive business model,” he said. “We’re still paying too much for energy in Australia.”

Last week the CEO was still saying that energy prices were a tragedy”

Aug 16 2019, Simon Evans, Australian Financial Review

BlueScope chief executive Mr Vassella said the $1 billion expansion of the North Star mill, to be fully up and running by 2023, was the largest capital investment the steelmaker would likely ever make…

Mr Vassella lamented the state of Australian manufacturing as the sector battled high energy prices and said one of the main drivers of the North Star expansion, which will increase capacity by 40 per cent, was that energy costs in the United States were substantially lower.

“That’s a tragedy quite frankly for Australian manufacturing,” Mr Vassella said.

BlueScope also operates the Port Kembla steelworks in New South Wales, which underwent major cost-cutting and restructuring in 2015. Mr Vassella said he worried a lot about manufacturers in Australia who were BlueScope’s customers and were facing ”demand destruction” because their energy costs were too high.

As Trump would say …”Winning!”

As ScoMo won’t say: “Losing!”

See his latest muddy quotes below where he contradicts himself:

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (47 votes cast)

Australian grid wars: MP says Queensland should cut off other states to make electricity cheaper

Guess which state, big business will be headed to next?

Brilliant! Let’s talk about a Quexit of the NEM. Nationals MP, Keith Pitt is suggesting that Queenslanders could cut their power bills if Queensland stands alone and disconnects from the rest of the Australian National Grid. There are concerns from experts within the energy sector that this could result in blackouts in other states… (is there an “e” in electricity?).

Keith Pitt says these are Queensland assets paid by the Queensland people, owned by the Queensland people, but we can’t continue to prop up states that make silly decisions. He’s driven by one motivator, and that’s price for consumers.

Check out the AEMO data dashboard. On any given minute Queensland is probably sending electricity to most of the NEM.

 

 

 simon holmes à court
@simonahac

this is _the_ dumbest idea i’ve heard @keithjpittb since gina’s dad suggested using nuclear bombs for earthmoving. while you’re there, you may as well blow up the highways in and out of queensland — the oversupply of bananas would drive the costs down. for a time.

The Nationals haven’t decided if they will back this at the next state election. Send them a message.

Just asking the question changes the game

In the long run, it would be silly for Queensland to own large assets that could turn a profit but say “no thanks” and just blow off the excess. But if they seriously threatened to leave, suddenly contracts would be up for negotiation. Perhaps more importantly, an excess wouldn’t last for long if big business from NSW and Victoria moved to Qld to use that excess power. It could work out well for a lot of people.

For decades each state managed its own grid just fine. As I say in my speeches, to truly wreck a grid, it needs to be nationalized. Only a big groupthinky grid can be mismanaged by one sole mismanager. Not mentioning any names, Audrey Zibelman.

But let’s not forget, Queenslanders still need to cut off the RET next.

Electricity prices fell for 25 years in Australia, then renewables came…

Australian electricity prices, NEM, graph.

The NEM formed in 1998. For most of the first 15 years of the NEM, prices stayed around $30/MWh.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (61 votes cast)

Just change one rule — so the world can see what Wind and Solar really cost

windpower

Random power generators. Photo JoNova

Wind and solar power are the intermittent freeloaders on the electricity grid. They are treated as if they’re generators, adding power to the grid, but instead they provide something the grid doesn’t need — power that can’t be guaranteed.

Random gigawatts has the illusion of looking useful, but it’s the gift of a spare holiday house you don’t know if you can use til the day before. It’s the spare fridge in the garage that overheats in hot weather, the extra turkey for thanksgiving that might not arrive til the day after.  The bills, the storage, the clutter, the chaos.

As I keep saying in RenewablesWorld fuel bills go down, but the land-maintenance-staff-insurance-FCAS-storage-and-capital costs all go up.

RenewablesWorld is a place where a lot more people and machines sit around and watch cat videos on youtube.

Here’s a great plan by Terry McCrann.

The one rule that would expose wind power’s true cost

Terry McCrann, The Australian, Business Review

If you wish to sell power into the grid, the NEM or National Energy Market, you will have to guarantee a minimum level of supply and guarantee that minimum level of supply 24/7.

And critically, that minimum level can be no lower than 80 per cent of the maximum amount of energy you will be permitted to sell into the grid.

He gives the example of the 1,000MW wind farm that either has to promise 800MW or more like 200MW. If it’s 800 — which means the team has to buy a gas plant out the back (or a fixed deal with a group that owns one), and if you own that gas plant, you’d just run it, who needs the wind turbines? If it’s 200MW, then you the owner can only profit on sales up to 250MW max.

In the simplest example, you would have to build an (at least) 800MW gas power station next to your wind farm, which you would only use intermittently, on the whim of the weather. Suddenly, wind would not look so cheap; it would be exposed as certainly not being “free”.

Critically, you would not be allowed to sell up to that 1800MW into the grid, using both the gas and the wind turbines when the wind did blow.

And if they did generate 1800MW, the same group would need to blow away the 800MW, or pay for the battery or dam to store it.

Which leads to the obvious question:

Why would I build two so-called power stations, the real gas one and the fake wind one? Why wouldn’t I just build the one, the gas one?

Ur, yes. But in a really rational world you’d just build the one coal-fired station…

But the problem with what McCrann is suggesting is that it only works in that old anachronistic thing called a free market.  The RET’s got to go.  No renewable energy target to force the transition we don’t need to transit to.

The good thing about McCrann’s idea is that we could finally find out what wind and solar cost.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (104 votes cast)

Solar road is $6m epic disaster — 4% capacity, broken and so noisy speed-limits were cut

Solar Road, Normandy, France, photo.

Solar Road, Normandy, France   |  Credit: KumKum

Would you like to drive slower, add to noise pollution and waste money? Then solar roads are for you:

The world’s first solar road has turned out to be a colossal failure…

Ruqayyah Moynihan and Lidia Montes, Business Insider

  • Two years after the world’s first solar road — the Normandy road in France — was set up, it’s turned out to be a colossal failure, according to a report by Le Monde.
  • The road has deteriorated to a terrible state, it isn’t producing anywhere near the amount of energy it had previously pledged to, and the traffic it has brought with it is causing noise problems.

The original aim was to produce 790 kWh each day, a quantity that could illuminate a population of between 3,000 and 5,000 inhabitants. But the rate produced stands at only about 50% of the original predicted estimates.

Even rotting leaves and thunderstorms appear to pose a risk in terms of damage to the surface of the road. What’s more, the road is very noisy, which is why the traffic limit had to be lowered to 70 kmh.

Despite costing up to roughly $6.1 million, the solar road became operational in 2016.

The 1km road is in Tourouvre-au-Perch, Normandy, France made by Colas.

Leaves fall on the road, then cars grind the leaves on the beautiful polymer surface. The road isn’t angled towards the sun, gets brutally hot, and both reduce efficiency. If the top polymer layer were thicker and tougher, less solar energy would get through. Planting trees beside the road would cool it, but the shade…

Who likes trees anyhow? Not the Greens.

 Getting 50% worse than expected every year:

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (85 votes cast)

Weekend Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (14 votes cast)

Skeptics get 49% more media, and other fairy fantasy stories from Nature Gossip Mag

Skeptics get banned, rejected, blocked and sacked from the mainstream media yet somehow Nature has a paper on Skeptics getting too much media. Believers don’t have to be an expert to control the news agenda, just a Greenpeace activist, or a teenage girl. Skeptics on the other hand, can be Nobel Prize winners, but the BBC won’t even phone them.

Nature, the former science giant, just launched the tenets of science over the event horizon. This paper is Argument from Authority rolled into false equivalence, and powered with cherry-picked errors in both category and in categorization. Nonsense on a rocket. It’s not what science is, and it’s not what journalism should be either.  And Nature is supposed to be both. Judith Curry calls it The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ and the worst paper she has ever seen in a reputable journal.

Nature, Science Publishing, Cover, Satire.

….

Both David Evans and I get a mention on what is effectively Nature‘s blacklist. What an honour! No really — there are 386 great names. Even more of an honour is a mention on Judith Curry’s site “blogs she’s learnt something from”. (By some freak, my name comes right after Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaver, Nobel Prize winner. Career-high I tell you!) But seriously, Marc Morano tops the Nature blacklist, and no man deserves it more. Congratulations Marc!

Methodoggogy

The contrived “study” compares bloggers, commentators and journalists with largely academic scientists, as if the two groups ought have comparable scientific citations or media mentions. Somehow paid scientists get more science citations and professional media personalities get more media. Who would have guessed? Or rather, who couldn’t?

The ratio of “scientific authority” to “media visibility” is pretty much guaranteed by picking scientists-with-funding and comparing them to the rag tag bunch of sacked scientists and independent opinion makers who make their own media channels in order to even get media.

There’s no pretense at symmetry in the way the two groups were picked: the big citation-free media-kings on the believer side don’t even get a mention. As Curry points out — no Al Gore. There are also no teenage girls getting on boats. No Leonardo de Caprio either. Did David Suzuki make it? Bill Nye? Hard to say. Apparently the supplemental information became detrimental information within 48 hours and has been vanished already.

So having constructed a meaningless study they get meaningless results, which appears to be the aim, because it’s an excuse to write headlines complaining that skeptics get too much media.

The press release is what it’s all about

“Media Creates False Balance on Climate Science, Study Shows”

The key point:

“It’s time to stop giving these people visibility, which can be easily spun into false authority,” Professor Alex Petersen said.

- Uni California Merced

Conveniently, they blur new and old media under the one label. The new “research” shows skeptical scientists are all over the new media, while unskeptical scientists get “the same” amount of mentions on the mainstream media. (Sorry about your coffee).  Thus with loaded categories, contrived rules, and no principles, they can finally pretend that “media outlets” are interviewing skeptics out of some outdated sense of duty. Skeptics domination of blogs translates into skeptics get too much “media”.

It plays well for their victimhood status — another excuse for why climate scientists can’t seem to convince the world.

Purge the media

If only they could beat skeptics in public debates they wouldn’t need so many media rules:

The proper counterpoint to a climate scientist would be another legitimate scientist who could show competing data from the same experiments or show where the first climate scientist has made mistakes in his or her work. Having a non-expert oil lobbyist or politician respond to a peer-reviewed study or assessment by saying “climate change doesn’t exist” is not a credible argument or a means of balancing, Petersen said.

Since skeptics are sacked, defunded, and exiled, or even stranded at airports, if debate has to be from only certified approved, and paid gravy-trainers, that will pretty much end all debate, eh? Suits con artists and climate scientists.

Propagate your favourite ad hom conspiracy:

Author LeRoy Westerling lets rip with pure speculation

“It’s well known now that a well-financed propaganda campaign on behalf of conservative fossil fuel interests led mainstream media to frame reporting on climate change science as political reporting rather than science reporting,” he said. “Political reporting focuses its narrative around conflict and looks to highlight competing voices, rather than telling the story of the science.”

This, he said, has led to the false balance between scientists and a handful of climate deniers who have become regular commenters.

I think Nature should own this all the way. By publishing such a dismal paper, they gave all the authors the platform to get media interviews to put forward these baseless claims which he has zero evidence to support. Where was their rigor? Well…

This is their fancy-pants way of saying skeptics win in blogs and social media:

 By simultaneously accounting for each individual’s scientific authority, our quantitative analysis contributes to the CC [Climate change] communication literature by revealing the degree to which prominent contrarian voices benefit from the scalability of new media, in particular the large number of second-tier news sources and blogs that do not implement rigorous information quality assessment standards.

…and that blogs are not as rigorous as Nature thinks it is. Except of course, this blog here would never accept a paper as pathetic as this one — except to mock it.

Rigor means 100% complete obedience

The “study” calls Roger Pielke Jnr a “contrarian” and Bjorn Lomborg, even though both accept all the IPCC scientific reasoning, they just don’t buy the disaster or the solution. So any step outside the church and pfft — you’re gone.

Roger Pielke has already pointed that out. Fabius Maximus  wonders if that’s why the Supplementary information has disappeared in the last two days, deleted while they get legal advice or think up a better excuse. The data will be available on January 1 next year, long after the media headlines have been and gone.

So @nature has published a paper that includes me on a list of “contrarians” who reject climate science.
I’ve contributed to and defended the IPCC for 25+ years.
Yet such smears pass peer review.
What’s the remedy here?
Letter?
Lawsuit?
Other?
Such BS

What’s troubling is not enemies list,they’ve been around for a long time. What’s troubling is that they are now laundered by academic journals & used by scientists & journos to silence or otherwise cause professional harm to their peers. It is really amazing. And it works.

It’s Cheese Food Science — by William Briggs

This paper is cheese food science, the kind Nature increasingly specializes in. Just like cheese food isn’t real food, which tastes good going down but which starts to come back up in a mean way twenty minutes later, this paper has a sciency name but which nauseates minds.

It doesn’t say a damned thing about whether anything any contrarian said was right or wrong, or even whether any expert scientist ever gets anything right or wrong. It only says, over and again, with slick graphics and thunk-tank prose, that contrarians aren’t to be respected solely because they aren’t in the The Club. It’s an article designed to make its cheese food authors, and their cheesy readers, feel well about themselves.

Commiserations to Marcel Croc, John McLean, and the fabulous BOM Audit team here who deserve to be on The Blacklist. Many other great skeptics may also have missed out on the US media focus or the 2016 cut off date. (Nothing after Trump won was included, because Trump distorts gravity fields or something.).

If only Unskeptical scientists had evidence, they wouldn’t need to work so hard to keep skeptical views out of the media

 

Other blog “Media” posts on the topic:   Judith Curry  |  WattsUpFabius MaximusWilliam Briggs

Posts on Media Bias

 

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.9/10 (103 votes cast)

Time Mag — Buttering up Believers: Why deniers brains can’t process climate change

Time Magazine, Cover, Satire. Time for Smug.

It’s self congratulation disguised as “science”. The insults are passed off as universal human failings but the unmistakable message is that those who do believe in “climate change” are exempt. (Only the unbelievers have smaller minds and more selfish cortexes. )

Time Magazine: Why Your Brain Can’t Process Climate Change

You’d have to be pretty stupid not to get this message:

…We know—at least those of us not in the grips of outright climate denial—how bad it is. But we can’t seem to act to save the future.

The Time readers who haven’t cancelled their subscriptions already may like to read this and give themselves a free shot of mojo, knowing that they can process climate change. Possibly they buy Time because it tells them they’re the gifted, superior beings they hope they might be. This is manna for those with low self esteem and meaningless lives.

This is not just some random author either, Bryan Walsh, who wrote this, was TIME’s International Editor, its energy and environmental correspondent and was the Tokyo bureau chief in 2006 and 2007.

As usual, it’s projection all the way down:

There are many reasons why [we fail to act], ranging from political polarization to the disinformation campaigns of major energy companies to the sheer technical difficulty of replacing carbon-based fossil fuels. But the biggest reason is found within our own minds.

The real victims of disinformation campaigns are those who think storms and floods are “new”, and every kind of weather is a magical omen foretelling doom. And the worst kind of political polarization is the sort which makes a scientific discussion into a tribal war — it’s not 1.2 or 1.5 degrees, it’s good man : bad man, expert and “denier”?

Would you like pity with that?

Bryan Walsh even manages an air of fake compassion and understanding while he soaks in first-class condescension. I mean, those poor normals, their brains really can’t process the risks.  Mere deplorables have mental flaws visible in fMRI’s:

When you think about yourself while inside the narrow metal tube of a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine, a certain part of your brain, called the medial prefrontal cortex, or MPFC, will light up like Times Square on New Year’s Eve. If you think about a family member, the MPFC will still light up, though less robustly. And if you think about other people whom you feel no connection to—like, say, the inhabitants of the South Asian island nation of the Maldives, which will likely one day be erased by climate-change-driven sea level rise—the MPFC will light up even less.

You don’t need a $3 million MRI machine to know that human beings are self-centered creatures.

You don’t need a $2 MRI machine to know that this article is buttering up the needy with baseless speculation based on imaginary brain scans. Who needs data when you can just fake it up?

Let’s take the easy risk-free conformist path but pretend we are above it all, smarter than the riff raff.

Adapted from END TIMES: A Brief Guide to the End of the World by Bryan Walsh.

 

 Image: Cerebral Hemisphere: wikimedia, Polygon data were generated by Database Center for Life Science (DBCLS)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (104 votes cast)

Midweek Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (20 votes cast)

Could dimming the sun with stratospheric “sky clouds” save Earth (or starve people)

An idea so dumb big government just might do it.

 Bill Gates has a plan to cool the Earth with chalk dust

John Naish, Daily Mail

Geoengineering, SCoPEx

This initial $3 million test, known as Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) would use a high-altitude scientific balloon (pictured) to raise around 2kg of calcium carbonate dust — the size of a bag of flour — into the atmosphere 12 miles above the desert of New Mexico

Spraying 2 kilo of dust costs how much?

This initial $3 million test, known as Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) would use a high-altitude scientific balloon (pictured) to raise around 2kg of calcium carbonate dust — the size of a bag of flour — into the atmosphere 12 miles above the desert of New Mexico

Indeed, the plans are so well advanced that the initial ‘sky-clouding’ experiments were meant to have begun months ago. …   (to) seed a tube-shaped area of sky half a mile long and 100 yards in diameter.

Here comes the precautionary principle on steriods:

SCoPEx is, however, on hold, amid fears that it could trigger a disastrous series of chain reactions, creating climate havoc in the form of serious droughts and hurricanes, and bring death to millions of people around the world.

So 2kg of dust could kill millions of people and we still let planes fly? Surely they are talking about the “big” version of this, not the 2kg test? And the big version needs to be gargantuan, with 800 planes working to lift “millions of tons” of chalk dust to 18 kilometers or 12 miles up.  How much money can someone waste?

Why not just spend the budget for just one plane to “audit the science”. That’d be a first.

But follow the reasoning:

 There is no way of predicting how the world’s long-term weather may respond to having a gigantic chemical sunshade plonked on top of it. Climatologists are also concerned that such tinkering could unintentionally disrupt the circulation of ocean currents that regulate our weather.

This itself could unleash a global outbreak of extreme climatic events that might devastate farmland, wipe out entire species and foster disease epidemics.

The technology may even spark terrible wars. For tinkering with our climate could send sky-high the potential for international suspicion and armed conflict.

They are professional climate spooks and they’ve totally spooked themselves.

But ponder: here’s a group of people who think climate models can predict exactly what happens when we add two parts per million of a trace gas to the sky, but the same models have “no way of predicting” what happens when we add an aerosol even though we know the exact composition and placement of said dust?

I’m with them this time, it’s bound to end badly. If it cools the world it’s bad, and if it doesn’t it’s a “waste of money”.  It’s just odd to hear them admit their models are useless.

In the end, even though the UN has Global Dumbness boxed and packed, this’ll never be rolled out. All the two-bit worrier nations want the money, not the cooling. And every government, surely, has one scientist that knows that cooling the planet will kill crops and people. Besides the Chinese and Russians will surely hate it.

The whole project looks like just another excuse for more Global Panic PR. Cheap advertising for the cause.

h/t Marvin, Greg in NZ, Pat, Original Steve.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (67 votes cast)

Bonanza, not: With govt manipulation carbon credits rise back to 2008 levels

It’s being hailed as a “soaring investment” but it’s just the fake fiat carbon scheme that has been fiddled back to life. The EU ETS market had too many credits and crashed down to 5 Euro or less by 2013. On deaths door, the EU decided to cull a quarter of the credits for the EU ETS every year starting in 2019 and the price predictably went back up. The big success of this unnecessary unfree market is that it has added a tariff to cheap coal to make it just as expensive as gas, and pushed up electricity prices in the EU.

Any illusion of generating economic wealth, or energy efficiency is purely coincidental. There’s no supply and no demand, no extra products or productivity — and without government force, no market at all for imaginary carbon penances. It draws money from every consumer and hands it to gas, and renewables giants, as well as bankers, crooks and VAT Tax cheats. And if this market goes global it’s potentially a $7 Trillion dollar money-making racket for bankers. No wonder HSBC, Deutche Bank, Goldman Sachs, BBVA and Citigroup want to “save the world”.

 Back to 2008:

EU ETS Prices, 2008 - 2019

Government decisions largely set the EU ETS Prices, 2008 – 2019

Carbon credits are not an investment. They are a speculative bet on what the worlds governments will do. If the public turns against carbon reduction, and the mood changes, the market is a dead-man walking. There’s a lot of money here that has an interest in keeping skeptical views out of the public light. Just saying…

We can tell this is not a real market. Real free markets make things cheaper. Communist markets just make things worse.

Once-Unpopular Carbon Credits Emerge as One of the World’s Best Investments

By DAVID HODARI, Wall Street Journal (The Australian)

Carbon-emission credits, long shunned by traders, are now one of the world’s best-performing investments.

The big players are still financial houses and speculators not generators:

Back in 2013 Banks and trading houses bought two-thirds of carbon permits. Now not much has changed:

The recovery has drawn back investors who largely abandoned the market when prices collapsed last decade.

“It’s attracting hedge-fund speculators,” said Norbert Rücker, head of economics at Swiss private bank Julius Baer. “With this move, carbon has really come back to life this year and it’s attracted a lot of interest — we have clients reaching out to us asking about it.”

Orwellian Translation: “free market” = fake market, and industrial “polluters” = global free fertilizers:

The higher prices mean that it now costs industrial polluters almost as much to use coal as it does to use cleaner natural gas. Putting the two markets on an equal footing means carbon prices are driven by factors similar to the ones that affect gas prices, such as high summer temperatures.

They’re taxing one fuel more than the other so “Equal footing” means “unequal footing.”

Fake markets attract frauds. When you’re selling a product no one needs, no one even cares if it’s fake.

Posts from long ago about the EU ETS

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (52 votes cast)

Prof Andy Pitman admits droughts are not worse and not linked to climate change

Drought Panic Over

h/t to Jim Sternhell, Frank Brus, via Jim Simpson.

Droughts, Australia, Climate Council.

Professor Andy Pitman, UNSW

In June Professor Andy Pitman quietly dropped a bomb:

“…as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.”

“…there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.

He’s admitting there’s never been a scientific basis for the endless climate drought scares? He went on to say that in Australia, droughts are not increasing, and there’s no drying trend in one hundred years of data. He’s also admitting the models can’t predict extremes in rain either. Where are the press releases?

It’s great to hear him speaking like a skeptical scientist, with candor and care, but 52% of Australians (including many of our politicians) think “climate change” is already causing more frequent droughts. So half the country is not only convinced droughts are increasing, but they think climate change is causing an effect that isn’t happening. And the world is spending $330b a year on windmills and solar panels in the hope of stopping droughts, among other things.

Professor Andy Pitman, UNSW

There’s no link? Has Andy Pitman told the Climate Council?

Pitman follows this with: “this may not be what you read in newspapers…” No, Sir. And the 64 billion dollar question (which isn’t asked) is –  why not? And what are you doing about that?

Does Andy Pitman keep trying to tell journalists the full and accurate story and they won’t print it? (Well, we know what that’s like.) Given his roles as Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, and as a Lead Author for the IPCC, does it bother him when he sees his specialty misreported over and over again? Since the taxpayer funds him, isn’t there an obligation to correct the record?; to flick an email to the ABC journalists who keep saying climate change is linked to drought, or drop a five minute phone call to Peter Hannam of the Sydney Morning Herald who is still getting it wrong? He may even want to call his own researcher at the centre where he is a director. Andrew King advised Hannam on that last link which is filled with “human fingerprints” of “drought” and emerging “greenhouse signals”. The article even says — completely incorrectly –“Australia is among the regions of the world where the drying trend is clearest”.

The SEI forum: Adapting Climate Science for Business

Wednesday 19 June, 2019, Sydney Environment Institute (SEI), University of Sydney.

At 1:11:20

Professor Andy Pitman:

“…this may not be what you expect to hear. but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.

That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.

If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there’s no trend in data. There is no drying trend.  There’s been a trend in the last twenty years, but there’s been no trend in the last hundred years, and that’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is.

There are in some regions but not in other regions.

So the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts.

Much more interesting, We don’t know what stops a drought. We know it’s rain, but we don’t know what lines up to create drought breaking rains.”

Bookmark this page. I’ll be referring back to these quotes.

Just trying to help Prof Andy Pitman get his message out — the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

As I’ve been saying, the Federation drought was worse than anything modern. The worst droughts in Australia were 1,000 to 2,000 years ago and there’s no trend in Australian droughts. And who could forget the recent study by Ashcroft showing that 178 years of Australian rain has nothing to do with CO2?

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (105 votes cast)

Weekend Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.1/10 (19 votes cast)