JoNova

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


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Tipping Point? Boris Johnson writes bravely “could it be the sun?”

Mark the moment. This is unusual.

Firstly, it’s not just anyone, but Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, personality, and potential Tory leader in the UK.  (He’s got so much potential several Tories in safe seats have offered to resign to let him run.) Secondly, he’s confident, brazen and unapologetic. There are not many of the usual duck-and-cover caveats (only lip-service ones), and no bowing to the bullies who will call him names rather than discuss the ideas.

It’s snowing, and it really feels like the start of a mini ice age

Something is up with our winter weather. Could it be the Sun is having a slow patch?

Telegraph Jan 20th 2013

As a species, we human beings have become so blind with conceit and self-love that we genuinely believe that the fate of the planet is in our hands — when the reality is that everything, or almost everything, depends on the behaviour and caprice of the gigantic thermonuclear fireball around which we revolve.

No doubt Johnson will be accused of “ignoring the longer trend” because he talks about the last five years of cold cold winters, but beneath his discussion of just how unusually heavy the snow is around London lies the awkward fact that the global warming fans didn’t predict it (not until after it happened) and the longer trend is not what the IPCC predicted in 1990 either.
His focus on the snow is not what I would have said. But then Johnson isn’t trying to make a big scientific case, merely to say that the story doesn’t fit, and it’s time to say the unthinkable — maybe the experts are wrong.

By my calculations, this is now the fifth year in a row that we have had an unusual amount of snow; and by unusual I mean snow of a kind that I don’t remember from my childhood: snow that comes one day, and then sticks around for a couple of days, followed by more.

Note the half caveat — the experts have “good intentions”. Translated, he’s saying they’re “nice people” and we all know what that means:

I am all for theories about climate change, and would not for a moment dispute the wisdom or good intentions of the vast majority of scientists.

Ooh, look. When did you last hear a pollie say the word “empiricist”?

But I am also an empiricist; and I observe that something appears to be up with our winter weather, and to call it “warming” is obviously to strain the language. I see from the BBC website that there are scientists who say that “global warming” is indeed the cause of the cold and snowy winters we seem to be having.

… I merely observe that there are at least some other reputable scientists who say that it is complete tosh, or at least that there is no evidence to support it.

He refers to himself as amateur, a layman, and acknowledges how little he knows, but he knows enough to speak of Piers Corbyn’s work, and he’s familiar with the basics of solar history.

I can’t help brooding on my own amateur meteorological observations. I wish I knew more about what is going on, and why. It is time to consult once again the learned astrophysicist, Piers Corbyn. Now Piers has a very good record of forecasting the weather. He has been bang on about these cold winters.

When the solar acne diminishes, it seems that the Earth gets colder. No one contests that when the planet palpably cooled from 1645 to 1715 — the Maunder minimum, which saw the freezing of the Thames — there was a diminution of solar activity. The same point is made about the so-called Dalton minimum, from 1790 to 1830. And it is the view of Piers Corbyn that we are now seeing exactly the same phenomenon today.

The caveat — Johnson knows some will go ballistic:

Now I am not for a second saying that I am convinced Piers is right; and to all those scientists and environmentalists who will go wild with indignation on the publication of this article, I say, relax. I certainly support reducing CO2 by retrofitting homes and offices – not least since that reduces fuel bills. I want cleaner vehicles.

The finish — all Johnson is asking for is a discussion:

Of course it still seems a bit nuts to talk of the encroachment of a mini ice age. But it doesn’t seem as nuts as it did five years ago. I look at the snowy waste outside, and I have an open mind

This is exactly the kind of “emperor has no clothes” article which will cut through. While nothing Johnson has said is entirely new, his attitude is perfect for the times. He is staring straight at the people who say “warming causes cooling” and saying “I don’t think so.”

Read the whole article at the Telegraph

 

Thanks to Stefan B for the tip.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.5/10 (118 votes cast)
Tipping Point? Boris Johnson writes bravely "could it be the sun?", 8.5 out of 10 based on 118 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/avxd8un

357 comments to Tipping Point? Boris Johnson writes bravely “could it be the sun?”

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    Well, he does one thing well that most skeptics do poorly. He puts the science into simple terms that the layman can grasp immediately.


    Report this

    372

  • #
    Mattb

    Headline: POlitician hedges bets based on short term observations, childhood memories, and pseudoscience.


    Report this

    870

    • #
      Sonny

      Headline: Matt B makes lame brain remark without addressing the points raises in the artilcle.


      Report this

      613

      • #
        Mattb

        What points. Boris thinks that a couple of cold winters mean that maybe the sun is plunging us in to an ice age? like it did in the 1970s anyone??? He also thinks that a polite article in the middle of winter is a good opportunity to segue to some ant AGW clap trap.


        Report this

        761

        • #
          Sonny

          “a couple of cold winters”
          Now there’s an understatement! Tell that to the hundreds of people who froze to death in Russia and Ukraine in the last months.

          Oh yeh what the current “global warming” death toll? And please don’t bring up the unborn undead.


          Report this

          582

        • #

          He also thinks that a polite article in the middle of winter is a good opportunity to segue to some ant AGW clap trap.

          Unlike rude, offensive articles in the middle of an Australian summer declaring “this is what global warming looks like” being a good opportunity to segue to some catastrophic AGW clap trap?


          Report this

          782

        • #

          Mattb

          Boris thinks that a couple of cold winters mean that maybe the sun is plunging us in to an ice age?

          Boris

          By my calculations, this is now the fifth year in a row that we have had an unusual amount of snow; and by unusual I mean snow of a kind that I don’t remember from my childhood: snow that comes one day, and then sticks around for a couple of days, followed by more.

          Boris

          When the solar acne diminishes, it seems that the Earth gets colder. No one contests that when the planet palpably cooled from 1645 to 1715 — the Maunder minimum, which saw the freezing of the Thames — there was a diminution of solar activity. The same point is made about the so-called Dalton minimum, from 1790 to 1830. And it is the view of Piers Corbyn that we are now seeing exactly the same phenomenon today.

          So 21 words Mattb
          1. Understates the evidence
          2. Exaggerates the phenomena predicted – a little ice age, where temperatures fall by 1-2 degrees versus the full-blown ice age where temperatures fall by 6-10 degrees.

          Mattb, are you a climate scientist?


          Report this

          271

        • #

          I seem to remember someone in UK CRU saying their children will never know what snow was…

          Get real, you cannot have it both ways; Global warming does not equal colder winters in vast areas of the Northern hemisphere for years in a row. Even my father cannot remember having winters like they are having now in the UK – and he is over 80!


          Report this

          241

        • #
          Craig M (@CraigM350)

          Couple=2. So is this a couple?

          Feb 09, Dec 09-Jan 10, Nov-Dec 10, Feb 12, Jan 13 (not to mention the serious disruption caused throughout Europe in the same time with record low temps and metres of snow) and a possible return of cold in the next couple of weeks (MetO – via an SSW & Piers C predicting this). During this time the summers have been pretty rotten and the less said about the rain last year the better. Looking at CET in the UK there has been a drop of roughly ~0.5C – the same as the rise during the last solar cycle. Even the MetO have kicked run away warming up field for someone else to deal with when it doesn’t happen.

          I make that 5 winters in a row which is unusual but did happen in the LIA and other periods of low solar activity like SC12 so is not unprecedented. SC12 also had periods of deluge, drought, warm springs/autumns and heatwaves. Of course CO2 was causing meridional shifts in the NH jet stream back in the 1880′s.

          I know climate amnesia doesn’t go back that far (as it’s far to inconvenient a truth – unless of course the Yamal Tree speaks) but the past four years? Of course had they been hot summers…


          Report this

          31

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Matt

          Boris thinks that a couple of cold winters mean that maybe the sun is plunging us in to an ice age?

          Not exactly, you are conflating two ideas to score a point, and you are missing the big point that the Climate Shamans totally and utterly failed to predict these past five cold years, the little detail that has now got Boris wondering.

          like it did in the 1970s anyone???

          Umm, that was the Climate Shamans who predicted a coming ice age in the 1970′s, not the politicians. They didn’t get that right either. Unless, of course, their watches are out by a couple of generations.

          Hmm, this particular brand of Shaman is not doing too well, in Boris’s eyes it would appear.

          He also thinks that a polite article in the middle of winter is a good opportunity to segue to some ant AGW clap trap.

          When is it ever a bad time to be polite? And it is always a good time to point out that people who are trying to take your money, are possibly doing so under false pretences.


          Report this

          141

      • #
    • #
      Ian

      You scathingly lambast a politician for making predictions based on childhood memories etc so what’s your comment on this prediction from a climate scientist at CRU? From The Independent on 20 March 2000 we got the headline: “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. David Viner’s childhood recollections perhaps? Why is it OK for this climate scientist to make incorrect predictions but not for Boris Johnson who isn’t a climate scientist? One would think you would Dr Viner’s manifestly incorrect predictions to a far greater extent than you condemn Boris Johnson’s as Dr Viner is a climate scientist.


      Report this

      361

      • #
        Mattb

        Oh these questions. They appear to be more like statements with question marks.

        i) I would not agree that across the board snow will be a thing of the past. In some places it may well be, but in my understanding an increasing global average temp will not manifest itself as a uniform increase in all places. There is no reason to think that climate change/AGW will not result in some places getting cooler, wetter, or snowier. Or even warmer AND snowier.
        ii) I don’t think it is ok, if he did.
        iii) while not a question, this thread is about Boris, not Viner. It would have been quite strange for me to start prattling on about Viner here. As you have done. Quite strange.

        Ahh well – again I’d actually hoped for questions not a rant. Hardly worth looking for.

        I have some questions for you:
        i) is that a carrot up your arse?


        Report this

        03

  • #
    Sonny

    To think that climate change has anything to do with the sun is just laughable. It’s too far away. CO2 on the other hand is all around us (even inside of us) The greenhouse effect is basic primary school science. It’s capitalism, the Koch Brothers, Fat Gina and Bolt, Abbott and the mad Monkster who are to blame for sewing the seeds of doubt. The sun?? The sun!!! That’s just laughable right wing think tank funded disinformation. The arctics melting. You can keep your heads in the sand. We are having record heat waves and violent storms – That’s a 97% consensus among climate scientists thank you! And we are going to run out of fossil fuel soon anyway? What have you got against renewable energy? Even if they are wrong precautionary principle. I mean we have to do something don’t we?

    Please help me compile more Alarmist memes.


    Report this

    573

    • #
      Mattb

      How about this Sonny meme: “AGW scientists don’t think the sun has an impact on the climate”


      Report this

      1025

      • #
        Sonny

        Not compared to a few ppm of extra carbon dioxide. If the sun was in the blue corner and carbon dioxide in the red corner I know who I would be betting on ! Haha!!


        Report this

        362

      • #
        MadJak

        That’s funny matt – I can’t remember Al Gore mentioning the sun once. Of course, with all the snow in the northern hemisphere, he must have forgotted that it exists…


        Report this

        340

        • #
          Mattb

          who is this Al Gore? Did he lead a chapter of the IPCC reports?


          Report this

          028

        • #
          elva

          Al Gore did mention the sun once. He said that energy from deep in the earth could be harnessed because the heat was millions of degrees. But even the sun’s surface is only about 9,000′C. You have to be in the core of the sun to find temperatures of millions which are needed to cause fusion.


          Report this

          90

      • #
        AndyG55

        We know that one, but thanks anyway Matt.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        How about this Sonny meme: “AGW scientists don’t think the sun has an impact on the climate”

        And nature shrugged.


        Report this

        80

      • #
        Ian

        Hey Mattb I asked you a couple of questions. Any chance of an answer or are they beyond you? OK to sneer at Johnson so why not at the climate scientist David Viner whose predictions are shown to be somewhat less than accurate? Why is it that posters like you and Maxine and John Brown are never able to enter into a discussion? All you do is sneer but never “fight your corner” Some, not me of course, would call that gutless


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Ian,

          Think, drive-by-shooting. That will let you understand MattB, Maxine, John Brookes and some others too.

          Gutless just may be the best word for it — bravado instead of bravery.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Now Piers has a very good record of forecasting the weather. He has been bang on about these cold winters.


    Report this

    222

  • #
    Mattb

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    shows that rather than feeling a bit like we are heading in to an ice age (lol) that we are maybe in the mid 1980s?


    Report this

    126

  • #

    Boris Johnson. . .climate scientist LOL!

    Global Warming is causing Arctic currents and circumpolar winds to do funny things, letting lobes of frigid Arctic air move out the Arctic southwards.

    The other thing that seems to be happening is that the Gulf Stream is slowing, due to all the fresh water from melted Arctic ice and melted Greenland icesheets heading south into the North Atlantic.

    Nothing there that says the globe is cooling.


    Report this

    268

    • #
      Sonny

      Yes Maxine,
      Global warming causes hot weather AND cold weather. And it causes hot weather where it’s hot and cold weather where it’s cold. It causes windy weather where it’s windy, wet weather where it’s wet and dry weather where it’s dry. It even causes pleasant and mild weather where it is pleasant and mild.

      Global warming is just amazing!


      Report this

      771

      • #
        Sonny

        Challenge for you Maxine,

        What would need to happen to indicate that it’s cooling? Please list the falsification criteria for the theory of man made global warming.

        Feel free to jump straight in Matt B.


        Report this

        320

        • #
          Sonny

          What ? No reply?

          Any legitimate scientific theory needs a null hypothesis and clear falsification criteria.

          Can’t you separate real science po-mo po-no psuedoscience?


          Report this

          110

        • #
          Ace

          “falsification data”…go easy on the little mite. He/She/It would probably think a Null Hypothesis is the lesser of two proofs of a theory.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          Mattb

          “What would need to happen to indicate that it’s cooling?”

          I’m going to go out on a limb here… what I am about to share is pretty much cutting edge stuff, not peer reviewed yet, and my colleagues are not going to be happy that I’m leaking and stealing their thunder.

          I WOULD NEED THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TO BE DROPPING!!!


          Report this

          121

          • #
            Heywood

            How about if it’s static for say, 16 years?


            Report this

            150

          • #
            John Brookes

            I wouldn’t go there Heywood. How about if its rising for say 16 years, but the error bars just include zero so you can say that its static, if you are in denial.


            Report this

            18

          • #
            sophocles

            Prof Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University was interviewed by the BBC in February 2008. The interview was published on the Beeb’s website (www.bbc.com on 5th Feb 2008 I think) so you can go and check it. Prof Jones said there had been cooling at a rate “of 0.3 degrees per decade from 2003 to date.”

            So there you go. The globe is cooling.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            John Brookes

            That is just sophistry :-) It certainly wasn’t statistically significant.


            Report this

            05

          • #
            Ian

            But equally wouldn’t you expect global temperatures to be increasing? Note use of the term global temperatures


            Report this

            30

        • #
          Heywood

          “It certainly wasn’t statistically significant.”

          There. That wasn’t that hard was it…


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        You forgot the plagues of toads … :-(

        Why do people always forget the poor toads …? They only want a decent plague every now and then, and nobody remembers … :-(


        Report this

        80

        • #
          AndyG55

          Queenslanders know all about the plague of toads……

          and it happened well before CAGW was even thought about, even a gleam in Big Al’s eye.

          just normally bad science………………….. not abnormally bad science.


          Report this

          30

    • #

      The puppy first states…

      Global Warming is causing Arctic currents and circumpolar winds to do funny things, letting lobes of frigid Arctic air move out the Arctic southwards.

      Then follows it with this…

      Nothing there that says the globe is cooling.

      So all that frigid Arctic air heading to where people live is making it warmer is it Max?
      Amazing, if only we could keep all that frigid air where it belongs; in the Arctic circle, then the rest of the globe will be cooler lol.

      I’ve owned numerous dogs over the years. They were all very smart, especially the bitches. But this bitch is dumb as a lump of clay.


      Report this

      361

      • #
        John Brookes

        The UK and northern Europe may be cooling, but the arctic is warming. And I just happened to be watching someone from Washington saying how unusually warm it was for this time of year….


        Report this

        235

        • #
          ColdOldMan

          And I just happened to be watching someone from Washington saying how unusually warm it was for this time of year….

          I’m glad to see you using ‘peer-reviewed’ information to further your argument. I hope you don’t expect sceptics to stop using anecdotes to further theirs, in the future?


          Report this

          250

        • #
          Len

          The Arctic ice is back to what it was after refreezing, John.


          Report this

          120

        • #
          Heywood

          “And I just happened to be watching someone from Washington saying how unusually warm it was for this time of year”

          Obviously not one of the crowd watching the inauguration who were all wearing shivering their arses off with the commentators remarking how bitter the cold was. I just happened to be watching that too.


          Report this

          120

          • #
            John Brookes

            It was the day before the inauguration.


            Report this

            08

          • #
            Heywood

            “It was the day before the inauguration.”

            So…?

            One person from Washington states that, in their opinion, it was unusually warm for this time of year, the day before a bitterly cold day.

            Well I’m convinced. Might as well wrap up the website Jo.

            Brookesy heard one bloke say it was warm in Washington so CAGW must be absolute fact.


            Report this

            50

        • #
          Skitz

          and I thought global warming was…. well GLOBAL


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Greg House

            Skitz says (#6.2.1.4): “and I thought global warming was…. well GLOBAL”
            ==============================================

            Because they falsely call it “global”, I guess, for propaganda reasons. The warmists shot themselves in the foot at the same time, because people start pointing to the snow, cold winters etc.

            On the other hand warmists can always refer to their “global warming” being a sort of average thing, thus invalidating the sceptics’ argumentation about regional cooling or “16 years without warming” etc.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Tel

            They mean globally televised.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          cohenite

          The Germans know its cooling and due to green energy policies can’t afford electricity, so they are cutting down trees in germany’s protected forests to keep warm.

          It has reached the stage where people who endorse and promote AGW, green energy and the other aspects to this madness should be treated as the ratbags they are.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Ian

          John Brookes In an earlier comment in relation to global cooling, you say “That is just sophistry It certainly wasn’t statistically significant.” In another comment with regard to global warming you say “I wouldn’t go there Heywood. How about if its rising for say 16 years, but the error bars just include zero so you can say that its static, if you are in denial”
          So cooling isn’t statistically significant but if you say warming isn’t statistically significant you’re in denial. Why is that? Surely statistical significance is statistical significance


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Heywood

            Ian,

            The Warmists apply a simple test to any information they hear/read.

            “Does this support my cause?”

            If the answer is no, then it’s statistically insignificant.


            Report this

            30

        • #

          That’s how averages work. And since AGW worships averages, you should be happy.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Max,

      You are lurching from one Alarmist comment to another, you are the Adams Family answer to the Greens. But this man Boris would eat you alive.

      Here is his inspiration against boring old Bloggers like you.

      LURCHING by MAXINE


      Report this

      140

    • #
      Sonny

      So Maxine let’s get this straight.

      On the one hand “The arctic is melting!” because the arctic is hot due to global warming.

      On the other hand the arctic is FREEZING COLD and “funny global warming things” are causing countries in the Northern Hemisphere to FREEZE due to some hitherto unknown cold thermal transfer between a warming melting freezing north pole and warmer colder freezing countries at lower latitudes.

      Hey Maxine, that is a funny thing!


      Report this

      391

    • #
      Louis Hissink

      Maxine, the jet streams react to changes in solar wind flux. The solar wind is essentially a stream of protons and other electrically positive ions from the sun. The jet streams are probably linked physical to the behaviour of the auroral Birkeland currents which only become visible when the plasma they are made of, moves from dark current mode, to glow mode. These phenomena can be forecasted from observations of solar activity, specifically CME eruptions and sunspots and coronal holes. These unpredictable ejections of plasma have a significant effect on the physical behaviour of the earth’s electrical conductive plasma sphere, including the basal plasma double layer, the base of which life flourishes.

      How CO2 fits into this electro-plasma system needs to be worked on.


      Report this

      332

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Max

      What do we do when you said:

      Melted Greenland icesheets heading south into the North Atlantic

      Add $23.00 for each degree of temperature increase that escapes – and maybe double that ($46.00) if that naughty melted Greenland Icesheet reaches us. Opps – but we’ve already paid $23.00 for the CO2 – so do we get a discount on the electricity bill?

      What is the price for escaped Greenland Icesheets?

      If one Koala escapes to Greenland we should pay $23.00 and call it square.


      Report this

      120

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Tens of thousands of frozen solid cattle in Mongolia might disagree with you.

      If they were still alive.

      KK


      Report this

      160

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Stop blaming the Sky dragon Maxine. You know very well that it was Santa Claus. After all, who just came around the globe and brought all that cold air? No. Maybe Sasquatch! Or Aliens! Or the Tooth Fairy! What could the sun possibly have to do with global temperature?


      Report this

      131

    • #
      Streetcred

      maxine … climate scientist, LOL !

      maxine … prostitute for CAGW / Sks … yep !


      Report this

      30

      • #
        ExWarmist

        A “Prostitute” requires payment for services rendered, as far as I can tell, Maxine is “doing it for free” – which makes him a “Groupie”.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          AndyG55

          Certainly, only a cretin would pay this moron to comment..

          It’s idiocy is counterproductive to their “cause”!

          (actually…. maybe the ALP are paying, would explain the ineptitude)

          they pay Flim-Flam, after all !!


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Streetcred

            … my thoughts as well. He’s not bright enough to earn a crust through any positive endeavour. I would not be in the least surprised if there was a little ‘grant’ money being secreted there.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Crakar24

          No ex warmist you dont pay a prostitute for sex you pay her to leave afterwards, no one has paid Maxine to leave yet.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Johnson is already a hate figure among the Left; he annoys them like nobody else (except Monckton in the climate sphere). Both seem to treat their lives as some sort of game, and never take Leftists seriously (the crime of all crimes).

    But he is nobody’s fool, despite his repeated efforts to appear to the contrary.

    And so he sees that whatever happens to the climate, he has to distance himself from the Coalition’s disastrous, expensive and futile climate policies, because he knows that when they really bite*, anyone identified with them is going down the gurgler in short order.

    He’s smart enough to know that there is some chance we’re in for cooling, a stance which by itself distances him from any other pol in the UK, and if it turns out that way, he has opened up a huge lead over other contenders for the top job.

    (*Pensioners can currently choose between heating and food; in the future they won’t have that choice).


    Report this

    491

    • #

      It’s good to see him stepping forward. I hope more politicians follow and that it all snowballs (if you’ll pardon the expression)before too many more ordinary citizens freeze to death. There’s the crime against humanity and the blame goes to those in power now. They have to go.


      Report this

      90

  • #
    MadJak

    Boris – you have got the sort of Guts, fortitude and leadership skills required for politics

    It’s a pity that there aren’t more capable pollies with the guts to stand up for what they observe. It’s far too rare.

    Whether you’re right or wrong doesn’t matter, what you have been saying has been what many others have been lambasted for saying.


    Report this

    240

  • #
    MadJak

    And now for the University of East Anglias view about what was meant to happen with the weather due to climate change:

    Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past according to UEA Climate scientist – 2001


    Report this

    240

    • #
      Sonny

      That was the OLD predictions. The new computer models are way way way more expensive and way way way way way way more accurate.

      Don’t be fooled by climate scientists horrendous record of climate predictions. They have it right now… PROMISE!


      Report this

      260

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        And when we want to wait to see if their NEW predictions come true, they just wheel out The Precautionary Principle and tell us NO we cannot wait we MUST ACT NOW to SAVE THE PLANET (and their research gravy train) because PROOF DENIES FAITH.

        And if they’re wrong, well MattyB will just tell the heathens to put on an extra jumper in winter. But was MattB knitting cow-sized jumpers to save the livestock of Russia, no, no he was not.

        Oh god, it’s all so predictable.


        Report this

        130

        • #
          Apoxonbothyourhouses

          Cool it Andrew! You and so many others on this blog keep forgetting the Matts & Maxines are not scientists. They are arguing from a standpoint of faith and a scientist or rational person can never win a faith based discussion because logic, data, cause and effect etc. are irrelevant to them.


          Report this

          100

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Well said, and spot on the money.

            The term that is ironically use to describe people like Maxine, by those who actually work within political circles, is Neutered Politicals.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            MadJak

            Rereke,

            Neutered Politicals – oh yes, this is now officially a part of my lexicon!


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Gah, okay, message received.
            You can lead the filly to water vapour but you can’t make it think.

            I just think, somehow, deep down, there is a little inner reasonable person struggling to get out of them.
            Perhaps I am like a recovering alcoholic’s AA sponsor.
            Or perhaps as their doctor. I see them as a problem which must be fixed.

            Hmmm, perhaps “fixed” is the wrong word there since it conflicts with the “Neutered Politicians” etymology. :P

            So basically, they keep trying to screw people like politicians do in spite of not actually being able to create any new changes in society. Yep, that one’s a keeper.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Andrew,

            You got it! [... trying t screw people like politicians do in spite of of ...] sums it up the epistemology quite nicely.

            Now we have the phrase established outside of the political bubble, we can use it at will (and maxine and matt).


            Report this

            10

        • #
          Streetcred

          Four years ago Hansen gave Obummer four years after which time we were supposed to have been toast … Obummer failed and so Hansen has allowed him a further four years after which time we will now definitely be toast. Obummer is only back for a second term to apologise for screwing up the first term.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Carbon500

    A regular writer in the UK’s Sunday Telegraph is Philip Eden, a past vice-president of the Royal Meteorological Society. His column (Weather Watch) is always interesting, and he had this to say last weekend (p34 Jan 20th):
    ‘The heavy and widespread snowfall that we saw on Friday – notwithstanding the wall-to-wall coverage on television and radio, and in the newspapers – is probably only likely to occur, on average, once a year. The key words here are ‘on average’. There will be some years when no such fall happens, while in others there may be three or four falls as heavy or heavier.
    Even in this century, there were similar falls of snow in Feb2012, Dec 2010, Jan 2010, Dec 2009, Feb 2009, Feb 2007, Feb 2005, and in northern Britain in both Feb and March 2001.
    During the nineties – a particularly mild decade – there were three major snowfalls in Jan-Feb 1996, two in Feb 1991 and one in Dec 1990.
    He goes on ‘The first fall of snow in Feb 1991 was significantly greater than last week. It snowed heavily and persistently for about 48 hours on the 7th and 8th.’
    Perhaps it’s time for those who believe in CAGW to start looking at historical climate records instead of wringing their hands about fractional increases or decreases in temperature?


    Report this

    290

    • #

      I think they may be blind to any report that doesn’t support CAGW. Or maybe they’re scared and just cannot face anything that disagrees. I know it’s typical head-in-the-sand, but sometimes it strikes me that they are fearful of some horrible punishment if they should so much as catch a glimpse of something that goes against their meme or their Cause. You know? That’s really sad.


      Report this

      80

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        As one of my lecturers once said, “If you spend all of your time with your head in the sand, you are likely to find something sharp shoved up your ….”. Now, in terms of this lecture … :-)


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Dennis

      The Chinese delegation to Copenfloppin reported that during 3,600 years of their civilisation there were three periods warmer than the warming period that ended in 1998, each warmer period brought increased prosperity from higher crops yields and feed for animals and humans. They kept records of course.


      Report this

      90

  • #
    pat

    any sceptical CAGW mention is better than the silence of our own Coalition, and the complicity of everyone in our Govt.

    meanwhile, if this case gets up, and Tim “Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems” Flannery could be called on to explain the failure of his predictions, we might see some untangling of CAGW in quick time:

    21 Jan: ABC Australia: Josh Bavas: Thousands of Qld flood victims join possible lawsuit
    Thousands of people have signed on to a possible class action against the Queensland Government for damages incurred in the 2011 floods.
    Damian Scattini from Maurice Blackburn says a report by US hydrologists claims the operators of Wivenhoe Dam were negligent and caused unnecessary damage.
    “They held too much water in the reservoir for too long, and then when they realised what they’d done, they panicked and released too much at once,” he said…
    John Walker from IMF Australia says the case could be one of the biggest of its kind in Australia.
    “We don’t know to a large extent what losses each of those people have had. We’ve worked it out in a broad sense,” he said.
    “In the next two to three months we’ll be seeking to get a clear understanding of the losses associated with this flood that didn’t need to occur.”
    The lawsuit has a budget of $10 million and if successful, the compensation could run into the billions of dollars.
    Seqwater says it is confident the dam was properly managed during the flood crisis…
    Lawyers say they will know within a couple of months whether they have enough support to continue with the action which could take up to four years.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-21/thousands-of-flood-victims-join-possible-law-suit/4474358?section=business


    Report this

    130

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Any action to highlight Government failure to deal with the basics of community life is a step in the right direction.

      Government owed a duty of care to use that dam for the purpose it was constructed, namely, Flood Mitigation.

      Instead some smarty decided to save money and use it as a water storage facility with the predictable disaster.

      In this case The Science was ignored and someone is accountable.

      Not much point building a catchment for a one in one hundred year flood if it is not kept in readiness.

      KK


      Report this

      130

      • #
        Apoxonbothyourhouses

        Meanwhile O’Farrell keeps espousing wind farms and so relentlessly drives UP the cost of electricity to both pensioner and industry alike.
        Driving out of Canberra yesterday not one of the 20 or so wind turbines were turning. When Gillard and O’Farrell switched on the kettle for a cuppa just where the hell did they think the power was coming from? Myopia is not restricted to the Mats and Maxine’s of this world.


        Report this

        110

        • #
          Dennis

          Apparently wind turbines are on average 90% efficient 10% of the time.


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Dennis

            Also, re O’Farrell, in my opinion he is not a strong leader but he is a hard working honest person. Don’t forget that Labor ruled New South Wales for sixteen years, the Coalition inherited the wind turbine madness and they can hardly tear them down so they also cannot condemn them and the businesses that operate them based on a Green & Labor GW/CC and carbon dioxide tax con/renewable energy levy con. The problem for new governments that inherit socialist programs is that undoing them can be tricky. In other words carbon tax could be dumped but the wind turbine industry cannot. It is what governments do in future to provide low cost electricity production that flattens the overall price to consumers. Green Labor should be marked down to the bottom for future elections because they hold the nation back and cost citizens much money.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            John Brookes

            Far be it from me to ever support the Liberals, but it seems that Labor in NSW is pretty rotten. They should not get back into power there until the rot is totally gone.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Well said John. It matters not what type or colour of apple it is, if it is rotten, it needs to come out of the barrel.


            Report this

            40

    • #
      Dennis

      What has receieved little publicity is the the Queensland Labor government at last flood time in Brisbane were playing politics about a water shortage and related need for the desalination plant they were building, and GW/CC resulting in a water shortage in future, dams not being filled. They did not tell the people that there were small reserve dams full of water in the countryside from which water could have been pumped across to the main water supplies. Lies upon lies upon lies for political agenda puposes, and Labor asks us to trust them? Labor values they say.


      Report this

      50

  • #

    it is the Sun, because it’s certainly not carbon dioxide.

    Yes, temperatures are “at a standstill.” The whole point made by nearly 200 suitably qualified members of Principia Scientific International is that the planet is not going to boil.

    If this fraudulent hoax is not stopped, then, yes, people are going to die in their thousands, because $100,000,000,000 has been promised for developing countries, not for humanitarian aid, but for carbon dioxide aid.

    Carbon dioxide actually has a minuscule cooling effect, nowhere near as much as water vapour though That’s genuine science because it is based on the laws of physics that are well proven over the centuries.

    Those climatologists who are misleading the public and governments completely misunderstand, or overlook the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which reads (quoting Wikipedia) …

    An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.

    Do you have any idea of the implications of this law?

    (1) The atmosphere has a propensity towards an equilibrium which is isentropic.

    Do you know what equal entropy implies?

    (2) It implies there is an autonomous thermal gradient raising the surface temperature even more than that “33 degrees of warming” supposedly due to an imaginary GH effect.

    Do you know what that means?

    They are wrong. Carbon dioxide does not warm the surface one iota.

    If you don’t understand the physics, then I suggest you stop propagating the hoax. The world can look forward to 500 years of natural cooling after about 2140, and it won’t get more than a degree warmer before then.

    Roy Spencer is wrong in saying conduction would produce isothermal conditions in his point (6). It is Roy who either needs to make even just one comment on his own thread to either admit he’s wrong, or prove all of us at PSI are wrong in some way, perhaps because the Second Law of Thermodynamics would not somehow lead to isentropic conditions, rather than isothermal in a vertical plane. It would be very strange if it did so. Do you not notice the word “entropy” in that quote from Wikipedia?


    Report this

    213

    • #
      Ace

      Mate…how do expect to get such concepts through the skulls of people who use the howling oxymoron “renewable energy”?

      I reckon you should practice dumbing down your arguments to a level where Maxine can understand them. Or at least read them. If you can get it simple enough for Him / Her and we can see that she / he understands it, then you’ll be ready to launch it at other Econumbnuts.


      Report this

      120

    • #
      Mattb

      “The whole point made by nearly 200 suitably qualified members of Principia Scientific International is that the planet is not going to boil.”

      So you agree with the iPCC then… great.

      “it is the Sun, because it’s certainly not carbon dioxide.”
      This statement is an error of logic. It is a car because it certainly is not an egg?

      “An isolated system,” so which isolated system is this doug?


      Report this

      324

      • #
        Len

        I hope you don’t carry on like this at the Council Meetings.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        Ace

        Mr “Mattb”: Whilst it is true that,on the order of statement in respect of all colours that: “It is not black therefore its white” Mr Cotton has said something illogical, because it could equally be pink or yellow, the fact is, that is not the order of statement he has made.Rather, within the bounded context of the given dabate (“is it CO2 or is it the sun”) his assertion is isomorphic with the observation that if it is black or white and it is not black,then it has to be white. Which really makes YOU the illogical one. Asshat.


        Report this

        162

        • #
          Mattb

          Asshat. I take it that’s your signature?

          Mr “Ace” Asshat?


          Report this

          02

          • #
            Ace

            Mattb. Look…Ive just demonstrated that when you said someone is making a flaw of logic it is you who are making the flaw of logic…clearly, even if I dont say it, everyone seeing that will recognise you to be an asshat.

            Now you clearly cannot refute what I said but just make the above lame retort. So, OK, I wont call you an asshat this time, that was only what you appeared to be last time. Now I will call you what anyone reading your comments will in any case see, you’re an idiot.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Streetcred

            Ace, logic is not Matt’s strong point, he works for the Council. Capiche?

            “The earth is warming, we know with certainty that it is caused by CO2 because we can’t identify what else it is” … that’s warmista logic. What it demonstrates is that they’re not capable of that logic in understanding in the science … CO2 is comfortable for them so they stop there.

            However, NASA Researchers Beginning To Realize That The Sun Affects The Climate looks to be a start, amongst others, in the withdrawal from the scripture of CO2.

            It will take our warmista trolls a little longer to deal with their cognitive dissonance since they’ve invested a lot of their egos in believing in the CAGW scriptures. I predict golden years ahead for psychologists.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Streetcred

            correction: “What it demonstrates is that they’re not capable of logic in understanding in the science”


            Report this

            00

      • #

        I agree it’s a bit laconic – because I assume readers may have read my papers such as “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” or articles like this.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      ColdOldMan

      . . . and it won’t get more than a degree warmer before then.

      Don’t tell ‘em that, for heaven’s sake! Look at the damage they’ve managed to inflict on our nations with ~0.8 degrees since the LIA. Give them a whole 1 degree to play with and I think I should teach my grand-children how to make flint tools.


      Report this

      90

      • #

        Dunno, flint tools would be banned. Extreme Greenies would like to knock us back to the stone-age but without the advantages the stone age people had. So stones would be used just for sitting on, perhaps. We won’t be allowed in caves (might disturb the bats or whatever else lives in there), won’t be allowed to have fire (it’s “unnatural”). Won’t be allowed to eat meat… hmmm, I guess that means we eat Greenies… er, I mean greens… er… *cough*cough*


        Report this

        111

  • #
    Tim

    Problem is – the sun’s protons can’t be taxed. So they dare not mention the P word.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Amfortas

    UK snow that comes along and stays around for a while? I recall 1947 and 1963. Weeks and weeks of thick snow everywhere. Frozen lakes and rivers.

    1947 I was three and had just moved house. I was cast into a wonderland of snowy countryside and the buses stopped running. And the trains, so I was told at the time although I wasn’t sure what a train was. In 1963 I was in the RAF and the airfields were all closed apart from a few ‘key’ ones and Gaydon, the only one where we had a heated runway. That lasted for weeks too.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Annie

      Amfortas: we must be a similar age. I too just remember the snow of 1947 and how a great mass of compacted snow slid off the roof. Some washing I had naughtily pulled off the line was buried; my mother puzzled for weeks as to its whereabouts until the eventual thaw. In 1963 I went skating on the local frozen pond and the River Thames froze. Later, during that very long winter, I joined the Army and we recruits felt like Napoleon’s Army retreating as we marched in our greatcoats in file through huge piles of banked up snow. The last bit of sodden snow was still around at the beginning of March near London but I believe it persisted longer elsewhere in the country.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Ace

        I dont yet remember the snow of 1963.

        I remember seeing photographs of myself playing happily in it. Kind of plaid trousers and a bobble hat.

        If what Im told about memory is correct, I can look forward to remembering being photographed that day as I get older. I certainly rediscover lost memories evry year. Usually set off by an object found in a charity shop.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Perhaps that was the reason why it was referred to as The Cold War?

      There, and I always assumed it was because the two sides were not throwing bang-sticks at each other.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Alan Barnes

    Mattb, he’s making a point about hysteria. In the 1970′s the scientific consensus was that we were heading into a fatal ice age. Now the scientific consensus is that we’re heading into a fatal heat wave. Man made CO2 accounts for 0.0017% of our total atmospheric gases. There is no observable evidence that links CO2 emissions with climate change. It is a theory. And now it’s bloody cold again and snowing.
    For billions of years the earth has endured cooling, warming, gassing and degassing. We have been here for a while and we’re still here. The only difference is nowadays we’re being fleeced for trillions of our tax money to pay for a fatuous battle with a harmless plant food, cheered on by helpful idiots like you.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      Apoxonbothyourhouses

      …meanwhile as the billions are wasted (also please don’t forget the hundreds of millions promised to Greece to dig them out of their self dug financial hole) the Smith Family are desperately seeking a “lousy” million dollars to help Australian kids. The priorities of our CPI indexed pension recipient pollies suck. How the hell did we get so far into this mess?


      Report this

      60

    • #
    • #
      Ace

      Its also absolutely certain we wont be here forever. Only timescales vary. The Earth will eventually be swallowed by an expanding sun. No environuttery will ever change that fact. Millions of years or just years, makes no difference if its a day or a week after Im dead.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Ace

        …environmentalists are like passengers who complain to the steward that the cutlery isnt set out correctly whilst travelling on the Titanic.

        Even if their every prognostication and doomsayingwere correct, they would still be idiots for thinking it makes a blind bit of difference to anything.

        So preoccupied by whether it is or whether it aint climate change or not, man made or not, noone seems to stop and ask, why the hell anyone should give a damn? Who cares? So what? It doesnt mean a thing!


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          When it enters your mind, Nihilism never knocks first.

          Presumably there are things you care about, but whether future people should have the option of caring about what you care about is also something you could care about, more or less.

          The prospect that ethics doesn’t exist because consequences have no moral dimension is going to put you in a lonely corner of philosophy. Surely *if* we were incinerating the planet with CO2, you would care about those consequences?
          i.e. the scientific inquiry and the debate are worth having?

          I’m not trying to create any back door into Pascal’s Wager or the Precautionary Piffle, just wondering if you would really dismiss the anthropogenic incineration of all life on the planet as merely the ultimate natural selection test, with a clear conscience.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Ace

            McRae….if you think what I wrote indicates nihilism that only means you either did not read and comprehend what I said or you dont know what nihilism means.

            Look, you write:
            “Presumably there are things you care about, but whether future people should have the option of caring about what you care about is also something you could care about, more or less.”

            …which is to refer to things WITHIN my life, AS I live it. Things that affect me and what I experience. What I referred to were things happening AFTER my life and which can have utterly no effect upon me.

            Then when you write:
            “I’m not trying to create any back door into Pascal’s Wager or the Precautionary Piffle, just wondering if you would really dismiss the anthropogenic incineration of all life on the planet as merely the ultimate natural selection test, with a clear conscience.”

            …you merely validate my earlier comment. Obviously you are another person ignorant of basic astrophysics. What I said before isnt some metaphysical waffle but a simple astronomical fact. Our sun, like all stars, will eventually expand to swallow all its planets. The Earth itself, let alone all life upon it IS going to be incinerated.

            Moreover,adducing “clear conscience” merely appeals to sentiment not reason. Your conscienable act is a Muslims heinous sin, and visa versa, its utterly relative.

            So, on the first point you lack the comprehension and reasoning skills of a bright child, on the second point you are an ignoramous and on the third point you are inadvertently acknowledging that your “ethics” are void and baseless other than as a reflection of your little community, culture, time and place.


            Report this

            21

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            So that’s an answer of “less”, then.

            As to my alleged incomprehension, I reasoned as follows.
            First you did not care about consequences that happen after your death because they can’t affect you.
            Then you did not care about environmental consequences (CAGW) that may (hypothetically) happen during the lifetime of people alive today (which includes you) because the Earth will be incinerated by the sun eventually anyway. The moral position implicit in this is that the care is pointless when the thing cared-for will be destroyed anyway. You make this quite clear in the Titanic analogy. However the sun will incinerate everything on Earth, not just our natural environment. Furthermore you will die one day, which takes from you everything you have acquired and experienced, assuming you are not a Dualist. Furthermore everyone will die, so by the same logic there is ultimately no point in caring about them either. You have explicitly discounted all your in vivo consequences on the environment, and implicitly discounted social and artificial consequences too, and have explicitly discounted all the post mortem consequences of any type. Since the time of your death partitions all the consequences of your actions into two sets, in-vivo and post-mortem, each of which have been eliminated by the above two moral positions, this implies that the set of consequences you permit yourself to care about is…the empty set. Therefore ultimately your choices are meaningless. Therefore existential nihilism.

            You later claimed to care about things that you experience, but the point is that it is a double standard to deny environmentalists are justified in conserving the ultimately unconservable while you’re maximising the experiences of your mortal being. If you can affirm tending to your mortal life regardless of its ultimate termination then logic requires you to accept environmentalists conserving a planet regardless of its ultimate destruction. You may add other constraints on how environmentalism (or environmentalists) could be unjustified, but the incineration of the Earth can’t be one of them.

            As to my alleged ignorance of the lifecycle of the sun and the ultimate futility of the environmentalist’s conservation and sustainability memes, it is your ignorance of my previous writings on the subject that has led your foot into your mouth there.
            Plus my question about the morality of planetary incineration was clearly about CAGW, not the death throes of the sun. Your own reading comprehension could use improvement.

            I freely admit to not understanding how your point about moral relativism is in any way relevant to my requirement of having a clear conscience. You are the only person who experiences your conscience, so other people and cultures are irrelevant to it in the present moment. The question was about you, not some global hive-mind, and one’s conscience can be reasoned insofar as the qualia may be rationalised.

            You then caused yourself more embarrassment by describing my ethics as being based on a community, based on a culture, based on a time, and based on a place, whilst at the same time being “baseless”. You then guessed, based on nothing, that my ethics are relativist, and concluded categorically they are therefore void. Even less logical is how a question of your ethics can be answered by appraising mine.

            You argued that even if the phenomenon was real we should not care about man-made global warming anyway because there are no consequences for you personally and the Earth will inevitably burn up regardless. You have made this position clear. This seems to create contradictions with other things you believe, but I make no other judgement about it.

            By the tone of your response it is no surprise you are intimately familiar with the “reasoning skills of a bright child”.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Mattb

      “In the 1970′s the scientific consensus was that we were heading into a fatal ice age.”
      Incorrect. There were some ideas bouncing around and some were polularised in the media.

      “We have been here for a while and we’re still here.” we’ve not been here for the billions of years you cite for extreme climate experience though. Civilization has been here for a drop in the ocean of relatively stable climate.


      Report this

      13

      • #
        Ace

        What do you mean by “civilisation” Its literal meaning is “living in cities”. No present “civilisation” is more than a couple of millenia old. Obviously there were no cities from before the Holocene. Or until much later. But Human culture reaches back well before the so-called “Ice Age” and village communities did exist then, throughout that era and survived its end. Human culture not only survived a period of warming during which, in some populated regions, coastlines retreated at the rate of 60 metres PER WEEK it thrived. Sixty metres per week. Whilst the archaeological sites so engulfed remain on the bottom of the North Sea do you really suppose the inhabitants just sat there and drowned with their huts?

        Human culture defined by migratory expansion (ie, activity rather than place, or “civilisation”) extends far back into the “Ice Age”. Distinct Human communities exist that are where they are today because as a community they have migrated over forty-plus thousands of years. Not just some recent window of “civilisation”.

        So, on that point, Mattb is simply wrong.

        On the matter of “consensus” it would be well to look up Semmelweis.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      John Brookes

      Except that there was no scientific consensus about heading into an ice age in the 1970′s. And as Matt points out, our civilisation has not survived even one ice age. Rather we’ve been blessed by a pretty stable climate. The thing is, when there were far less of us on the planet, a change in local climate meant moving, and possibly fighting a war with your neighbours. Now that there are lots of us, and a great deal of infrastructure, adaptation to a changing climate will be a lot harder.


      Report this

      03

  • #
    Ace

    The thing about the English is they get a bit of snow and….owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww…its a major unprecedented feckin news event of the millenium , sorry, country shut down….almost every feckin year!

    Snow a thing of thepast. What a marvellous promise. Pity it was hodnox.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    • #
      tiger

      Just read the article matt. full of b.s. such as “Boris Johnson’s former stomping ground, Dr Ridley falsely alleged that wind farms may increase greenhouse gas” It is in fact true..The scottish gov. has found a correlation between more wind farms and higher co2 emissions due to the stop-start effect on coal fired generators ..eg when the wind stops fire up coal wind blows shut down coal. Just like driving a car in traffic as opposed to the open road…use more fuel= more emissions ..looks like Grantham institute stuff…chuck it in the bin…


      Report this

      100

  • #
    Senex Bibax

    I don’t know about the Arctic melting, but it’s a perfectly normal winter in Canada so far. Here is a map of the current temperatures across the country:


    Report this

    80

  • #
    UK Sceptic

    Don’t be taken in by Boris Johnson, chaps and chapesses. Above all he’s an inconsistent, ambitious politician and will happily conform to public opinion rather than personal conviction. Only fairly recently he was peddling this:

    http://www.london.gov.uk/climatechange/sites/climatechange/staticdocs/Climiate_change_adaptation.pdf

    Since that report the wheels have begun to fall off the AGW gravy train and Boris, being a resilient and resourceful chap, has noticed and trimmed his sail accordingly.

    It’s good that he’s on our side right now but I wouldn’t have him watching my back in a fight in case a more useful, conflicting opportunity to cling to power and further his career presented itself mid battle.

    Other than that he’s an affable and likeable bloke.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      janama

      thanks for the heads up – I suspected what you say.


      Report this

      50

    • #

      It’s good to see anyone change his (or her) mind. It’s okay to be wrong. It’s okay to stand up and admit to now thinking a bit deeper on the subject. Politicians are so frightened of losing votes by saying the wrong thing, they are sticking with the warming meme, but then, alarmists are known to shout a lot and be intimidating. It’s good to see someone like Boris dare to step outside the alarmists view point. What he truly believes – who cares? As long as his policies puts cheap fuel back into pensioners’ homes and stops the pointless slaughter of those currently deemed “worthless” by the government. I hope he gets a good strong following and gets a chance to take the UK out of the New Dark Ages.


      Report this

      110

      • #
        Apoxonbothyourhouses

        Yes, yes and yes. So long as someone stands up I care not about their motivation if the result is a common sense policy that redirects the wasted billions to those in need.


        Report this

        60

  • #
    Mindert Eiting

    Can anyone tell me what Boris age is? The Netherlands is close to the UK and I remember from my youth early fifties snow, snow, snow. It lasted for weeks and could reach a height of one meter. The windows were covered completely with ice flowers and we had plenty time make snow cages and puppets. Have a look at old movies of our Eleven-cities skating tour in the sixties. The (not too) old times seem back again. In those days we had no idea that all that fun was caused by AGW, a delusion to come upon us in the future.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Jo here’s another outlandish anti-science statement from the Royal Society.

    President of The Royal Society Paul Nurse says scientific advice should be based on the consensus of scientists who are experts in the area concerned

    This from the guy who aided in the whitewashing of “hide the decline” [see p32 of the GWPF report]. Not to mention his mealy-mouthed faux-flip on alarmism spotted by Delingpole and others.

    Yesterday Nurse was in Melbourne, a hotbed of natural climate change denial if there ever was one, and home to one of our favourite scientists David Karoly. Perhaps Karoly will teach Nurse how to chase ambulances after bushfires?
    These overseas trips aren’t just media junkets, they are important for skill transfers, fostering international collaboration, and circling the wagons.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      ian hilliar

      David Karoly is a pretty piece of work> Last email I had from him a few years ago he told me he was engaged in recalibrating the central england temperature record. I guess that is climate speak to “attempting to adjust”.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        History is an ugly story. Clearly it deserves corrective surgery.
         
        +-----------------------+
        | HOW'S MY PROPAGANDA ? |
        | CALL 1-800-FABIANPLOT |
        +-----------------------+


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Ace

    Totally irrelevant (?) but those Rooskies are still investing billions in collosal nuclear powered ice-breakers.

    I wonder what they intend to do with themwhen theres no ice to break? They are so short sighted and impractical these investors, obviously.

    Meanwhile the Finnish have started building side-ways going ice-breakers. So an ice-breaker can bust a channel as wide as the vessel is long.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    As has been pointed out above, what people remember isn’t very reliable. All we really know at this point is that the predictions of global warming are not coming true before our very eyes.

    Oh! We know one other thing. There seems to be a great interest in picking and choosing what records to use in making predictions of the future climate. And for that matter, there’s a greater and greater use of modeling to replace actual observation. And let us not forget that statements by the experts like Maxine the Great Grate seem to be getting more and more emotional while at the same time they become more — what’s the right term here, ridiculous maybe?

    I don’t know about anyone else but I know what I think is going on.


    Report this

    150

  • #
    theduke

    I was struck by the similarity of Johnson’s statement to one by Penn Jillette, the American magician and entertainer. In the following video, he speaks as an uninformed layman, which doesn’t preclude him from holding very strong opinions, profanely expressed. The language is not for children.

    There is an intro by James Randi that lasts about a minute twenty, but stay tuned. It’s very amusing:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE0UkL4tjpg


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Boris Johnson likes to play the role of a loveable oaf.

    In reality, he is both exceptionally smart and politically popular. He can read the tea leaves about the future of climate alarmism, wind power and the UK government’s truly insane energy policy. Basically, it is not good and he clearly wants to start distancing himself from the eco-lunacy policies shared by the leaders of all three of the UK’s main political parties. He has a much better chance of becoming prime minister if he can say, “Told you so”, when the ecoloon forecasts of imminent Thermageddon are eventually shown to be no more than the misguided fantasies of a large group of second and third rate, grant addicted, scientists.

    Conservative voters in the UK are not known for their support for climate alarmist theories. David Cameron, in this and many other things, is totally out of touch with the beliefs of most conservative voters. On the Ecoloon scale of 1 to 10, he would score an 8, while Australia’s Julia is a 9 – so not much in it.


    Report this

    111

  • #
    Betapug

    Boris can not remember this kind of snow? The terrible heat of Global Warming has certainly fried the memory functions of believer brains. Anyone who listened to Dylan Thomas reading A Child’s Christmas in Wales would be aware of snowy late 1930′s winters in Britain, let alone the horrendous arctic events just post WW2.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Jo you seem to have upset the resident propagandists (again).


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Mic of Toll

    I have always found it strange that a majority of Europe embraces Climate Change, even though the countries of the union are some of the coldest places on Earth. Even in Australia its the colder climates of Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney that are most focussed on Climate Change. In Qld, WA and NT it hardly raises an eyebrow. Right around the equator, little or no interest. Even when they had the warming rallies in 2010, 10,000 showed up in Melbourne and Canberra, 3,000 in Sydney, 1,000 in Brisbane and only a handfull north of Brisbane. In fact, it was the convey of no confidence that took people from northern Australia to try and talk some sence into our southern neighbours. Didn’t work!

    Another thing I find strange is some scientists saying the sun has NO or little influence. Where I live it reached 38 degrees yesterday, by 3:00am this morning it reached 19 degrees. Very simplistic I know, but how does Global Warming drop the temperature 19 degrees in less than 12 hours with no change in wind direction or wind speed.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    pat

    Boris obviously didn’t believe the Beeb!

    12 Jan: BBC Weather: John Hammond: Sudden stratospheric warming responsible for UK’s icy blast
    For a few weeks now, forecasters have been monitoring an abrupt jump in temperatures way up in the stratosphere – not a cooling, but actually a sudden warming.
    Such sudden stratospheric warmings (SSW) have led to notable cold spells in recent years…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/20998895


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    UPDATE 1: UK CO2 broker faces 95 mln stg tax bill
    LONDON, Jan 21 (Reuters Point Carbon) – British tax officials have demanded 95.5 million pounds plus interest from London-listed broker CarbonDesk relating to missing tax payments during the transaction of carbon permits, the company said Monday…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2146921?&ref=searchlist

    EU auctions 3.5 mln spot carbon permits at 4.70 eur/t – traders
    LONDON, Jan 21 (Reuters) – The European Union sold 3.545 million spot EU carbon permits on German bourse EEX at 4.70 euros ($6.25) a tonne each on Monday in the cheapest auction ever held…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2146775?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    “The Great Climate Flip Flop”

    This article makes an assumption of mans influence and ability to have control over climate but never-the-less is interesting.

    …..Europe’s climate, obviously, is not like that of North America or Asia at the same latitudes. For Europe to be as agriculturally productive as it is (it supports more than twice the population of the United States and Canada), all those cold, dry winds that blow eastward across the North Atlantic from Canada must somehow be warmed up. The job is done by warm water flowing north from the tropics, as the eastbound Gulf Stream merges into the North Atlantic Current. This warm water then flows up the Norwegian coast, with a westward branch warming Greenland’s tip, at 60°N. It keeps northern Europe about nine to eighteen degrees warmer in the winter than comparable latitudes elsewhere — except when it fails. Then not only Europe but also, to everyone’s surprise, the rest of the world gets chilled. Tropical swamps decrease their production of methane at the same time that Europe cools, and the Gobi Desert whips much more dust into the air. When this happens, something big, with worldwide connections, must be switching into a new mode of operation.

    The North Atlantic Current is certainly something big, with the flow of about a hundred Amazon Rivers. And it sometimes changes its route dramatically, much as a bus route can be truncated into a shorter loop. Its effects are clearly global too, inasmuch as it is part of a long “salt conveyor” current that extends through the southern oceans into the Pacific.

    I hope never to see a failure of the northernmost loop of the North Atlantic Current, because the result would be a population crash that would take much of civilization with it, all within a decade. Ways to postpone such a climatic shift are conceivable, however — old-fashioned dam-and-ditch construction in critical locations might even work. Although we can’t do much about everyday weather, we may nonetheless be able to stabilize the climate enough to prevent an abrupt cooling……

    http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98jan/climate.htm


    Report this

    02

    • #
      tiger

      I also have wondered on the effect that the earthquake [sunami] west of Sumatra has had on the water currents into and from the Indian ocean and any climate diversity caused by this since apparently the land rose by about 1mtr up to the Andaman and Nicobar islands..just thinking that this must slow a lot of warm water that usually flows down into the Indian ocean..??


      Report this

      20

  • #

    The other day on The Reference Frame Lubos wrote a short paragraph about feedbacks that I have never heard discussed. The crux of his thought was “It takes a feedback factor of 3 or 4 to make the models get the projections they get. The main feedback is water vapot generated by the radiative forcing of the CO2. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas just like CO2. Shouldn’t it also be treated as having the same feedback effect?” The only difference I see is “dwell time”. To me the runaway feedback would seem hard to escape if water vapor’s greenhouse effect was treated like CO2′s


    Report this

    00

    • #
      ianl8888

      Sorry David, but the feedback elements have been discussed many times, especially that attributed to the water cycle

      Yes, water vapour has a short lifespan, always evaporating/condensing/flowing. Each of these factors shifts heat around. Very complex indeed – and not linear. There is an irreducible uncertainty attached to non-linear, dynamic, chaotic, interacting processes. All scientists and engineers know this, of course

      Some years ago, Lindzen debated this with a well-credentialled physicist who is an advocate of AGW at Berkeley Uni. (Sorry, I don’t have the U-Tube link any more, but googling Lindzen will find it easily). About 30 minutes long and very interesting


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Bethjl

    Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. Let’s hope we have some more intelligent, courageous pollie types who are gutsy enough to say, “Let’s have a discussion about this…” No more hysteria, no more doom frightening the children, no more hanging on to “climate change” jobs that pay lots of money, no more “hair shirt” fixes that affect those least able to cope.

    As Boris said, “I’ve got an open mind.” We need many more like him.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Dennis

      And more people must learn that politicians all manipulate data and whatever to sway people to accept their agenda. The differences are in my opinion depend on how far from the centre they are, left or right. Meaning what the outcomes for us are. We can see this now with the Green Labor alliance federal government, a far left comradeship.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      John Brookes

      intelligent, courageous

      More like populist and deceptive.


      Report this

      04

      • #
        Heywood

        “More like populist and deceptive.”

        Sounds like a politician we have here in Australia.

        Red hair with a big arse. Don’t remember her name….


        Report this

        30

  • #
  • #
    pattoh

    Perhaps the City of London ( or some with the real power within it) may sense it may have over played its hand.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Greg House

    “But I am also an empiricist; and I observe that something appears to be up with our winter weather, and to call it “warming” is obviously to strain the language.”
    =================================================

    The problem with this argumentation is that you absolutely can not disprove “global warming” by pointing to a region where there is no warming.


    Report this

    21

    • #
      MadJak

      Greg,

      He’s not trying to disprove it – he’s just saying that his observations don’t tally up with what was predicted.

      You cannot disprove something that hasn’t been proven.

      It’s a much more scientific approach than the precautionary principle fallacy or the 3000 climate scientists agree argument.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Greg House

        MadJak says (#36.1): “Greg,
        He’s not trying to disprove it – he’s just saying that his observations don’t tally up with what was predicted.”

        ===============================================

        The prediction was about “global”, more exactly it was about a sort of “global average”. No single regional cooling contradicts average “global warming”.

        Unfortunately, too many sceptics too often use that kind of invalid argumentation.


        Report this

        02

        • #
          MadJak

          Greg,

          He wasn’t presenting an argument – he was presenting an observation and asking questions that need to be answered. This is what is so smart about what he has written – he knows you cannot disprove a belief system anymore than you can prove one.

          He is quite rightly calling out the fact that the predictions made regardign the UK climate on the back of the AGW theory simply have no eventuated. He is quite right to seek out alternative explainations under that circumstance.

          What he has written is entirely valid. The arguments agains him (precautionary principle fallacy, the 97% of dentists scientists agree but they can’t show you their faces etc etc) will however, be much more invalid.

          Actually, isn’t a dentist a scientist? Can anyone confirm? Has the IPCC done anything about how a warming globe will affect dental health? Is there an employment opportunity for a dentist somewhere – or were they too expensive for the UN?


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Greg House

            MadJak says (36.1.1.1): “He is quite rightly calling out the fact that the predictions made regardign the UK climate on the back of the AGW theory simply have no eventuated.”
            ===========================================

            No, he was not talking specifically about predictions of a specific “UK warming” or “London warming” or “winter warming”.

            I can only say it again: this was a typical example of an invalid argumentation, and the sooner sceptics realise that the better.


            Report this

            12

          • #
            MadJak

            OK Greg,

            So take a look at all of these examples – all of them are doing exactly what you accuse boris of doing. The problem is that gee they’re allk from the australian catastrafarians….

            Heatwave Due to Climate Change 1
            Heatwave Due to Climate Change 2
            Heatwave Due to Climate Change 3
            Heatwave Due to Climate Change 4
            Heatwave Due to Climate Change 5

            Gee and they’ve done it over a period of about 4 weeks!

            What is it? pot Kettle….?

            It seems there is consensus amongst 97% of Catastrafarians…..


            Report this

            50

          • #
            ExWarmist

            I thought that Boris was simply opening up the conversation along the lines of…

            “It doesn’t look like your predictions are correct, lets reexamine the current answers”.

            Which is open ended, and required – as the political conversation in the UK, especially the UK Media assumes that the science is settled.

            Note: there have been specific predictions made about the UK climate, Boris is right to call out those predictions for their failure.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            An investigation by three scientists from Danish and Canadian universities [19] claims that measuring an average global temperature cannot be done. They say that “the concept is thermodynamically, as well as mathematically, an impossibility”.

            http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/EarthTemp/


            Report this

            31

          • #
            Greg House

            MadJak says (#36.1.1.1.2): “Greg,
            So take a look at all of these examples – all of them are doing exactly what you accuse boris of doing. The problem is that gee they’re allk from the australian catastrafarians….
            Heatwave Due to Climate Change 1″
            ===========================================

            First, talking about someone making a mistake is not an accusation.

            Second, you changed the topic.

            Third, yes, of course, saying that something local is a result of changes in “global average” is an absurd crap. So what? Invalid argumentation remains invalid argumentation.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            MadJak

            Greg,

            You were accusing him and other sceptics of making an invalid argument. I still can’t see how Boris has, but no matter.

            In what way did I change the topic? Each one fo those links links to some warmists in australia linking the heatwaves of the recent weeks to climate change. If I understand your argument correctly, you were sayign that Boris is pointing to an area of the world without warming and then claiming global warming is false. If he was (which I can’t see), then how is that different to the alarmist claims that the last few weeks heat waves are due to Global warming?

            I do agree that an invalid argument is invalid regardless, I just don’t see how Boris has made an invalid argument – he’s merely making an observation that the predictions in his area of the world haven’t come true – in fact they appear to have been patently wrong.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Greg House

            “MadJak says (#36.1.1.1.6)Greg,
            You were accusing him and other sceptics of making an invalid argument.”
            ===========================================

            Again, saying that someone made an invalid argument (a mistake) is not an accusation. Let me help you by quoting a WordWeb dictionary:

            “Noun: accusation

            1.A formal charge of wrongdoing brought against a person; the act of imputing blame or guilt

            2.An assertion that someone is guilty of a fault or offence: “the newspaper published accusations that Jones was guilty of drunken driving”"

            I suggest you stop dragging it to that level.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Greg House

            MadJak says (#36.1.1.1.6): “If I understand your argument correctly, you were sayign that Boris is pointing to an area of the world without warming and then claiming global warming is false. If he was (which I can’t see), then how is that different to the alarmist claims that the last few weeks heat waves are due to Global warming?”
            ===========================================

            There is some technical difference, but it does not matter, because I said clearly that both arguments were invalid.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          Sonny

          Greg,

          Firstly we have insufficient thermometer coverage to form a meaningful “global average”.
          Secondly many thermometers fail citing requirements and are influenced by local heat sours.

          Thirdly we have seen time and time again different government controlled meteorology departments FAKE the data with ADJUSTMENTS which always have the same effect:

          1. Exaggerate temperatures since 1950
          2. Reduce temperatures before 1950.

          Ever heard of LIES, DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS?

          Being an empiricist is the only way to assess the truthfulness of claims with the knowledge of the politically and financially motivates FRAUD which is systemic in “climate science”.

          I have witnessed MUCH COOLER winters and summers in Victoria in the last few years.
          This does not accord with the worldview that the media, governments and climate scientists foist down my throat.

          THEREFORE I REJECT THEIR WORLD VIEW.
          2. Underestimate


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Greg House

            Sonny says (): “Greg,
            Firstly we have insufficient thermometer coverage to form a meaningful “global average”.
            Secondly…
            Thirdly…”

            ===========================================

            Sonny, you do not need to convince me that the “global warming” is a fiction, I know that.

            From time to time I suggest on the blogs sceptics start seriously dealing with the basics of the CO2 scam (CO2 effect and “global warming” calculations), instead of chasing all the crap warmists are not getting tired to present again and again.


            Report this

            20

          • #

            Thanks Greg for saying the obvious, and by doing so showing actual intellectual bravery rather than the rhetorical bravery in this report.

            Let the sheep follow.


            Report this

            11

          • #
            Greg House

            Gee Aye says (#36.1.1.2.2): “…Let the sheep follow.”
            ==========================================

            Like these ones? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4PkMPAlMFo


            Report this

            00

          • #
            John Brookes

            We don’t have insufficient thermometer coverage. You can take quite a small subset of the available data and the global warming still looks the same.


            Report this

            06

          • #

            I saw Black Sheep at the cinema with a friend. The scariest thing I remember was her loud laughing


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Backslider

            John Brookes – “You can take quite a small subset of the available data”.

            Now this I would love to see. Yes, only look at temperature readings from where there has been no development (which influences the readings no end), leave out all the fudge factors that these “scientists” so much love to play with, then see what we have.

            I believe that then your eyes would be opened.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Geoffrey Cousens

    This article has obviously enraged the Greenies because it is so high profile.Piers Corbin is a shinning light of common sense and truly groundbreaking science.Hopefully other M.S.M. will follow up.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Ross James

    So for all your misplaced trust in politicions.

    This Major Boris Johnson of London penned THESE words……………

    Our climate is changing, with London already experiencing warmer, wetter winters, hotter, drier summers and higher incidences of more extreme weather. To preserve and enhance our quality of life and maintain our status as a leading global city, we must adapt to manage these climatic shifts, which will result in increasing risk of floods, drought and heat waves.
    Climate change is no distant threat. A prolonged period of soaring temperatures in the summer of 2003 led to 600 fatalities in London alone. The recent heavy snowfalls – while not attributable to climate change – show the huge challenges that extreme weather can pose to the smooth
    running of our city, and the potentially lifethreatening risks it presents, not least to the most vulnerable in society.
    Not only do we have an environmental duty to prepare London for these changes, but there is also an incontrovertible financial imperative
    to take action. Put bluntly, by increasing the resilience of our city to the changing climate now, will save hard cash for everyone:
    businesses, organisations and individuals alike.
    I firmly believe we can approach this task with optimism rather than gloomy defeatism. There are a myriad of ways detailed in this strategy, many of them supremely straightforward, to ensure that we collectively work to prepare for extreme weather while creating a more pleasant city to boot. For example, becoming a greener, leafier city is more aesthetically pleasing, adds to a sense of wellbeing and reinforces ondon’s position as one of the best big cities in the world. At the same time, urban green space reduces flood risk and cools the city in hot
    weather. Alongside the eco-creativity required to weather proof our city also comes considerable untapped employment opportunities.
    Weather conditions are seen as something outside our control. But there are many things we can do as a city to prepare for, and minimise the impact of, extreme weather events. Householders can check if they are in a flood zone and sign up to a free warning service, or get a water butt to reduce run off and collect rainwater for outdoor uses. Developers can install green roofs and design buildings to stay cool in hotter summers. Government bodies, including City Hall, have a responsibility to make these changes as easy as possible.

    There are also two sides to the climate change coin. As well as adapting to inevitable changes, we must also take robust steps to ensure
    London moves swiftly to take advantage of the new energy economy.

    http://www.london.gov.uk/climatechange/sites/climatechange/staticdocs/Climiate_change_adaptation.pdf

    ________
    Ross J.


    Report this

    312

    • #
      AndyG55

      (speaking as a Greenie) Trees are great.. I love trees..

      so long as they don’t get in the way of wind turbine installation !!


      Report this

      40

    • #
      AndyG55

      Eagles, bats, and other flyin’ critters are great too…..

      but they have to learn to dodge !!!


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Streetcred

        Ah ha ! We need to raise a grant from the feral government to train the wildlife to dodge and weave the turbine blades … this could be a huge money earner !! First, let’s get a research paper together, few years in that alone.


        Report this

        20

    • #

      @Ross james

      Your link is to a draft report from Feb 2010, almost 3 years ago.
      In fact, the report would have been prepared around about the time leading up to the infamous Copenhagen talkfest of November 2009.

      So it seems Boris Johnson has changed his mind. I wonder what changed his mind?
      Considering Boris is talking about 5 years of tough winters in the UK, I wonder if it’s because of the following that the sod had a change of heart?

      pp 63

      However, warmer winters with less snow and frost will reduce the amount of water lost through frozen pipes and cold induced heave.

      So winters were going to be warmer according to the draft report.

      pp 87

      Milder winters will reduce the number of excess winter deaths, and the predicted reduction in snow and ice may lead to a reduction in slips and trips in winter.

      Wow, winters were projected to be nice and mild. Less broken bones due to Global Warming. So there is a benefit to mankind after all.

      pp 109 table 9.1

      Warmer winters will reduce delays and damage due to frost, snow and ice.

      Look Ross, the report predicted warmer winters. Plus the benefit of reduced damage to transport infrastructure and less delays.

      pp 115

      The projected warmer winters will be beneficial to transport through reducing damage from ice and snow and reducing the energy needed to heat trains and buses.

      Wow, the report projected warmer winters and a reduction in energy use to heat public transport.

      pp 116

      Milder winters, on the other hand, will reduce the snow and ice damage to these networks.

      Look Rossy, the report projected milder winters with the added benefit of a reduction in damage to power transmission lines by snow and ice.

      So Rossy, do you think maybe, just maybe Boris Johnson, being the man in the firing line when London has faced winter chaos for five years running, has had to look a little closer at these projections made by alarmist environmental activists of the Met office, and decided it was POLITICALLY savvy to start questioning the “settled science”?


      Report this

      111

  • #
    handjive

    Further evidence why I won’t be voting for Tony Abbott in 2013:

    “Now, all of us are concerned about climate change.”

    No. “Not all of us.” Speak for yourself, Tony. You don’t speak for me.
    All climate change is natural. No need for any “concern.”
    .

    “All of us want to do the right thing by our planet. We all want to give the planet the benefit of the doubt.”

    No. What a un-informed mindless comment. Benefit of doubt from what?
    .

    “But we’ve got to have smart policies, not dumb policies, to do that.”

    No. The smartest thing would be do nothing, as there is nothing man can do to “stop” our dynamic climate from changing.
    Stop wasting public money on something we can’t “stop.”
    Your war on reality is fraud.
    .

    “Mr Abbott reiterated his opposition to the federal government’s carbon tax and his belief that climate change was happening.”

    “I certainly accept that climate change is real, that mankind is making a contribution,” he said.

    What evidence does Abbott cite for the contribution of man to make the climate change? Flannery & his hypocritical fraudulent climate commission.
    .

    Abbott is all over the place.
    Further down in this news note he says:

    (W)e’ve had floods before, we’ve had droughts before, we’ve had cyclones before, we’ve had fires before, we’ve had very hot days before, very cold days before,” he said.

    “… almost from the beginning of records being kept in this country, we’ve had very severe heat waves, and from very early on in the time of European settlement we’ve had devastating bushfires.”

    Well gee, Tony, what caused the climate to change before the industrial revolution? You buffoon.
    .

    My vote remains informal. I will not encourage any politician who parrots this rubbish.


    Report this

    610

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Handjive,

      I can see where you are coming from. I think all ballots should include a “None of the above” option as that is providing a form of feedback not currently recognised in our voting system.

      Remember, unless you live in Tony Abbott’s electorate, you are not voting for Tony Abbott. What you need to do is determine what the candidates for your electorate believe on this issue. It would be counter-productive to vote informal when you have a potential parliamentary representative that is actually aware of the science in question. Probably a long shot, I know, but still you should do at least that much research before casting your non-vote.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      AndyG55

      If the ALP do somehow get back in, the Liberals only have themselves to blame.

      Their namby-pamby wall-sitting attitude to climate change, free speech etc etc is winning them no friends.

      If they want my vote, they have to do something to warrant it. So far, not even close.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    chris edwards

    I have always liked Boris! im from London and he is a saint compared to red ken, who supports the agw scam in its full enslaving glory! It is a smart move to get on the AGW is a scam bus as it is coming unravelled fast, hopefully it will destroy Obama and his racist party sometime soon! I would say as a general public we have an unheard of opportunity to clense our ruling classes as all who support this giant scam are inept or corrupt, fire the lot without any comp package , strop their assets to the value of their crimes and strip their qualifications, that is a good start.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      MadJak

      There sure would be a lot of vacant places in the political classes of the world with all AGW mouthpeices out of the way.

      Heck, we might even run the risk of getting elected representatives who have actually left school and the protected workshops of the public service.

      /sarc
      ohhhh, the Horror of it!
      /sarc


      Report this

      20

  • #
    chris edwards

    Ross James, a lot of that is comin sense, sure with some global warming rhetoric but did he inhale?? If the fool mayor of New York had done some of that then the damage to infrastructure would of been minimised, bear in mind the surge was 4 feet less than 1938 (I think) He is one of the best politicians in England just now and remember Mrs Thatcher bought in to AGW for a while!


    Report this

    21

  • #
    Dennis

    What if you vote informal and you are in an electorate in which the sitting member has a slim margin, what if your worst nightmare wins the seat?


    Report this

    40

    • #
      ianl8888

      That happens anyway :)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Grierson again. so what. useless as ……, so doesn’t do too much damage.

      She’s Labor lite, the Libs are Labor lite.. so not much difference.

      I’d like to see Libs in by a small majority, so they have to start listening before the election after this one, if they want to stay there.

      But I really can’t see myself voting for them at this stage.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    edmh

    Look at the longer term to assess climate change.

    Never forget that the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD, according to ice core data, was the coolest of the current benign Holocene epoch, since the last real ice age. At ~12,000 years our happy Holocene, the period responsible for the development of all human civilizations is getting long in the tooth. Overall it has been cooler than the previous Eemian epoch and its end is now overdue when compared with earlier shorter more intense warmer interglacials.

    So whether the diminishing sunspot cycle and changing ocean circulation patterns lead to another Little Ice Age or perhaps to the impending real end of the Holocene epoch during this millennium, the one thing that the world should not be concerned about is a little Global Warming, well within the level of natural variations that have been seen in the past 12,000 years.

    A cooling, rather than a warming, world leads to both a reduction in agricultural productivity with huge deprivation for Mankind and natural life worldwide. It also probably leads to more extreme weather events, (possibly even like hurricane Sandy). There is very good reason to expect worsening weather events in a cooling, rather than a worming world because the temperature differential between the tropics and the poles is enhanced.

    But now the Western world is continually being pressured by propaganda and has widely enacted legislation about “Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption”. These definitions have meant that any adverse weather event can be ascribed to “Climate Change” and thus be blamed on the destructive actions of Mankind.

    The Catastrophic Climate Change Alarmists back every horse whichever way it runs. Nonetheless all Alarmist policy recommendations are only intended to control excessive Global Overheating by the reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions.

    It is not clear how reducing CO2 emissions would help save the world from a climate change towards a cooling world which now seems to be occurring nor how it could ameliorate severe weather events.

    It may be that the climate establishment is gradually coming to its senses. Not only has the Met Office admitted that warming has stopped but also NASA, no doubt much to the chagrin of James Hansen, has now released information that it believes that the sun, rather than CO2 influences climate.

    See http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Crakar24

    Didnt Clinton once say “Its the sun stupid”……………..now hang on he said “Hold my calls and sack my cook” now i have forgotten the point i was trying to make.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Grad

    ~97% of experts believe in in human-induced climate change. I am happy to provide numerous references. This is about the same percentage as experts agree on evolution and the link between smoking and cancer. You guys don’t realise it, but you have a fault in your rational, whether it be from ignorance or idiocity. You need to think hard about why you actually follow that 3%. Is it really because you think you understand the science but yet it still makes no logical sense? Or are you grasping at straws, hearing what you want to hear because it agrees with your world view?

    I’d also like to point out that Boris Johnson is a nobody in the scientific debate, equal to any lay-person. Should his views be more important than the other ~7 Billion people here? No. Only the experts should be the ones preaching!

    010

    • #
    • #
      Backslider

      Are you then an expert Grad?

      Tell me. Do you also believe in panspermia?


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Mattb

        lol I see you tried to start an intelligent design discussion here too Backslydah. lol. no bites.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Backslider

          Nothing of the sort.

          You still don’t get the Panspermia thing do you? Ok, let me fill you in. People such Stephen Hawking accept this and even talk about it as though it is factual when there is not a single shred of evidence to support it. Even you accepted it, just like that, because it sounds good to your ears. Stephen Hawking believes it, in his desperation, because he know that things like you linked to yesterday are simply a crock. He understands the math.

          It is the same with your acceptance of global warming.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      MadJak

      Grad:

      I’d also like to point out that Boris Johnson is a nobody in the scientific debate, equal to any lay-person. Should his views be more important than the other ~7 Billion people here? No. Only the experts should be the ones preaching!

      What Like al Gore you mean?


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Sonny

      I feel very sorry for people like you who are so easily manipulated by politicians and the media.
      Your problem is you are looking for “experts” to tell you what to think. They quote some meaningless contrived statistic “97% bla bla” and you believe it!

      They employ meaningless analogies about smoking and cancer and you faithfully reproduce it on this forum while deluding yourself that this is somehow your own original thought!

      You need to think hard about why you have such faith in meaningless statistics and why you always look to follow the majority (notwithstanding that in this case the “majority” is a statistical fiction, a propaganda piece directly targeting naive people like yourself)


      Report this

      61

    • #
      handjive

      Ninety Seven Percent Is Not What You Think

      As for your childish claims of consensus. Quote:

      Albert Einstein’s response to the 1931 pamphlet “100 authors against Einstein,” commissioned by the German Nazi Party as a clumsy contradiction to the Relativity Theory, said, “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.”

      When you find that 1, come visit again.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Streetcred

      LOL, this is a new grad … sunshine you are way behind, get with the program (pun intended). Here’s some help … love it when I hear the popcorn-like sound these insipid minds make:

      What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mattb

    So where does this idea come from that it does not snow in London? I mean the following was 1963: http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/windsor/windsorhistory/freeze63.html

    Sources tell me it snows on average 4 times a year in London.


    Report this

    03

    • #
      John Brookes

      Yeah, but the 60′s are so long ago Matt. It really isn’t fair to compare todays snow with that from the past when the climate was colder.


      Report this

      03

  • #
    James X Leftie

    Also from Blighty:

    The BBC froze me out because I don’t believe in global warming


    Report this

    40

    • #
      John Brookes

      More like, “The BBC froze me out because I deliberately ignored evidence of warming and stuck to my discredited denialist positions”.


      Report this

      18

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Go JB!

        That’s the stuff – give it to him!


        Report this

        40

      • #
        mc

        More like, “The BBC froze me out because I deliberately ignored evidence of warming and stuck to my discredited denialist positions”.

        So JB, you are saying that the BBC is an intellectual dictatorship, pledge allegiance to our position or we will sack you.


        Report this

        40

  • #
    pat

    this entire article is so silly, and – once again – shows our MSM and pollies have no shame and no sense whatsoever:

    22 Jan: Sky News: People should accept climate science: PM
    Prime Minister Julia Gillard says it’s a pretty startling day when the weather bureau has to find a new colour for its maps to signify land temperature above 50 degrees.
    The prime minister has travelled around the country during the extreme weather and bushfires over the past couple of weeks but says one weather event alone can’t be put down to climate change.
    ‘But you can accept the science that the scientists are telling us … very clearly that climate change means more extreme weather events,’ she told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday.
    ‘I’m not a scientist but from a lay person’s point of view, it’s a pretty startling day when the weather bureau says it has had to pick a new colour for their maps because they don’t have a colour that tells us about a land temperature of 50 and above.’
    She said scientists don’t just look at one weather event but a broad sweep, and just like people accept the science that says smoking and lung cancer are related, they should accept carbon pollution is making a difference to the climate.
    http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=837964


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Grad

    Yep Kevin, that sounds about right and I can’t understand why. If people say they don’t want a price on carbon, that is fair enough…it is a policy/moral issue. But to ignore the consensus is ignorance of the worst degree. And 97% is a consensus!

    No Backslider, I am NOT an expert and that is my point. I have three degrees in science, read many journal papers each day that show climate-change evidence and still don’t consider myself anywhere near a CC expert! Climate science is one of the most difficult, multidisciplinary science out there. Just to predict the tide takes an analysis of around 100 factors. That is why we should all take a step back and listen to the majority of the experts, because they are the only ones that have the best idea what is going on.


    Report this

    08

    • #

      Three degreed Grad says…

      No Backslider, I am NOT an expert and that is my point. I have three degrees in science, read many journal papers each day that show climate-change evidence

      Care to put that ‘three degreed’ brain of yours into good use and share with us the ‘evidence’ that shows climate change?


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Sonny

        To him consensus = evidence.

        What a sad excuse not to have to think!


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Mattb

          So you would prefer that all policy decisions were based on DOING THE OPPOSITE of what the vast majority of actual experts think? I’m not saying the experts are right but at some stage you have to take a side, and you have to assume humbly that you are never going to know enough about every single scientific issue to make a truly informed decision.


          Report this

          05

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Better still, share it with Nice One. He is currently running away from questions about real empirical evidence, and is obviously in need the help.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      MadJak

      Grad,

      to ignore the consensus is ignorance of the worst degree

      Kind of like people who thought copernicus was right?

      This isn’t the some ABC forum here – you will need to lift your game a bit here.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Sonny

        MadJek he sounds like he has been too thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized to lift his game.

        The sum total of his argument is that he believes that the majority of scientific experts believe in CAGW and it’s all too complicated for us non – experts to undertand let alone challenge.

        This argument is so purile and cliche and has been so thoroughly debunked on this forum already that it’s not even worth engaging with.

        Grad, you need to get with the program mate.

        These “argument from authority” falacies are no longer in fashion even among the climate alarmists. You are at least 1 year behind.

        Try looking up articles on this website dating back 1 or 2 years and you will find entire articles tearing to shreds your juvenile arguments.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      Len

      Where do you begin? Your experts are being paid to basically lie. Did you believe Father Xmas and the Tooth Fairy until recently.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Streetcred

      Climate science is one of the most difficult, multidisciplinary science out there. Just to predict the tide takes an analysis of around 100 factors.

      Oh, so you know what these factors are ? Do tell because the modellers don’t know … Latest & Greatest IPCC Climate Models Still Unable To Simulate Major Components Of Earth’s Climate

      I’ll call you out on your 3 degrees in (relevant) science … BS !


      Report this

      10

  • #

    It is truly significant that a World leading politician has suggested, politely of course, that CAGW might not cause planet Earth to catastrophicly fry, freeze, burn, tip or whatever as the IPCC and their puppet computer progranmmers have deceitfully organised.

    The next step will see whether other pollys risk letting Boris take the limelight and let the anti CAGW gravy train go by, or hop on as it goes past.

    Christopher Booker was 100% correct when he predicted in his 2007 book, Scared to Death, that if the MSM and the pollys loose interest, scare campaigns join the Y2K, Asian bird flu, killer eggs, mad cow hoaxes etc. in the dustbin of history. He was also correct when he predicted that the CAGW scare will be the mother of all scares, but that at last is heading in the same direction.

    I hope this is the beginning of the end of this, the world’s biggesr hoax.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Mattb

    I personally loathe this quote from BJ
    “As a species, we human beings have become so blind with conceit and self-love that we genuinely believe that the fate of the planet is in our hands — when the reality is that everything, or almost everything, depends on the behaviour and caprice of the gigantic thermonuclear fireball around which we revolve.”

    One could easily write instead:

    As a species, we human beings have become so blind with conceit and self-love that we genuinely believe that the fate of the planet is out of our hands and nothing we do has an impact whatsoever. It is as though just because there is a gigantic thermonuclear fireball around which we revolve it is somehow impossible for us to royally screw the place up ourselves.


    Report this

    14

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      The very first “Earth Day” (April 22, 1970) just happened to be Vladimir Lenin’s 100th birthday


      Report this

      22

    • #
      MadJak

      Interesting point mattb,

      The key thing here is the core tenets that people have. I personally grew up to respect, admire and yes fear the power of nature.

      I know of others who have had much more urban upbringings where they grow up in an environment where most things are controllable by them and the people around them.

      Is it any wonder that so many of the Green voters here and around the world tend to live in high density urban environments?

      Can we screw up nature? Of course we can, we have, but nature will eventually recover in some way.

      Can we screw ourselves up instead? – yes most definitely we have been doing that for millennia.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    James X Leftie

    Looks like my link didn’t show up.. trying again..

    Also from Blighty:

    The BBC froze me out because I don’t believe in global warming

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817181/David-Bellamy-tells-of-moment-he-was-frozen-out-of-BBC.html


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Rhys Jaggar

    The reason Boris Johnson knows about Piers Corbyn is that Piers’ brother, Jeremy, is a politician who was in Parliament with him.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Dave

    .
    GRAD wins the “Alarmist Rant of the Week” with the following:

    1. But to ignore the consensus is ignorance of the worst degree.
    2. And 97% is a consensus.
    3. I have three degrees in science.
    4. I read many journal papers each day that show climate-change evidence.
    5. And still don’t consider myself anywhere near a CC expert!
    6. Climate science is one of the most difficult, multidisciplinary science out there.
    7. Just to predict the tide takes an analysis of around 100 factors. (you must be on drugs).
    8. We should all take a step back and listen to the majority of the experts.
    9. Because they are the only ones that have the best idea what is going on.
    10.97% of experts believe in in human-induced climate change.
    11.You guys don’t realise it, but you have a fault in your rational, whether it be from ignorance or idiocity.
    12.Only the experts should be the ones preaching!

    Your effort above is only from 2 comments. That’s terrific GRAD – a prize on your first day and you didn’t even scream the:

    ARTIC IS MELTING, THE ARTIC IS MELTING!!!!

    You will do as I say “The science is settled” – yet you say PREACH???

    GRAD – the Alarmist Ranter of the week in his first 2 comments – unbelievable effort GRAD :)


    Report this

    60

  • #

    Boris Johnson seems to be one of those rare politicians who refuses to be owned or cowed by any political credo or party line. Good for him. He speaks his mind and damn the consequences. I can understand how that would scare the bejesus out of some of the replicants on this blog. The last thing they want is independent thought. They believe science is “their” science as if it didn’t exist before they came along. They are that arrogant. Not only is BJ to be mocked because he is not a scientist, but crucially because he not “of the faith” which is more telling of their true nature. Gore is not a scientist but his acolytes gave him a Nobel peace prize – on the basis of an unproven left wing scientific perversion. Go Boris, you have the power to say what many of us are quietly thinking.


    Report this

    30

  • #
  • #
    Dave

    .
    This is one of the biggest gathering of CAGW Almarmists in number and comments over the last 3 months in one article by Joannenova.

    Mr. Boris Johnson has their goat up!

    NICE ONE
    MATTYB
    JOHN BROOKES
    MAXINE
    JOHN ROSS
    GRAD
    GEE AYE

    MattyB & JB win the quantity (Not Quality).

    Scared Sh!tless of the turn around of the MSM. The downhill is now well established now that snow is all over Europe & the windmills have stopped, the solar panels covered and the hydro blocked. Well stuff me – they have to rely on nuclear, coal and gas.

    Notice there is no scientific papers quoted, temperature justifications, wetter rain sh!t and all the rest of the vomit that these people project.

    Bye suckers.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pjkkerr

    The significance of this lies not in the validity or otherwise of Boris Johnson’s scientific observations, but in the fact that a major politician has come out with such a statement – and we presume has got away with it, and hence has legitimised this debate at the highest levels of politics.

    A close analogy may be drawn with the way the Tory education minister Michael Gove stated that given the opportunity he’d vote to leave the EU. In former times this would have got him sacked; but he got away with it, and now the whole topic of the UK’s relationship with the EU is at the centre of political discourse.

    So yes, this is an immensely significant development.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Greg House

    Grad says (#49): “But to ignore the consensus is ignorance of the worst degree. And 97% is a consensus!”
    =====================================================

    There is no consensus. The silent majority of scientists does not support the AGW concept.

    I can prove it simply by referring to a well known study on consensus by Doran and Zimmerman: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf . You only need to read the study carefully.

    Scientists were asked to answer 2 simply formulated questions and the authors said it took less than two minutes to answer them online:

    “To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site (http://www.questionpro.com) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation. This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]): 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

    The funny thing is that the percentage of the positive answers is of little relevance, if you look at these 2 crucial passages from the study:

    “An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth).”

    “With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%.”

    What we see is this: 69.3% of the Earth scientists refused to answer two simple but very important questions on the matter well known to them, what they could have easily done in less than two minutes.

    The only reasonable explanation I can find is that their answers were NO to at least one of these questions but they did not want to face negative consequences of telling the truth like getting fired, for example, or not getting promoted.


    Report this

    20

  • #

     
    All climate change on Earth and other planets in our Solar System is indeed driven by the Sun and some other parameters (such as cloud cover) which vary naturally, quite beyond the control of mankind.

    My response to absolutely everything of relevance that has been said in all above comments (and on other threads) is contained in my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” which is on the PROM (Peer Review in Open Media) menu on the Principia Scientific International website. Please be sure to read the four page Appendix as well.

    I would appreciate it if any future comments or questions relate to the content of the paper, and that quotes are not made out of context or with an obvious lack of understanding of the content.

    The paper has been on that PROM menu for over eight weeks, and may soon move to the “Publications” menu, so if the link below* doesn’t work at some future date, please search for the title using quote marks. It is easily found on Google and major search engines.

    I am happy to answer questions about the content of the paper, and, if you think you can make a valid rebuttal, just send such to the CEO of PSI and a response will be forthcoming if you make valid points supported by evidence.

    Note that the modern version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is (as in Wikipedia) …http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

    This version is necessary in order to take into account differences in potential energy at different altitudes. The original Clausius statement only related to kinetic energy (that is, the concept of heat flow being always from hot to cold) but that only applies in a horizontal plane.

    * http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-COTTON_paper_PSI_Planetary_Surface_Temperatures.pdf


    Report this

    10

  • #
    chris edwards

    Yes it was quite a winter in 63 but didnt he say for 5 years running? and about 10 years back there was a heavy october snowfall in Cornwall right in the so called hot time! boy that cought the car insurance bods out!
    Boris is a politician but he can see beyond the end of his nose, the Tories are no longer consevative by any standard, maybe they are turning round?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Greg House

    John Brookes says (#36.1.1.2.4): “We don’t have insufficient thermometer coverage. You can take quite a small subset of the available data and the global warming still looks the same.”
    ===========================================

    Really, John? I can see that you did not say “ANY small subset”, you said “A small subset”. Of course, you can find one small subset and get a SMALL SUBSET WARMING. Can you see the difference? But what if another small subset shows cooling? Then it is simply a wrong subset, right?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Great thread. Of course the Sun is not thermonuclear, it is Electric. Just sayin’


    Report this

    30

  • #

    We could always replace the bulb:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chrysogaster

    Boris is a very clever and shrewd man who comes over as a complete idiot.
    He has probably realised that the global warming farce is over and is orientating himself.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Mattb

      I model myself on Boris actually.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dave

        .
        What!

        Well you’ve got one of three right – you’re definately a man who comes over as a complete idiot.

        But these two are amazing:

        Become Mayor of your little hamlet and become a skeptic.

        Ring Tom Waterhouse and get your details listed etc, odds set up :)

        1. MattyB becomes Mayor 10:1
        2. MattyB becomes Skeptic 1,000,000:1

        “Break a leg as they say” in the up coming elections. No doubt a few Blog Sites will quote your invaluable comments during the campaign. Knit a jumper MattyB.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Mattb

    Just happened to stumble across this: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/scientists-on-boris-johnsons-climate-whiff-whaff

    Joanna Haigh, a professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College, Dr Peter Stott, who leads the Met Office’s climate monitoring and attribution uni, Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London, all seem to think poor old Boris is barking up the wrong tree.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ian

      Mattb Given the long history of poor predictions from the so called experts such as David Viner, Tim Flannery, Rajendra Pauchauri, the IPCC et al, Boris is probably barking up the right tree


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Dave

    .

    Chris Rapley of “The Antartic is Melting, The Antartic is Melting

    Look at the interview on Lateline with Tony Jones.

    This guy’s a fruitloop – Boris is probably smarter than this mad Professor.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mattb

      Did you actaully read the interview? Look you can disagree with what he says (not sure on what grounds) but he comes across as eminiently sensible and reasonable. I do hope others read the link and not just assume you are giving an accurate appraisal.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dave

        .
        Yes, I agree with everything Boris said as well.

        Eminiently sensible and reasonable are my thoughts on Boris.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          John Brookes

          Entertaining, bright, bubbly energetic, enthusiastic, and totally wrong on climate change are my thoughts on Boris.


          Report this

          01

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Entertaining, bright, bubbly, energetic, enthusiastic, and totally wrong on climate change are my thoughts on MattyB also.

            MattyB’s running for mayor – how exciting JB.

            Maybe you can do a GREEN bike ride in Lycra tights raising money for the MATTYB Campaign – even try wearing GANG GREEN Construction Helmets – it’s going to go viral JB. Bigger than GANGNAM GREEN Style.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            Nice description. Too bad no facts ever seem to be included. Anyone can label, few can actually prove. Guess we know where you land.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Mattb

          Dave… your link is an interview with someone OTHER THAN BORIS


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Sonny

    I don’t get !

    Shouldn’t all the alarmists be happy to see that the world is not warming as fast as we thought?

    Why do they always get most upset when people show that it’s NOT ALL THAT BAD???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dallas Beaufort

    Malcolm Turnbull, take note,!!!


    Report this

    00