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


Away til Monday

I’m in Sydney, and doubt I’ll be able to post until Monday. I spoke today at the Pacrim conference in Sydney.

People can post news below in comments below, thanks!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.0/10 (3 votes cast)
Away til Monday, 4.0 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Tiny Url for this post:

36 comments to Away til Monday

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Have a good time Jo!


  • #
    Barry Woods

    Disagree with CO2, press a red button and you will explode – Short film to be shown in cinemas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Because it is supposed to be ‘humourous’ this is even worse than the Greenpeace ‘Angry Kid’ video

    10:10 Campaign – No Pressure – short film (out soon)
    (by Richard Curtis, 4 Weddings, Love Actually, has Gillian Anderson in it)
    Quote from the Guardain:

    “Had a look?
    Well, I’m certain you’ll agree that detonating school kids, footballers and movie stars into gory pulp for ignoring their carbon footprints is attention-grabbing. It’s also got a decent sprinkling of stardust – Peter Crouch, Gillian Anderson, Radiohead and others.”

    The CAGW media PR campaign is going to GET NASTY…
    watch the video here… Anyone sceptical persuaded by this short film…. to be shown in Cinemas.

    Stay with it until 1min 10 seconds, and the red button..
    (a school setting, of course, with children, then watch the rest, in fascinated horror, this makes the ‘Bedtime Stories’ pr video, look like a .. bedtime story)

    Surely a PR disaster….

    Watts Up has it….
    Show it to every Australian…

    Comments in the Guardian……

    An UPSET Friends of the Earth -BOARD MEMBER

    From the Guardian comments (I’ve put some asterisks in….)

    1 October 2010 1:33AM

    Actually, I have to say something stronger,
    this film is ****ing ridiculous.
    I am a local Greenpeace coordinator, and a Board member of Friends of the Earth and I just can’t believe that you have produced a film that is so ****ing stupid.
    There, I’ve sworn on the Guardian.
    Jesus, where is your common sense. We’re trying to win hearts and minds.
    This is just ludicrous.

    Presumably this is John….. And I salute him!!!!!

    John Halladay
    Friends of the Earth Trust and Limited Elected Board member for South Central
    Member of: Engagement Committee
    Elected: 2008
    Due for re-election: 2011
    John’s particular interests in the environmental field include recycling, the concept of individual carbon allowances and the effect of increasing world population on the environment. He works as a Human Resources consultant greening the employment practices in UK companies and is also the joint co-ordinator of Bracknell & District Friends of the Earth.

    Best comment is just a link to this: (josh might appreciate it)


  • #

    Barry, they’ve pulled the video due to all the criticism from green groups but there is another copy of it here:


  • #
    Barry Woods

    Youtube have it private now…

    Video is here…
    On the 10:10 website.


  • #

    Oh My! I just watched the youtube mini-film posted by Barry @ 2. It was comical and then disturbing. Obviously the film makers portray those who do not swallow the need to reduce CO2 emissions are so out of touch they should be blown up. But watching those enthusiastically unquestioning individuals putting the arms up in support of 10:10 reminded me of the 1930′s and early 1940′s footage of of crowds doing the ‘Hitler salute’. Of course we know that if you didn’t conform, or you raised questions about Hitler, your neighbors or work colleagues could inform on you and the Nazis would turn up in the middle of the night and ship you out to a concentration camp or other poor fate.

    It appears climate activists are abandoning making any scientific case for cutting CO2 emissions, they are now trying to scare the population into doing so. Surely this amounts to vilification and incitement to violence? They are now targeting sceptics in the general population the way they have been targeting scientists who have questioned the IPCC reports and projections.


  • #

    Jaymez and others

    Only wish I could give you another thumbs up – these guys don’t care about humanity. The video shows it, even if you didn’t pick it from their policies.

    Best Wishes,



  • #
    Frank Brown

    Suck at 7
    I didn’t think anarchists actually wanted to pay or work for anything. You have moved off your base, you should try Afghanistan for the real thing, course you’d be the main course there.

    (He is no longer allowed to post) CTS


  • #

    “The Royal Society has updated its guide after 43 of its members complained that the previous version failed to take into account the opinion of climate change sceptics.
    Now the new guide, called ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’, admits that there are some ‘uncertainties’ regarding the science behind climate change.”

    Another take on the same story:
    “Britain’s Leading Scientific Institution Backpedals On Global Warming”


  • #

    10:10 wants to hear what you think of their cute fun loving movie!


  • #
    John from CA

    The video is offensive but read the YouTube comments — their very funny.

    How many ways can you say, they just shot the Carbon Movement in the foot?


  • #
    Barry Woods

    Video is here…

    This link should stick around….

    A look at Climate Depot ( i don’t go there very often)

    Might indicate this could go viral/ballistic in the USA…….
    Apprently being pulled posted onto youtube as fatst as it can be deleted..

    10:10 have pulled it, and a pathetic apology..

    All the OTHER environment groups ARE FURIOUS with 10:10
    see earlier post.. friends of the earth, unguarded commemnt in the guardian…


  • #

    Oh, yay. Sydney once again plays host to the Talkfest of Tedious Blowhards.
    (Thinks: ooer, hope JN isn’t on the guest list)


  • #
    John from CA

    The comment is to ambiguous for me but probably wasn’t intended to communicate anything.

    Care to be more specific — what are you trying to say?

    John from CA


  • #

    John, I’ve just completed doing that right here.


  • #
    John from CA

    Gregoryno6 says:
    “John, I’ve just completed doing that right here.”

    LOL, I’m in for a read but what does this have to do with ignorant Carbon Alarmist fools?

    The mind is an unexplored country.

    The Talkfest of Tedious Blowhards.
    “If there’s a truly dangerous idea it’s only there by accident among this tired old crew.”

    OK, I clicked the “grand” link and was confronted with fascinating title stories including:

    Fun “STUFF” but what does this have to do with porn Warmist Advertising that shoots themselves in the foot? We both know they are fools and the Lemmings are headed to the sea.


  • #

    John @ 15, the short answer is: absolutely nothing.
    Or not much, anyhow. Clive “I’ve got a chromer dome than Peter Garrett” Hamilton is there. So that’s my ‘in’.


  • #

    I enjoyed the PacRim conference and Friday’s session with your presentation. It’s heartening to know that little by little the world is changing.


  • #


    The 10:10 video is truly something to behold for its utter craziness. It really shows the base line mental state of those trying to ‘fix’ the climate – given this I wouldn’t trust them to tie a knot and I really care about the environment (as you will see on my site).

    I have put up a blog entry, 10:10 cut carbon emissions viral video nightmare, on my blog. Feel free to comment.


  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Jaymez: #5

    … if you didn’t conform, or you raised questions …, your neighbors or work colleagues could inform on you and the Nazis the secret police would turn up in the middle of the night and ship you out to a concentration camp or other poor fate.

    The quote is not limited to the Nazis – it applies to the Communists, and some Dictatorships, as well. In fact, any extreme on the dimensions of politics.

    The fact that they (“they” being AGW alarmists, not wanting to sound paranoid) feel it is OK, or funny, or “Kule” to make such a movie is both disturbing and interesting.

    Disturbing in that this is a vision of what these people would really like to see happen, and interesting in that they have played the “threat of violence” card at this stage of the game.

    They are getting desperate, folks.

    Remember Ghandi: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    They are desperate because we are entering the end game, and they know they are loosing. So they will choose to fight even harder. This makes them dangerous, and we can expect more “attack propaganda” to follow.

    We sceptics just have to remain polite, and keep focussing on the science, and avoid getting sucked into being angry with the stupidity of their attacks. If we do that, we will win.


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    [These first 3 comments were made by Richard C a week ago on a different thread, so I've moved them here -- JN. Thanks Richard]

    May I commandeer this post to conduct dialogue re NZCSET v NIWA utilizing the formatting functions available? Climate Conversations and Bishop Hill are a bit lacking for the communication reqd.

    The Law (From Statement of Defence)

    „Public record‟ is defined in the PRA as:
    “(a) …a record or a class of records, in any form, in whole or in part, created or received (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) by a public office in the conduct of its affairs; and (b) includes—

    (i) a record or a class of records declared under section 5(1)(a)(ii) to be a public record for the purposes of this Act; and (ii) estray records; but (c) does not include— (i) a special collection; or (ii) records created by the academic staff or students of a tertiary education institution, unless the records have become part of the records of that institution”

    „Special collection‟ is defined in the PRA as:
    “(a) … records collected by a public office for purposes such as research or the preservation of records; but (b) does not include public records;”

    The Defence

    (b) The NZTR is not a record and is not a public record for the purposes of the PRA;

    [i.e. NIWA's "out" is that yes the CliFlo "Database" is a Public Record but the NZTR derived from it is not]

    The Defence again

    (d) The Database is a public record;
    (e) It is a controlling public office in respect of the Database; and
    (f) It is not a controlling public office in respect of the NZTR, 7SS, 11SS or Marine Measurements for the purposes of the PRA.

    [The Plaintiff will have to prove that the NZTR is a public record]

    [But NIWA inherited custody of the NZTR via heritage asset transfer from the assets of the Meteorological Service of the Ministry of Transport. So is it not a public record even though it is not "Database" or "Special Collection"?]

    [It remains that the NZTR is a heritage asset]

    From NIWA’s Financial Report 2009

    16. Heritage assets

    NIWA has one collection and three databases that have been defined as heritage assets. Heritage collection assets are those assets held for the duration of their physical
    lives because of their unique scientific importance and databases are maintained as an incidental part of existing business operations.

    NIWA has the following heritage assets:

    Type Description
    Marine Benthic Biology Collection
    A national reference collection of marine invertebrates.

    National Climate Database
    A national electronic database of high quality climate information, including temperatures, rainfall, wind, and other climate elements.

    Water Resources Archive Database
    A national electronic database of river and lake locations throughout New Zealand, including levels, quality, and flows.

    New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database
    A national electronic database of the occurrence of fish in the fresh waters of New Zealand,
    including major offshore islands.

    The nature of these heritage assets, and their significance to the science NIWA undertakes, makes it necessary to disclose them. In the directors’ view the cost of these
    heritage assets cannot be assessed with any reliability, and accordingly these assets have not been recognised for reporting purposes

    [So CliFlo is a heritage asset of NIWA (the Crown owns NIWA) but is not the NZTR spreadsheet part of "A national electronic database of high quality climate information, including temperatures"? If the NZTR is not "high quality" then why is there a "passing off" of it on NIWA's website. Is this not an economic tort?]


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Got this bit wrong.

    The Defence

    (b) The NZTR is not a record and is not a public record for the purposes of the PRA;

    [i.e. NIWA's "out" is that yes the CliFlo "Database" is a Public Record but the NZTR derived from it is not]


  • #
  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Presenting this prediction as news is a clever debating tactic, but it is misleading, because the alternatives are not presented

    Seems to be trend.

    Cozy little consensus at Science Media Centre

    My use of “6 degees of separation” was grossly overstating the case.

    I think we should join the dots

    i.e NIWA – Science Media Centre – Royal Society (NZ) – Gluckman – Smith – IPCC – Media etc

    I’m not totally up with the play or all of the players. The connections were glaringly apparent circa COP15.


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    For those confused. 23 was a finger fault. It should have gone to this Blog thread – sorry


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    But at the British end of the Murdoch empire, there have recently been signs that this is far from being the case. For the past two years, for instance, its television arm, Sky, has been teamed up with the world’s richest environmental lobby group WWF (income £400 million a year), in a bid to “help combat climate change” by saving the CO2-rich Amazon rainforest.


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Gads, nuther finger fault @ 25


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    The first comment I see

    Today 12:35 AM
    Clearly we are in a period of low solar activity, which causing the colder and colder winters we have started to experience.

    I propose that future climate historians refer to this solar minimum as the “Monbiot Minimum”. It has a certainn poetic justice to it.

    This is too much fun.

    Thanks mate, take it easy (care commitments permitting) and don’t break a leg skiing at Perisher.


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Oops, caught red handed using the formatting here.


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    To this:-

    “When data for subsequent years became available, the warming trend from 1998 became significant”

    This should be added:-

    but only if the series is terminated during the last El Nino event and not during the subsequent La Nina event.


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Polluter Arguments Rebuffed In ‘Scopes Trial’ On Climate Science

    In 2009, the US Chamber of Commerce called for the “Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” to question the scientific fact of man-made climate change.

    Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia began consideration of a landmark case that consolidates a series of challenges to Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare and its related rule-makings. The cases, brought by energy companies, industry front groups, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), and others, seek to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse pollution. Their legal argument is that climate science is a hoax.

    But the three-judge panel’s questions and comments during the first day of oral arguments showed enormous skepticism of the industry arguments. Acknowledging that by law, the panel must show deference to the EPA’s finding, the chief judge told one of the challenger’s lawyers: “You seem to be asking us to determine that the EPA is incorrect, but that is not the standard, ” and even that “would not be enough to win the case for you.” Other arguments were similarly pooh-poohed by the panel.


    The challengers involved with the cases include:

    Industry Front Groups and Trade Associations
    –Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc.
    –Industrial Minerals Association – North America
    –National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
    –National Mining Association
    –SIP/FIP Advocacy Group
    –Utility Air Regulatory Group

    Coal and Energy Companies
    –Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.
    –Peabody Energy Company
    –Great Northern Project Development, L.P.
    –Rosebud Mining Company

    Republican-led State Governments
    –State of Texas
    –State of Wyoming

    Perhaps realizing that the law is not on their side, some of these industry groups have simultaneously taken a legislative approach to fighting EPA regulations, pushing for enactment of HR 910, the “Energy Tax Prevention Act.” The bill, sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), would take away the EPA’s regulatory power over greenhouse gases. The Republican House endorsed the proposal last April, mostly along party lines, but the measure has stalled in the Democratic Senate. The Industrial Minerals Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Mining Association, Peabody Energy Company all reported lobbying on the bill in 2011 — part of their combined $9.8 million lobbying efforts on this and other subjects.

    Caution: Think Progress article.

    ANOTHER court case.


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    A set back?

    Climate Science Gets a Hug in U.S. Court Decision

    A U.S. federal appeals court has delivered a decisive defeat to states and industry groups that had challenged the scientific and legal underpinnings of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) decision to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act.



  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    @Grant Jacobs

    With respect, I’m going to shout this very loud in the hope that the point gets through to more here than just Yourself:-


    Central to the case is Rhoades and Salinger 1993, the methodology of which NIWA had previously agreed to BEFORE it’s review of the 7SS (see NZCSC links up-thread for SOC). If you look at ‘Statistical Review’ and Dedekind’s Affidavit (see link up-thread) you will see reference to that paper and about half a dozen others i.e. NZCSET’s case is supported by peer-reviewed science.

    You say:-

    “My emphasis is added as I’m taking it that by ‘evidence’, you mean ‘scientific evidence’”

    EXACTLY. that and all the other evidence presented (see NZCSC links up-thread).

    “you seem to be suggesting that because scientific evidence is involved they have a “right and prerogative to seek a judiciary ruling” on it”

    EXACTLY. See my response down-thread to Gold (@unifex) (in moderation at present), particularly, my annotations to quotes from ‘Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.

    Science isn’t decided in courts and I believe I’d be right in saying that scientific matters themselves can’t be decided in courts. That would suggest that some other issue has been put forward in lieu of the science itself.


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Wind generation investigation project (WGIP)

    To accommodate the connection of further wind generation while maintaining the integrity of the New Zealand power system, the Electricity Commission initiated a strategic project to assess the likely impact of wind generation development over the next 5 to 10 years [from 2005/07]. This study was to identify wider power system and electricity market implications of additional wind generation and how these can be best resolved to enable the development of wind generation on a “level playing field” with other generation sources.

    WGIP scope

    The Commission consulted on the scope of work for this project, with the final scope (72 KB) [Hotlinked] approved by the Board in September 2005.

    Implications Analysis

    At the commencement of the implications analysis, the Commission appointed Garrad Hassan Pacific Ltd to investigate the correlation of wind speeds and theoretical power outputs both within and between a number of regions. The analysis showed generally low correlations between regions, particularly for shorter time frames.

    * Regional wind farm correlations (410 KB) [Hotlinked]

    The project team also carried out a number of analyses to assess the potential impacts of the agreed scenarios on the electricity system and market. These tasks were broadly covered in section 4.2 of the project scope “what are the implications”. These included investigations into the effect of unpredictability and variability on scheduling, dispatch and asset loading, and the effects of wind generation on under-frequency management, voltage management, static voltage stability, dynamic voltage stability, and oscillatory and transient stability.

    The reports are complete and can be downloaded below:

    * Commission summary report (598 KB)
    * Garrad Hassan report on wind power variability and forecast accuracy in New Zealand (791 KB)
    * Investigation 1 (Part A): Effect of unpredictability of wind generation on pre-dispatch processes (369 KB)
    * Investigation 1 (Part B): Effect of unpredictability of wind generation output on scheduling (1.4 MB)
    * Investigation 2: Effect of wind generation on dispatch (396 KB)
    * Investigation 3: Effect of wind generation variability on asset loading (657 KB)
    * Investigation 4: Effect of wind generation on ability to manage system voltages within voltage quality targets (1.4 MB)
    * Investigation 5: Effect of wind generation on management of frequency excursions (616 KB)
    * Investigation 6: Effect of wind generation on small disturbance voltage stability (1.2 MB)
    * Investigation 7 to 9 (Stage 1): Digsilent Report (574 KB)
    * Investigation 7 (Stage 2): Effect of wind generation on transient stability (4.2 MB)
    * Investigation 8 (Stage 2): Effect of wind generation on small signal stability (3.4 MB)
    * Investigation 9 (Stage 2): Effect of wind generation on reactive power contributions and dynamic voltage responses (1.3 MB)

    Slides from the briefing

    A public briefing covering investigations 1-6 was held on 3 September 2007.

    * Introduction (Peter Harris) (71 KB)
    * Implications analysis (Graeme Ancell, System Operator) (2.1 MB)
    * Variability and unpredictability analysis (Dougal McQueen, Garrad Hassan) (116 KB)
    * Options framework (Jim Truesdale, Concept Consulting) (39 KB)

    Further Work


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    The source of my confusion over the TOA uncertainty 0.4 vs 4 (both are correct) is to be found in the Stephens et al text page 1:-

    The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4 Wm–2 (95% confidence) due largely to instrument calibration errors12,15


    The average annual excess of net TOA radiation constrained by OHC is 0.6±0.4 Wm–2 (90% confidence) since 2005 when Argo data14 became available, before which the OHC data are much more uncertain14


  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    New paper shows a large increase of solar radiation in Spain since 1985, dwarfs alleged effect of CO2

    A paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds solar radiation at the Earth surface in Spain “shows a significant increase over the 1985-2010 period” of “+3.9 Wm-2 per decade.” By way of comparison, the alleged forcing from increased CO2 during the same period was only 0.11 Wm-2 at the Earth surface per decade. The authors attribute the large increase in solar radiation to a “decrease in clouds and/or aerosols.” Several other papers have shown a decrease in cloudiness since the 1980′s could alone account for all global warming observed since the ice age scare of the 1970′s.

    Global and diffuse solar radiation in Spain: Building a homogeneous dataset and assessing their trends
    from Global and Planetary Change

    A. Sanchez-Lorenzo, J. Calbó, M. Wild (2012)

    “These results are in line with the widespread increase of G, also known as brightening period, reported at many worldwide observation sites.”

    All these results point towards a diminution of clouds and/or aerosols over the area.
    Richard, it’s better to post comments on a newer thread. I can move this to a relevant one if you like. – Jo