JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

Key players, Gore, are giving up: they can’t control the climate

In history studies of the Great Global Warming Scare, people will ask, is this the bargaining stage or the start of acceptance?

Adapting to _ not just fighting _ climate change is taking the heat out of global warming talk

Seth Borenstein for The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Efforts to curb global warming have quietly shifted as greenhouse gases inexorably rise.

The conversation is no longer solely about how to save the planet by cutting carbon emissions. It’s becoming more about how to save ourselves from the warming planet’s wild weather. — Newsdaily

On the five stages of  grief, this is partly acceptance, but mostly it’s bargaining. Fans of Man-Made Global Warming are realizing they can’t have Deity Status — where they manage global financial markets and play God with the weather. Instead they hope they can still play hero, and direct less financially lucrative projects. They just want to hold back the tides, that sort of stuff.

It was Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s announcement last week of an ambitious plan to stave off New York City’s rising seas with flood gates, levees and more that brought this transition into full focus.

After years of losing the fight against rising global emissions of heat-trapping gases, governments around the world are emphasizing what a U.N. Foundation scientific report calls “managing the unavoidable.” — Newsdaily

So we finally get the first hints of acceptance on the big economic aims — this is the first recognition from key players that reducing emissions, setting up markets and global deals might not work. Don’t underestimate how important this is, it’s a big step because this was where the money always was — the $176b carbon market, and the $257b renewables investment market. The mitigation barrell is large because it carries the renewables like wind and solar too. It’s global. Building levee’s is not.

Al Gore says “I was wrong” (a bit)

Adaption is very much a second-best option. It was never the main aim at all. Al Gore didn’t want us to go there. He saw it as a cop out. Now he says “I was wrong” — Adapting is just as important as mitigation.

In his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” Gore compared talk of adapting to climate change to laziness that would distract from necessary efforts.

But in his 2013 book “The Future,” Gore writes bluntly: “I was wrong.” He talks about how coping with rising seas and temperatures is just as important as trying to prevent global warming by cutting emissions.

This article coincidentally wins the prize for the silliest justification for a big money program I have ever seen. Mayor Bloomberg says we should spend $20b on any old problem: real, unreal, imaginary, ludicrous. Whatever.

“Whether you believe climate change is real or not is beside the point,” New York’s Bloomberg said in announcing his $20 billion adaptation plans. “The bottom line is: We can’t run the risk.”

The risk of what exactly? One day our sun will turn into a red giant and incinerate the planet. Whether you believe it is real or not, is “beside the point”. We need that solar deflection shield. (Spend now, spend later, give me your money.) The Bloomberg line neutralizes every excuse. Why count? The numbers — the time — the degrees — the cost, it’s all “beside the point”.

So this news article is the ra-ra small-shift-coming “nothing to see here” marketing view. Borenstein hopes we won’t notice their disguised admission that 225,000 windmills won’t make a jot of difference. It doesn’t admit that all the costly emission schemes were wasted money.  It is still in denial about the science (still at stage one). Where is the evidence?

This approach is just trying to save face and salvage something from the ruins. But the global ambitions have come crashing back to Earth. Adapting is a “local” thing.

Now officials are merging efforts by emergency managers to prepare for natural disasters with those of officials focused on climate change. That greatly lessens the political debate about human-caused global warming, said University of Colorado science and disaster policy professor Roger Pielke Jr.

It also makes the issue more local than national or international.

“If you keep the discussion focused on impacts … I think it’s pretty easy to get people from all political persuasions,” said Pielke, who often has clashed with environmentalists over global warming. “It’s insurance. The good news is that we know insurance is going to pay off again.”

No Roger, bless you, but we don’t know the insurance will pay off. The climate models are broken, and we might as well spit green peas, blindfolded, at a map to figure out where the floods and droughts will occur. How does a sea-wall pay off if the sea keeps rising at next-to-nothing each year?

The insurance argument is the cop-out of those who don’t do the sums.

At least one scientist is preparing to ditch the “climate change” term.

Now the word is “resiliency”:

Describing these measures as resiliency and changing the way people talk about it make it more palatable than calling it climate change, said Hadi Dowlatabadi, a University of British Columbia climate scientist.

“It’s called a no-regrets strategy,” Dowlatabadi said. “It’s all branding.”

All that, experts say, is essentially taking some of the heat out of the global warming debate. – Newsdaily

In other words, the “climate change” brand is toxic. They admit they are losing the war “against emissions”. Basically, skeptics are winning.

Read it all at Newsdaily.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (87 votes cast)
Key players, Gore, are giving up: they can't control the climate , 9.0 out of 10 based on 87 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ms9crr3

140 comments to Key players, Gore, are giving up: they can’t control the climate

  • #

    Al Gore: “I was wrong.”

    I nearly fell out of my chair.

    As for the rest of it – Oh-boy. So, the tide turns (if you’ll pardon the expression). I love good news, and you’re right, this is massive. Now I guess comes the back-peddling. I did think the key-players in all this would take their claims to their graves, and I’ve never known such a bunch for avoiding “seeing the light”. Maybe it was forced upon them, or maybe they are just pretending to see it, you know, to look good until they can think up some other way of getting the fear-mongering back into high gear.

    Good news, all the same. Thanks, Jo! :)

    230

    • #
      Hasbeen

      Only some of them have given up.

      They were talking about 6C possibility on OUR ABC again today.

      10

  • #
    janama

    Yes, it maybe the light at the end of the tunnel Jo but there are too many vested interests who for their own survival need to lengthen the tunnel.

    230

    • #

      Yes, but I sense they are starting to divide up… the litany has cracked.

      302

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Litany
        noun, plural lit·a·nies.
        1. a ceremonial or liturgical form of prayer consisting of a series of invocations or supplications with responses that are the same for a number in succession.

        You’re so right on so many levels Joe.

        110

  • #

    From that NewsDaily link above Bloomberg is quoted as saying

    “Whether you believe climate change is real or not is beside the point,”

    I hate this twist. The reality is that climate change is real, normal and natural. The question that matters is if fighting the man made part is a waste of money or not. Adaptation (especially to the natural part) has been what skeptics wanted instead of panic. The fraudsters are trying to take credit for what they have worked against.
    How long before their adaption cry has them encouraging the building of more dams?

    300

    • #

      If Mayor Bloomberg got some professionals to look at the risks from sea level rise, they might ask:-
      1. How great is the magnitude? Answer – 32cm a century, though all the experts say that this will accelerate. Maybe as much as 3 metres in the next 300 years according to AR5 draft.
      2. How likely. Answer – not very. Even the dubious official statistics show sea level rise might be decelerating. And the warming that would cause it has stopped.
      3. Over what time period. Answer – A lot longer than the experts say. If Hansen was correct at 50cm a decade then we would have to act quick. The AR5 draft of up to 3 metres in 300 years is based on up to 8 celsius of warming.
      4. What weighting should we give to the evidence? Bloomberg would parrot “all the top experts agree, so they must be right.” My Answer – Given this is an infant science, with a poor predictive track record, and very much out of line with the mature sciences, it would be (in any other area than politics)criminally negligent to commit $20bn without some sort of due diligence.

      20

    • #
      Robert

      Or as was stated elsewhere in internet land we could rephrase this as such:

      “Whether you believe zombies are real or not is besides the point. The bottom line is: We can’t run the risk.”

      Whether something is real or not defines whether there is any risk. First establish that the concerns are real before worrying about mitigating any risks that could result from the concerns.

      10

  • #
    Eric Simpson

    The sea will remain the same…
    I think Gore and Bloomberg and all have decided that if they get the “little people” involved in projects like preparing for rising seas, by the act of doing this the people will come to believe strongly that the seas will in fact rise, and that Mann made global warming climate change is real, and that we should thus go ahead in the future and implement draconian cap & trade or carbon tax type policies, and build more idiotic windmills.
    Of course, the sea is not going to rise. My Real Science comment: To think that in the 40 or so years that the fear mongering Chicken Littles have been crowing about rising sea levels, and despite supposed massive polar and glacial ice melt, we’ve seen NO sea level rise. NONE. Not 100 inches, but none (forget the adjusted “data”). Now they’re saying in the next 40 years or whatever where going to see such massive rise that Colorado is the only remaining US state above water. Right, in 40 years the sea is going to be exactly where it is now, and the $20 million Malibu beach front mansions are going to be sitting pretty just where they are now, just exactly like they were 40 years ago.

    180

    • #
      Considerate Thinker

      Eric

      When one head is cut off, the creature grows another, perhaps more benign looking public head. Worth considering that the whole save the future of the world had one propaganda arm devoted to creating little eco warriors who would stand up and parrot the statist line in contrast to their “evil parents” who had allowed the pollution of the worlds environment and thus were open to one world environmental propaganda to be swallowed and regurgitated and in the process concealing the true agenda of the proponents.

      The test is whether those young persons so well doctrinated within our education systems, will understand that they have been used and yes abused by those with an agenda, and that was the promoted noble cause masking a shabby underside. Parents need to be aware and understand the need to converse with their children lest they feel totally let down by their teachers and their country and vulnerable to future manipulation. For sure these shameful creatures will try again to re-establish control of those young minds as they grow into teenagers.

      In this day of easy internet information overload and day to day living pressures, its easy to ignore children, their needs, their hopes, and the absolute value of a good stable and communicative family environment where discussion is open, without rancour or dispute where expression of opinion is valued and encouraged as part of the familyenvironment. Taking time out to have at least one sit down meal where two way communication is encouraged including exchange of daily experiences, hopes and fears and yes what they see on the internet, their friends and how they see the world.

      Often we forget those things that we valued and feared at similar times in our lives and our children deserve to have the same opportunities, freedoms and responsibilities, as they will surely face challenging times and choices, as they grow into future adults that can think and reason for themselves. Mark my words.

      50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        You make a good point.

        But I think there is another dimension to this. The television generation are much better informed than their parents (who were educated in a world where radio was exciting technology); and their grandparents (who were educated in a world of books and newspapers, and the pulpit, and little else).

        But all of these media are, what I call, “push-only”. The receiver can choose to accept what they are told, or not, but they have no right of reply.

        The post television generations are different. They are the first generations to be able to meaningfully respond to what they receive through the medium of the internet. And just look at the speed of development, not only in the variation of ways in which people can communicate at close to the speed of light, but also in terms of the huge volumes of information presented in dozens of different ways.

        What the post television generations have, which their parents did not, is a type of hive mind. Their parents see the social media, and the exchange of gossip and pictures, and think of it as “just kids having fun’, or “noisy floss”, and a large proportion is. But underneath all that, there is a tremendous latent power for these young people to actually arrive at real solutions to real problems, and to do so though spontaneity using the wisdom of crowds.

        The bright policy analysts who are just starting out their careers in Government, or in political parties, just don’t buy into the idea that mankind has the means to influence the weather, because their friends who happen to be physists say that the maths sucks, and their other friends who are moving up in the legal world say that the idea of trading something that you cannot physically control is just ripe for the odd rort or two.

        That is where the sea-change is coming from. And now it has started, it will be unstoppable. Mayor Bloomburg will have great difficulty funding his “adaption plans”, because the young financial analysts in Wall Street can see it exactly for what it is.

        And you can forget the vaporous hand-fluttering luvvies who don’t get modern society, and think that 290oK is frighteningly hot, because it is such a big number. They have had their day, and it is time they went back to their spinning wheels, and hand-driven butter churns.

        70

        • #
          Considerate Thinker

          Rereke
          Unfortunately that last group vote and seem to have access to media, if only two wring hands and wail. Then don’t discount those that have built this country and value it,maybe because they were and are thinkers too. My circle of influence spans several generations of doers and thinkers and I appreciate their contribution.
          I just hate the level of spin we all have to deal with, it undermines trust and values.

          20

    • #
      EK

      I remember an old soviet joke about the ineptness of bureaucracy, which shows that the problem is eternal and comes part and parcel of the political system:

      When Americans landed on the Moon, polit-bureau of the Communist party got together, called Korolev, who was in charge of space program, and said – Americans landed on the Moon, we will have to outdo them, so we give you a task of landing on the Sun.

      Korolev, a bit shocked, said that the Sun is too hot, to which he was brushed off – don’t think we’re all idiots here – you will go there by night….

      Regulating planetary climate is a joke, but this one is real, and I need to pinch myself a few times just to make sure I am not dreaming…

      10

  • #
    Mark D.

    In other words, the “climate change” brand is toxic. They admit they are losing the war “against emissions”. Basically, skeptics are winning.

    Nice one JO!

    Brands pertain to marketing, pertain to profiteering, pertain to growing your “product”. Emissions weren’t the product, the “product” was training for compliance. The Master is always right and you must heed the Master.

    Using fear to control and tax.

    151

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Au contrair. Brand is often the market itself.
      World Wildlife Fund.
      United Nations.
      Europian Market.

      It’s brand, all the way down.

      40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Brand is often the market itself

        “What is in a name? That which we call a rose,
        By any other name would smell as sweet” – Shakespere

        The organisation must be more than just a brand.

        At the very least you need a bank account, and the administration required to move the millions in donations into said bank account, and the auditors required to validate that the correct amount of money as been processed, in an approved manner.

        Brand names are like putting lipstick on a pig. It makes the pig look more attractive, but it is still a pig.

        40

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Ah, but is educating the dyed-red-in-the-wool warmists about climate realism akin to teaching a pig to sing? It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.

          (h/t Heinlein)

          The way the public’s submissions to the Joint Committee on Clean Energy Future were dismissed and even some experts like Carter and Kininmonth were ignored all certainly sounds like extended singing lessons to me. Hopefully the government was really annoyed. :)

          30

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Siliggy:

    Institutionalised lunacy.

    http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21579149-germanys-energiewende-bodes-ill-countrys-european-leadership-tilting-windmills

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html

    So The Green Frog diesel power plant proposed in the UK makes sense? Green diesel power..subsidised?

    It will take a generation to purge this from the system.

    120

    • #

      Graeme No.3
      I used to work in a place where the joke was “the Johns have met and decided to sumon the Graemes.”
      Re Institutionalised lunacy. From your first link the joke in Germany seems to be “On cloudy days Germany relies ever more on brown coal. Last year its CO2 emissions rose.”
      Just how stupid can this all get before it colapses in a heap?
      Perhaps they will find a way to turn solar energy into coal.

      70

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Don’t laugh too soon.

        At least 2 research groups are working on converting CO2 into fuel. All you need to do is react at 800℃ with some reducing agent e.g. hydrogen produced by wind power of course.

        Of course you can do it, but if you work out the cost, they could give away a free car with every 5 litres of fuel, and not make much difference to your bill.

        40

        • #

          Graeme No.3

          What worries me is that people will take excerpts from something that is horrendously complex, and take that small snippet as a form of result.

          I have a startling example here. I’ve been (pretty fruitlessly really) attempting to explain how CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration) is a fruitless dream that will never be realised on the scale required.

          I can explain the process in some depth, but I’ve been chasing details on the actual capture part of the process itself.

          Coal is burned and an exhaust is given off. That exhaust is captured, and somehow the CO2 is separated from the exhaust. The CO2 is then liquefied, under extreme pressure, and then pumped to the, umm, storage site, and even I have simplified that complex process considerably.

          All that sounds relatively easy, until you realise it has to be achieved at the same rate as the coal is being consumed in the burning process, which equates to a capture and conversion rate of One ton of CO2 every 4 seconds for just one unit at a 4 unit large scale coal fired power plant, while that unit is in operation, and that then extends out to the whole process.

          I now find some new information about just the capture process for the exhaust and CO2 part, and it says the following:

          Getting that CO2 out of the coal and capturing it is the easiest part. Exhaust gas from coal burning is forced though a liquid solvent that absorbs the CO2. The solvent is subsequently heated to liberate the CO2 in much the way a bottle of carbonated soda releases dissolved CO2 when opened. The CO2 is then compressed to liquid form (about 100 times the normal atmospheric pressure) for storage.

          Note how I have placed the word easiest in BOLD.

          What I now fear is that some will latch onto this as doable, and then ask why the process is not in place already, without realising the rest of the complex process, and also the monumentally huge scale of the operation and the time frame all this must be achieved in.

          Too many times I’ve seen complexity taken down to the simplest of scales, leaving out information, and than that of itself being pointed to as a relatively simple operation.

          Whenever I even begin to explain the whole process, I’m just not believed, as people have seen similar to the above, and immediately thought that this is a simple process, only hindered by those who want to keep on with business as usual.

          Tony.

          50

          • #
            MemoryVault

            Let me help you, Tony.

            CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION (CCS) SIMPLIFIED

            1) – Build a coal (or any other fossil-fuel powered) power station of ‘X’ generating capacity.

            2) – Attempt to capture and compress all the CO2 generated in producing ‘X’ capacity power.

            3) – Realise it takes at least ’2X’ power to capture and compress all the CO2 produced generating ‘X’ power.

            4) – Build power station 2 capable of generating ’2X’ power to sequester all the CO2 from power station 1.

            5) – Realise you now need at least ’4X’ power to capture and compress all the CO2 from power station 2.

            6) – Build power station 3 capable of generating ’4X’ power to sequester all the CO2 from power station 2.

            7) – Realise you now need at least ’8X’ power to capture and compress all the CO2 from power station 3.

            8) – Continue above steps until sanity prevails, or you are confined to a mental asylum.

            .
            It doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.

            And that is the easy bit.

            We haven’t even touched on keeping it compressed while we pipe it to the “storage” (ho ho) area.

            50

          • #
            Tim

            That covers Carbon Capture, but how about the others…

            Launching a cloud of mirrors into space to deflect heat, turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose carbon resists breakdown , painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity , extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air to then burying enormous volumes of it for centuries, ocean fertilization-spreading iron slurry across the seas to soak up more carbon dioxide, sulphate aerosol spraying- enveloping the earth with a layer of sulphate particles, dumping tonnes of iron sulphate into the sea in a bid to spawn plankton and capture carbon.

            It’s all still on the agenda.

            00

            • #
              Backslider

              Wow Tim!…. That all sounds just SO environmentally friendly. I am sure that the “greens” are all for it!

              00

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Tony:

            compressing the CO2 uses energy and heats the compressed gas, which has to be cooled to keep the pressure high.
            You then pump it underground and hope it stays there. I understand that the retention rate in suitable geology is around 98%.

            The process just costs so damn much that no-one (in their right mind) would consider it.

            But it is very easy to separate CO2 from a hot gas stream, you scrub it with lime water. The lime is converted to stable calcium carbonate and the heat helps evaporate the water so you soon have a nice dry ‘sequested’ product.

            How do you get the lime? Heat calcium carbonate above 660 ℃ and drive off the carbon dioxide. Dissolve the calcium oxide in water.

            You can do this cycle many times, just using lots of energy (and water) and not make the slightest difference to the level of CO2 in the air. But you would use up lots of money achieving nothing…like many green projects.

            00

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          It is actually the second stage in the manufacture of commercial quantities of Hydrogen, for instance, in an Ammonia Plant.

          Natural Gas is mixed with steam and reformed at super-high temperature. The result is some Hydrogen, plus Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and a collection of assorted hydrocarbons, plus a lot of heat.

          This mixture of gases is then cooled – generating steam for the first stage – and fed through a catalytic converter (over iron if memory serves). The result is much the same mix of gases, but with a much higher ratio of Hydrogen.

          The Hydrogen is then separated out via Pressure Swing Absorbers, and the the remaining gas (Purge Gas) is used as fuel to heat the Reformer in the first place.

          20

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Yes I’ve used a few gas bottles in my job.
            People don’t know CO2 is blended with Argon for a TIG shielding gas, and sometimes used by itself for certain alloys.
            I can’t recall anyone dying from using CO2 whilst welding, what’s up with that? :)

            00

        • #
          Another Ian

          Graeme No 3

          This line came in a potential April Fools item that hasn’t happened yet. So, tongue in cheek,

          You use a “commercialised positive forcing” to make that reaction work

          00

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Another Ian:

            are you sure that phrase didn’t come from a recent Government policy paper?

            There is nothing new about the reaction to convert Carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide, and then use that to make organic liquids usable as fuel. It has been known for a 100 years, from the old town/water gas process.

            All you need is heat and a reducing agent, hydrogen is very good. The process absorbs heat, which you could get by burning coal, but that hardly helps. Hence people who don’t seem to know that solar energy is diffuse and its collection quite expensive, waste time trying to use that as the source of heat. Yes, you can concentrate sunlight with a lens to burn things, but to get the required amount of heat (not temperature) on an industrial scale is beyond belief.

            Of course, if you get a grant of money from some gullible source, then you can spend a pleasant time ‘researching’. It beats working for a living.

            00

  • #

    Youse guys in Oz do realise your continent is hurling northwards at a fair rate of knots since it split off from Antarctica? It’s gonna smash into Asia unless something’s done. I think that’s the next scare they’re teeing up.

    Pointman.

    ps. Any chance of some research money to look into mitigation strategies?

    240

    • #

      It’s gonna smash into Asia unless something’s done.

      That should end the boat problem!

      240

      • #
        Dennis

        But will it end the Australian government and public service surrender? See Greg Sheridan The Weekend Australian last weekend

        00

    • #

      … your continent is hurling northwards …

      Yep – and it’s going to throttle the gap, change the ENSO, PDO etc.

      However, we might need to do something about the “Noggin Block” first :-)

      30

    • #
      crakar24

      The further we get away from NZ the better i say :-)

      11

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        If you look at the tectonic plate movements, we were leaving you anyway, so there.

        30

      • #
        crakar24

        Well the standard ditch measurement was how far can a Kiwi, if we are heading in different directions then i suppose at some point we will get beyond pissing distance and it becomes Good bye, Good luck and farewell.

        01

        • #
          Dennis

          Australia’s loss is New Zealand’s gain, pity, but Australia still has a crazy socialist government, New Zealand has recovered, Wellington is no longer Helengrad

          20

          • #
            crakar24

            Yes Dennis but it has been a while since we dumped Mike Rann but the signs at the border still say ‘Welcome to Rannistan” :-)

            02

  • #
    TheInquirer

    Basically, skeptics are winning.

    Yep, you’ve totally changed the science. You’re such a hero, Jo, Guardian of Science.

    Laughable, as usual.

    (As usual you don’t explain anything instead post another sarcastic comment) CTS

    [Jo is actually pointing out the pseudoscience - it is just a remake of the Phrenology scam -Fly]

    [Mate, you just bowl me over with your erudite reasoning. - Jo]

    09

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      So how would you know. You don’t seem to know anything about science.

      You have certainly chosen an unsuitable net name; what inquiry have you ever done? All you do is repeat what someone told you.

      I suggest you would be more truthful if you called yourself Gullible Goose.

      10

  • #
    lemiere jacques

    last chance to save the world..oups we missed it…..then second last chance to save the world.oups we missed it..then third last chance to save the world…oups we missed it..then…

    110

    • #
      Speedy

      G’day LJ

      It’s been the old meme from the greenies

      This is our last chance – and so’s the next one.

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      60

      • #
        crakar24

        Ah yes we are at the last, last, last, last, last chance to save the planet, yesterday i heard some moron in the radio state that we have until the end of the decade to curb emissions but every time i hear this type of talk i am reminded of the pommy git stating we have 50 days to save the planet early LAST decade.

        I think we have 3 or 4 more last chances to get through before they give up.

        71

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It is just as well we keep missing these chances.

      Otherwise they would be be mounting up, and then what would we do?

      50

  • #
    Ace

    Up to a point.

    But I wouldnt plug that stages of bereavement meme,its just utter crap. No actual study or testimony to support it. just one “therapists” notion one day. Like that six stages of seperation bollock.

    Its amazing to think who invented that one though….not a therapist or IT guro or hollywood wonk, no, Stanley Milgram.

    As for the topic. Doesnt fundamentally change anything. The tune alters timbtre but the tempo is the same whilst the usual chorus keep their jobs under the leadership of the same anti-Western Obsessive Compulsive conductors.

    Only something really nasty will change the status quo. and maybe the nasty status quo is actually preferable to what it would take to change it.

    52

    • #

      Ace: I wrote a blog entry on this-http://examiningscience.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/agw-or-ocd/

      It’s interesting to see someone else sees the similarities.

      00

      • #
        Ace

        Thanks, I will take a look.

        00

        • #
          Ace

          Just read it. Same point. But I differ on your description of OCD. You make it sound like a psychosis. People with OCD know that its irrational. Its the fact that the rituals actually work (at keeping down anxiety and preventing depression) that keeps them doing it.They dont want others to do it but want to stop doing it, like others. Now you focus me on this I see it as a difference to AGW nutters. They actually believe wholeheartedly that the things they obsess over are real. Consequently, you give me pause for thought. The analogy with obsessional neurosis is imperfect. CAGW obsession is much more like a psychosis.

          However, I see the logical point of correlation here. AGW obsessives ARE like OCD sufferers as they are BEFORE realising that they have an illness. When they still believe their obsessions. Analogy saved. I think we can build on this idea.

          00

          • #

            I like your interpretation of AGW obsessives being like OCD sufferers before they realize they have an illness. Perhaps we can build on this.

            (I will try and rework my description of OCD on my blog to more accurately reflect the condition–maybe note that this description is before these individuals realize they have an illness.)

            00

            • #
              Ace

              Actually, I think I would see the emphasis better placed upon the obsessional DYNAMIC rather than individual parties. In other words, I should revise my comments(above and below) to indicate that individuals within an “anti” campaign need not be obsessional in order for the pattern of behaviour elicited by the campaigning process to be so. Its like OCD exhibited by groups within which individual members are not themselves necessarily exhibiting OCD. Any such cultural group that becomes self-aware of its own pathological nature would presumably dissolve by itself. It can only persist as long as those who maintain it fail to recognise what they are doing as being what it is.

              00

              • #

                Interesting idea. I will ponder it. Do you really think the group could become self-aware of it’s pathological nature and dissolve itself? That would great! A different kind of solution.

                00

              • #
                Ace

                Think of it like a group of people who one or two at at time realise they were wrong or simply are insufficiently driven (obsessed) to continue and drop by the way, until no group exists. Of course thats not exactly like OCD. In OCD the person eventually realises its an illness, but that doesnt mean they can stop.

                Or is it so different? After all, the OCD person becomes psychologically dependent upon continuing with their rituals and the campaigning outfit (such as an eco-group) becomes dependent for its very existence upon continuing to act as though its members believe what they pursue, even if they no longer do. Seems like each time a contrast appears it then turns out to be another similarity at a deeper level!

                Its been shown in studies that groups even contr\dict their purpse to maintain their existence. For example, in an alcoholics group if a member cuts down very rapidly the others actually act to encourage them to geep drinking longer. The members are rearded by their mutual membership of the group. So their behaviour steers towards keeping it going even if that means defeating the purpose of its existence.

                Similarly, members of a group promoting CAGW will tend to keep the group going, even if they no longer genuinely believe its purpose, if they are reinforced in doing so in some way. Socially, financially, whatever. So the behaviour of the group could come to echo that of an individual with OCD who keeps going with their rituals, because the rituals give them comfort, even though they know they are meaningless and irrational.

                You may have noticed, I do not believe CAGW and Big Green is losing or that it can be defeated by rational argument. This maybe indicates some of the reasons why I believe that. Its not just about money or people being easily mislead. To try to beat the Eco regime by rational argument may be like trying to cure OCD by talking about it. Impossible.

                00

              • #

                It does seem unlikely that the core of AGW can be defeated by rational argument. I’m not sure I agree that OCD cannot be cured by talking about. There are therapists who use cognitive behaviour therapy–which is not talk therapy like Freud, but does rely on the patient beginning to understand the compulsions and how to control them. They may not understand why they had them, but that is not important.

                As far as AGW goes, as a group, rational explanations seems pretty useless. The true believers don’t look outside their group. However, rational explanations may help draw away those that are leaning in the AGW direction or who are following the theory as part of their social group, etc. I think the rational arguments are necessary, but not a “cure-all”. Perhaps the rational arguments are more preventative/educational in nature–like educating the public about OCD can help people realize their condition is not “normal” and they can begin to learn a better way.

                00

              • #
                Ace

                Of course, the rational argument is necessary to provide the foundation. But look at OCD again. CBT is not really talking therapy. Its core is Behaviourism, which is Pavlovian conditioning practice, in which acquired reflexes are extinguished through repeated repression in the face of activation. This process of “extinction” is ultimately itended to produce neurological changes (as all learning does). No amount of talk on its own makes any difference. In fact, the behaviourist element is of limited utility as well. Principally because the OCD symptoms are a compensation for other things and if you simply remove the symptoms new ones tend to form, harder to remove than the first.Itslike trying to squeeeze air bubbbles out from under badly hungwall-paper. If symtoms are denied entirely, theres a possibility of decompensation and breakdown or psychosis (the wall-paper tearing).But this is all on the personal level. I cant see how it ties in with our idea of OCD of groups.

                00

              • #

                You are correct on the talking therapy versus behavioural therapy. There is an element of talk but also action with behavioural therapy. However, with OCD, one either changes the behaviour and discovers the world does not end if one does not check the lock on the door 20 times before bed, or one is medicated. Assuming the OCD is the result of trauma and an attempt to gain control over one’s life, the behaviour change may not “take” and the symptoms come back or get worse. This does happen in some cases. With AGW, the reaction is more generalized. People may want control of something in life because they feel they are pulled along by a life they can’t control. If humans can control the weather–well, that makes us very powerful. This may be reassuring. Some may break down if the AGW mantra is lost, but the belief is more of a generalized nature and does not seem all-consuming with most.

                AGW is, bottom line, about humans having incredible control over nature. It makes humans the driving force of climate. It’s a belief that gives power and ways to deal with the power–change light bulbs, drive less, buy wind power. Blame people who don’t believe for the bad things that happen, like heat waves and fires. None of this is based on rational thought. It may be that to remove the “obsession” component of AGW people have to learn that they really have no control over nature and deal with that. If they cannot learn that, then a new group with a new (less harmful) something to control may be the only answer. Perhaps AGW needs a replacement belief that allows people to believe they have control of something in their lives but does not feed on the nanny state concept? In a way, that is the shift we are seeing now–we can’t control weather maybe, but we can adapt. We just need to make sure the adapting doesn’t get derailed by politics and actually does help.

                00

              • #
                Ace

                The problem is that so many people are striving to control so many things….all ultimately the rest of us. Eco is only one element. I mentioned smoking before in another section of the thread. Theres also censorship, attempts to control the internet, town-planning (there are anti-modern obsessives and heritage obsessives). Just about everything has some group of people obsessively fixted on trying to control whatother people do. This is why I dont worry about a tyrant emerging in the West, the tyrrany has developed all by itself from the grass roots.

                This, too, is echoed in OCD. A family or household can become completely dominated by the OCD needs of one of its members.Except, our communal “household” has numerous different OCD agendas imposing control right accross the spectrum. Visit a place where people just-dont-care and the difference is staggering.

                00

  • #
    Peter Miller

    The cost of adaption to the non-problem of climate change is a tiny fraction of trying to cure it – something which is totally self-evident.

    For the fact that economic reality is perhaps at long last taking the place of scary rhetoric and debilitating carbon taxes is something for which we should all be thankful.

    Now, can we please let the Global Warming Gravy Train run off the rails/hit the buffers/whatever and put the hordes of second rate climate ‘scientists’ and computer modellers it carries as passengers into the ranks of the unemployed.

    201

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Excuse me! I don’t think the unemployed want to be seen associating with climate “scientists”.

      80

      • #
        johninoxley

        Rereke, I think this may be the only time I could correct you. “unemployed”, unemployable. Love your comments.

        40

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Surely you meant “I don’t think the currently unemployed want to be seen associating with the unemployable.”
          As a currently unemployed person I can confirm this is true.

          For the thousands of people who carry out CAGW-based jobs without actually believing in CAGW they are technically not warmists but they’re confiscating public money nonetheless.

          So just to be contrarian… people who spent 37.5 hours a week destroying the goodwill of society are eminently qualified to be Hollywood scriptwriters and financial derivatives traders.

          30

  • #
    Manfred

    I see the chinks and cracks in the edifice, though I am less celebratory.

    The bottom line is: We can’t run the risk

    The goal posts shift again: 1988 – 98: global warming. 1998 – 2013: climate change. 2014 – climate risk management.

    ‘Risk’ is the mantra of the epidemiologists, occupational health and safety, politicans and the MSM. They simply love ‘risk’. Everything is ‘risky’. After all, being born has a 100% risk of death. Usually though, they spout relative risk and avoid informing anyone about absolute risk, which is often irrelevant. They rely on magnifying risk for their daily bread.

    And so the entrail gazing haruspices of climastrology. They’ll feed upon ‘risk’ ad nauseum. In fact, they adore ‘risk’ because they can peddle catastrophism ad infinitum with no pretense of living in the real world or indeed, one founded on science.

    170

    • #
      Backslider

      Too right Manfred. Clearly these people will continue to find any way possible to bleed the public purse… nothing in that respect will change.

      50

    • #
      Ace

      Risk is also the kernal of OCD. I, like others compare Environmentalism to the other murderous ideologies, NAZIsm, Stalinism, Maoism, although its actually killed somewhat more than that lot. But it can also be seen to reflect a societal version of OCD. Definitely, European and American culture is dominated by Obsessive Compulsive traits based in risk aversion. Most especially the English language countries. Britain has become so criss-crossed by rules and restrictions that it really is like one big prison camp. Even spitting is illegal. Farting probably. Only the way it works is they ban things but dont tell us til we get done for it. You wouldnt believe the things people think are still legal but arent.

      As a teen I used to boggle at the nutty laws in Singapore (crime not flushing the loo). Now its far worse here. As for Enver Hoxas ban on beards in Communist Albania which made us laugh in the Eighties, we now understand the completely rational basis for that,Britain now being a country where giant beards in our midst signal the allegience of those intent on restructuring our society. Oh yes, you are exempt from pretty much all rules and laws if you are one of The Bearded Ones.Even rape, genital mutilation, kidnapping and slavery.And why is that…risk aversion embodied in the fear of causing “offence” or accidentally repeating the bad parts of the Twentieth Century. As though weare all rabid NAZIs to be kept under control by our Obsessional Neurotic “betters”. You’ll have to read between the lines folks, as a British resident I am not allowed to write what I think plainly.

      The last word on this goes to the German guy discussing Turkey. He says he lived there and the UK. But the UK is the LESS free country and nowhere else he knows more restricted apart from Belarus!

      100

      • #
        Manfred

        Nice one Ace although I’m fascinated how you arrive at the suggestion of the numbers involved, “Risk is also the kernal of OCD. I, like others compare Environmentalism to the other murderous ideologies, NAZIsm, Stalinism, Maoism, although its actually killed somewhat more than that lot”. At a quick guess the four syllable ‘isms’ 12M, 25M, 65M respectively amount to approx. 102M. It would seems that extreme environmentalism would happily depopulate the planet to the tune of billions (Quadrant on-line – Green Agenda in their own Words) but I don’t think that we can yet attribute a similar genocidal magnitude to the toxic Greens.

        I believe that at the heart of the demise you allude to, which is a plague upon the English speaking countries, lies the vacuous adoption of a culture of political correctness. Insidious in its onset, it has now become a central aspect to a culture of mindlessness. In this ‘inclusive’ cultural vacuum, all views in spite of their rationality or numerical weight are ascribed equal merit. Nothing is deemed ‘wrong’ or ‘right’. The reductio ad absurdum is that a society will defend the rights of those that seek to undermine it, stifling those that would defend it. I believe this notion was always considered a potential philosophical trap for democracies.

        In short, there is no longer any claim to identity or any statement of explicit, non-negotiable value. All is fluid and infinitely accommodating. This is not the usual position of those incapacitated by OCD, having paralysed themselves with rigid preoccupation and adherence to ritual and minutiae. Certainly the ‘isms’ you mention could be regarded as a societal variant of OCD and perhaps they are a natural and reflexive response to the vacuum of non-belief, of non-identity, explicit in the oxy-moronic belief of political correctness.

        I heard yesterday that a university somewhere in the English speaking world had agreed to let a Muslim cleric address a student body. Apparently the cleric insisted that male and female students be segregated. Sadly and very much to the point I have made, I understand the university confabulated afterward, seemingly reluctant to unambiguously articulate what it stood for.

        60

        • #
          Ace

          The figure is sound. If we register that around five million people a year die from Malaria and leave aside the countless indirect casualties. then note that the insect vectors of Malaria were on track to be rendered completely extinct by the early 1960′s. That the howls of protest about this inspired by Carsons “Silent Spring” resulted in the end of the campaign and near total prohibition on DDT. Then multiply the number of years elapsed since. We get a figure in excess of 250 million deaths. Deaths as a direct result of Environmentalism (specifically, placing the rights of insects and those animals that prey on them at least level with those of humans). Thats double the death toll of NAZIsm, Stalinism and Maoism combined as you tallied it.

          They’ve campaigned hard to try to wriggle out of this. But their arguments are what…”denial” indeed.

          As regard the dynamics of OCD and how they correspond with the behaviour of various “antis”, I will have to return tomorrow,as its 3.48 AM where I am.

          40

          • #
            Ace

            RE OCD.
            The impression that OCD is characterised by rigid behaviour is superficial. The underlying motives of the behaviour tend to be firmly embedded but the behaviour it leads to can range across a spectrum for an individual relative to circumstances. If circumstances change, so will the behaviour, adaptively. OCD sufferers are not pre-programmed robots but do what they feel circumstances require to protect their given fundamental concerns.

            The parallel between OCD and the bahaviour of various “antis” is quite striking. Both start from the fundamental premise that a given thing must be avoided. They both proceed to seek to eliminate that object of avoidance. The effort they expend doing so becomes commensurate with an increasing scale of aversion. As a certain level of risk of the avoidance object by certain means is achieved they then seek to reduce the risk further by piling on a range of additional measures. If these are deemed succesful, they then seek to reduce the risk even further by adding on ever greater barrages of protective activities. As each level becomes routine it creates a new baseline, which any hint of the avoidance object thn requires rising above into greater exertions.

            If this doesnt already sound like a Green, an Eco, a health fascist, etc, then consider an example. Once upon a time there were smokers and non-smokers. Those afraid smoking was dangerous chose not to smoke. But over time simply not smoking proved insufficient. They demanded non-smoking areas. Over time that became normal, therefore insufficient. They demanded smoking be banned entirely from their midst. Over time that became normal. They werent happy with that but wanted smokers to stop smoking anywhere…hence for example, not being allowed to smoke in their own home when professionals visit. But that isnt enough now, they want smoking as a practice expunged, hence in the UK shops must keep tobacco products hidden behind sliding screens. But thats not enough either,for the most obsessional are demanding legislation that would require smokers to obtain a licence to buy tobacco.

            You see the dynamic is exactly the same. The perpetual ritualistic distancing of some object of aversion. In this case, really its not smoking, its their fear of death.If it was just smoking, then by choosing not to do it they would have no problem. Its an obsessional fixation however and nothing to do with a reality.

            Incidentally, I never smoked a cigarette. I took up smoking cigars at about forty. One every now and again when in a bar. Then smoking in bars was banned. So I started smoking them at home. Now I chomp through loads of them (I get them cheap). I also eat nicotine lozenges. Ill have another shortly. So much for the wisdom of health fascists.

            The ritualistic aspects of OCD are abundantly evident in a myriad demands of Environmentalists. Often highly irrational and contradictory. On the one hand they banned all mercury from solder in Europe. Hasslblad were none too happy as their popular Xpan camera was banned along with that. On the other hand they also banned 100 watt incandescent light-bulbs in an effort to force people to use the “green” alternative…which contains mercury. They “save” a few hundred tons on the one hand and bring in some tens of thousands of tons on the other. This is OCD reasoning. One obsession (CO2) outweighs all other considerations. Even if the gesture is meaninglessly slight, as long as it is symbolic, it fulfils the requirement of ritualistic effort.

            The two very vivid actions shared by OCD individuals and OCD campaigns are banning things from their midst and demanding rituals to be performed.

            OCD in a person destroys them and often leads to death. OCD in a society appears to be taking the same route.

            10

      • #
        Ace

        Re Bearded Battalions and restructuring Britain: I noticed today that the twenty-somewhat girl from Croatia behind the counter at the post office has started wearing a scarf to cover her hair. The first Ive seen of this in all the time I’ve known her at various offices, about six years. The middle aged lady in a supermarket who has been wearing the same (in a sloppy, loose-hanging gesture towards it) the past few years had not for the four or five years I had seen her before that. I do not think either of these women have all upon themselves “chosen” to wear this symbolic garment.

        00

  • #

    … officials are merging efforts by emergency managers to prepare for natural disasters with those of officials focused on climate change …

    Groan… I hope not.
    Nothing has changed. The Golgafrinchams have found something new to mess up, that’s all.
    Already happening:
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/06/16/21/34/disasters-proving-too-costly-report
    Highlights two events (Queensland floods and Victorian bushfires) as “natural disasters” that are “going to occur more frequently”. The sources are natural. Climate-sameness. The disaster part is caused by humans building in stupid places, and banning appropriate land management and mitigation.
    CC Sustainability Adaptation Resilience
    Can’t find any substitutes on Synonym, Marriam-Webster, online Roget.

    50

    • #
      Backslider

      The disaster part is caused by humans building in stupid places

      Exactly! These so called “disasters” are simply natural occurrences that have been with us since the year dot…. only a disaster for exactly this reason.

      60

      • #
        Greebo

        Exactly! These so called “disasters” are simply natural occurrences that have been with us since the year dot…. only a disaster for exactly this reason.

        You only need to look at the so called Black Saturday fires, with the dreadful loss of life that occurred. The Black Friday fires of 1939 were of a far greater scale, but there were two main differences; Very few people lived in the area that burned, and, more importantly, on the “natural disaster” theme, a good proportion of the 2009 fires were deliberately lit, or were the direct result of poor maintenance, or people ignoring strictures against welding of slashing. Which kind of makes them un-natural.

        70

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    The NYC politicians, developers, and money changers (NYC-PD&MC) cannot hope to get enough of other people’s money by admitting they have used the last 50 years to enrich themselves while ignoring the common sense notion that ocean front property is not a good place to build expensive housing and urban infrastructure with bundles of electronic equipment. The storm Sandy provided an opportunity to connect their folly to the global warming – rising seas scenario and thereby seek federal support (other peoples money) to continue the ruse. They insist that all others are guilty of causing the seas to rise and because of the intransigence regarding CO2 (this was to be the source of unlimited funds) another way has to be devised to transfer money to them, the NYC-PD&MC.

    This does not and never has been about climate. Follow the money.

    60

  • #

    [...] Click here to read the full article _____________________________________________ [...]

    00

  • #
    Keith L

    Well we just had Will Steffen on the ABC breakfast news telling us that we need to bury all our fossil fuels and build more wind and wave power because greenhouse gases are at their highest levels for one million years.
    That seems to be about the only scary sounding statistic he can find.
    He seems oblivious to the fact that this million year high does not seem to be having any effect on the climate and so kind of undermines his whole scare story.

    171

  • #
    handjive

    And right on cue, the Australian Climate Commission releases a swag of junk science and propaganda aimed directly at scaring immature minds.

    Seriously, who would quote this crap, and actually waste money and legislate on it?

    Oh, thats right. GreenLaboUr AND the GreenLNP.

    Quote: ” In particular, this is the Critical Decade for turning around rising emissions of greenhouse gases and putting us on the pathway to stabilising the climate system.”

    This is a lie and junk science fraud. When has our planet EVER had a “stable climate system”? (Answer: NEVER)

    Only ignoramuses believe that climate stability is normal.

    Quote: “climate change is scary”!

    Scary? Only if you believe in fairytales & boogie-men and have the mind of a very young child.

    Quote: “Last time co2 levels were this high was a million years ago.”

    Or maybe 3 million years ago. Junk Climate science bingo! So what! Late ordovician 400m years ago was 4000ppm co2, and it was an ice age!
    .
    This is NOT science.

    These people are tax-payer funded climate frauds pushing a tax and propaganda. Not scientists.
    .
    “As for any politicians who have ever believed in global warming, or supported the carbon tax, or a carbon-constrained economy, there is no hope for them. They are either too stupid or incompetent to be taken seriously.”

    Make their lives hell too, just as they wished a diminished life on you.

    150

  • #
    michael hart

    I certainly get the impression that the word “weather” has recently started coming back into fashion.

    Unfortunately it is still, all too frequently, conjugated with some doom-laden adjective.

    30

  • #
    tckev

    I humbly put forward a new phrase for the AGW/CC industry – Ethical climate sustainability.
    It covers so much without being specific at all.

    40

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    In his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” Gore compared talk of adapting to climate change to laziness that would distract from necessary efforts.

    But in his 2013 book “The Future,” Gore writes bluntly: “I was wrong.” He talks about how coping with rising seas and temperatures is just as important as trying to prevent global warming by cutting emissions.

    How big of him to admit he was wrong. The problem now is that he’s still just plain wrong.

    What rising seas, Al? What rising temperatures? Where have you been this past winter? No doubt you’ve been enjoying the nice weather in Hawaii or someplace equally tropical. Maybe instead of buying carbon credits from yourself you need to buy a ticket back to reality.

    60

  • #
    Manfred

    If we accept a new climate meme of ‘risk management’ we tacitly acknowledge, indeed we implicitly accept the underlying premise of C/AGW.

    It’s a politically clever ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ approach that’s little different to the age old ‘do you beat you wife’ question.

    And as others have pointed out, the growing emphasis on weather makes mockery of what has gone before, which we are now being asked to ignore in favour of the compelling immediacy that weather offers. Just what the MSM ordered!

    I don’t care how many ways this stuff gets dressed up. If it’s still walking on a peg-leg in drag followed by a crocodile that swallowed a ticking clock, a verbose parrot on one shoulder and a crooked hat, it requires our persistent and rational disdain.

    50

  • #
    Neville

    What an embarrassment these fools are. But now we have the OZ Climate Commission releasing another report full of more silly nonsense.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-17/fossil-fuel-reserves-must-stay-in-ground-report/4757448

    I hope everyone (Jo included ) has a few minutes to read this gibberish and watch the video.

    30

    • #
      Manfred

      Thanks Neville.

      “Climate Commission report says 80 per cent of fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground.”
      By environment reporter Sarah Clarke.
      Video: Former Defence Force chief Admiral Chris Barrie and the Climate Commission’s Will Steffen join ABC News Breakfast. (ABC News)

      Bill and Ben, the flower-pot men. These two guys look as convincing as Little Weed.

      So, if we identify triple the current value for ‘the reserves’ in the next few years what then? More balderdash from another belief driven bureaucracy.

      50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Seems to me that there is a choice of what to leave in the ground, coal or uranium.

        They opt for coal, so by default Australia should start investing in nuclear generation.

        Job done!

        20

        • #
          crakar24

          No, no, no RW we can dig up uranium and sell it to a country that has a stock pile of nukes and refuses to sign the NNPT thus creating a regional arms war but we cannot under any circumstances use said uranium for local power generation.

          If you listen hard enough the next time cross the ditch you will hear twilight zone music.

          31

    • #
      Turtle of WA

      Yes! I heard about that on ABC radio this morning. I was shocked to find out that they are now even more sure about climate change than they were before!

      The exact same message as every other climate commission report, released regularly every couple of months.

      The question is, how sure can you get, when all the data is against you?

      20

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        If they can keep on getting more sure , then they really aren’t so sure at all.
        They are only choosing to be sure.

        10

  • #

    Hi Jo.

    Thank you for keeping up the pressure…

    I agree that the evidence is there for the gradual demise of the global warming industry but what pisses me off about its demise is that the parties guilty of perpetrating this scam and causing misery and needless expense around the world are simply quietly packing up their tents and sneaking off into the night – witness the NZ Greens – now the story is our international obligations – no longer talk of ‘climate action’. We need a ‘name and shame’ list and a way to hold our elected representatives legally accountable for the ways in which they squander our hard earned cash.

    80

    • #
      Ross

      Stuart

      I don’t think they will pack their bags. They’ll reinvent themselves as risk experts ( as Manfred quite correctly points out above). The ones that have had the biggest fill at the trough are cunning survivors.

      20

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        They’ll reinvent themselves as risk experts

        I don’t think so. That would require them to have a good grounding in actuarial statistics and economics, and most of them can’t even balance a cheque book.

        40

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    The Alarmists couldn’t stand the heat in the kitchen — certainly not once it was noticed that Mother Nature was a “denier”.

    Their response? To try and take “some of the heat out of the global warming debate” so that they still have a place at the table after spending the last decade trying to impoverish us all.

    60

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    So now it’s Climate Adaption.
    Let us consider how to “insulate” the masses from the risks of a changing climate.
    Step 1
    Make cheap electricity and liquid fuels available to the masses.
    Step 2
    Make cheap electricity and liquid fuels available to the masses.
    Step 3
    Make cheap electricity and liquid fuels available to the masses.
    Step 4
    Make cheap electricity and liquid fuels available to the masses.

    80

  • #
    Neville

    Looks like even the Green idiots in NZ have thrown in the towel on the CAGW scare.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/16/nz-greens-lose-interest-in-global-warming-no-hellfire-no-brimstone/#more-88162

    But will our green idiots in OZ wake up or will we still have to suffer their stupidity?

    40

  • #
    pat

    LOL. encouraging Obama to use executive powers:

    16 June: TrustOrg: Reuters: Obama leaves climate change-fighting tool on shelf for now
    by Patrick Rucker & Valerie Volcovici
    President Barack Obama has vowed to tackle climate change in his second term, but so far has not acted to strengthen a tool that does not require backing from Congress – the National Environmental Policy Act.
    NEPA, a statute that dates to the Nixon administration, calls on officials to weigh whether projects such as highways, dams or oil drilling could harm the environment.
    While it does not have the power to block development, NEPA forces officials to consider the environment before approving federal projects, and the White House has proposed that climate change should rank high among those concerns…
    “We are taking the time necessary to carefully consider all input from the public, stakeholders and federal agencies,” said Taryn Tuss, a spokeswoman for the White House Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ), the steward for NEPA…
    Industry groups and Republicans, though, have warned Obama to keep NEPA out of the climate change debate…
    LEGACY CONCERNS
    Former White House officials say Obama must soon test the rule’s power to confront climate change if he wants to cement a legacy of trying to wean the nation off polluting fossil fuels.
    “A president who wants to lead on climate change does not have many tools that do not involve Congress. One of them is NEPA,” said George Frampton, who led the CEQ in the final years of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
    Several former U.S. officials said the White House is at least a year away from blessing a climate change component of NEPA – if such a move is taken at all.
    “I would think any revision is a ways off,” said a former EPA official who dealt with NEPA issues…
    But with little hope of moving new comprehensive climate change legislation through Congress, the White House is running out of time to use its executive power to confront an issue that Obama has said requires urgent action…
    BACKDOOR REGULATION?
    And while environmentalists are eager to use the statute to consider the long-term impacts of climate change, industry groups worry the added layer could be crippling to projects.
    ***”Let’s say you want to build a solar farm. Well, were those solar panels built in China using coal power? How far back do we trace these supposed impacts?” said Bill Kovacs, a senior energy adviser with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce…
    The governors of Oregon and Washington want the White House to apply NEPA as it weighs whether to speak up against coal export terminals planned for the Pacific Northwest.
    The statute should not only weigh the impact of exporting U.S. coal but how burning the fuel in furnaces overseas could worsen climate change, the governors argue…
    “Time is running out to do something meaningful that will have an effect in Obama’s second term,” Frampton said.
    http://www.trust.org/item/20130616065955-jnlyg/

    10

  • #
    pat

    ready for a laugh?

    17 June: ABC: Kirsty Nancarrow: Experts test how fish cope with climate change
    Researchers from James Cook University in north Queensland and the Australian National University are hoping to prove mature fish can develop to cope with climate change…
    PhD student Sandra Binning says the adult fish will be tested after one month to see how they are reacting to simulated changes in weather patterns.
    “We know that with little fish that are very small we can rear them in different conditions and have them develop into athletes or lazy fish per se,” she said.
    “Now this is exactly what we’re testing with this – whether we can take adult fish that have already been living out on the reef in conditions for many, many months, but whether we can take them into the lab and train them and try to get them to change and become better athletes…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-17/experts-test-how-fish-cope-with-climate-change/4759954?section=qld

    30

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Holy cow! Is there anything this “caaahhbn” can’t do? Is there ever a study that doesn’t involve it anymore? I’d like a fat grant to study the effects of Gorebull Warbling on phlogiston and if it can be sustained indefinitely, including the grant.

      20

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    If their plans come to full fruition, I would expect massive class-action lawsuits should another storm, tornado, hurricane, cyclone, tsunami, flood or fire cause any damage. They’d be in too deep to call it “natural”.

    20

  • #
    gbees

    “It’s all branding.”

    So its all been about marketing all along and not about saving the planet?

    Now who would have thought!

    10

  • #
    crakar24

    Regardless of everything said above, back here in the land of Nod our carbon tax is about to increase (EOFY).

    01

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Dear Sir,
      you will have to be more specific as the entire western world is embroiled in a battle for the singular title of “The Land of Nod”.
      Those symptomatic of wakefulness are expressly instructed to shut their eyes and switch topics. Above all one must never commit the crime of appearing “edgy”. Such aberrations are contrary to the State’s harmonisation agenda.

      The past itself is inharmonious with Decarbonisation and so prior ugliness, such as the CO2 levels of the last 500M years, the MWP of the 1100s, the cosmic ray flux of the last 1000 years, the hard labour of the pre-oil era, the 19th century heatwaves, the solar activity trends of the last century, the Global Cooling scare of the 70s, the decreased cyclone incidence after 1977, the 1988 GISS temperature projections, the Earth albedo measurements since the late 80s, temperatures on planets other than Earth, the original 1990 mission statement of the IPCC, decelerating sea levels, the ClimateGate leak of 2009, the last 17 years of no warming, and the alarmist claims of the last ten years, must all be consigned to the nearest Memory Hole promptly.
      Take a dose of blind faith and if alertness persists please see your spin doctor. Comrade, with our combined non-efforts we may become the biggest Noddies of all!

      Yours Noddingly,
      Joe Public,
      Oceania.

      00

      • #
        MemoryVault

        such as the CO2 levels of the last 500M years, the MWP of the 1100s, the cosmic ray flux of the last 1000 years, the hard labour of the pre-oil era, the 19th century heatwaves, the solar activity trends of the last century, the Global Cooling scare of the 70s, the decreased cyclone incidence after 1977, the 1988 GISS temperature projections, the Earth albedo measurements since the late 80s, temperatures on planets other than Earth, the original 1990 mission statement of the IPCC, decelerating sea levels, the ClimateGate leak of 2009, the last 17 years of no warming, and the alarmist claims of the last ten years,

        Mere observable facts, Andrew.
        Got anything meaningful – like a peer-reviewed computer model?

        Thought not – typical “denier”.

        .
        By the way, anybody else noticed the distinct lack of trolls recently?

        20

      • #
        crakar24

        Andrew,

        Yes that was my mistake, the title for the most Noddy is a cherished one indeed and we are but one in a very competative field.

        01

  • #
    Neville

    One of the best columns by the Bolter highlighting the waste and fraud involved in the CAGW industry. Alas also for a zero return on our wasted billions.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/time-for-these-people-to-dry-up/story-fni0ffxg-1226664689499

    This quote is a beauty.

    “Sadly, there are countless more green carpetbaggers getting such handouts from a Government that never asks the basic question: for all these billions, how much will the temperature go down? Alan Moran, of the Institute of Public Affairs, estimates federal grants, taxes and subsidies to cut emissions now cost us about $20 billion a year more than the eventual full cost of the Government’s Gonski education changes and disability scheme combined.

    And what difference will this make to the world’s temperature? Warmist scientist Professor Roger Jones reckons 0.0038 degrees by 2100.

    And even infinitesimal change assumes the alarmist models of warmist scientists are correct about how much our gases are changing the climate.”

    30

    • #
      Backslider

      I like this one:

      But go outside and look up in the heavens. Something tells me they’ve exaggerated, and you are being had in the greatest and most expensive con in Australian history.

      00

  • #
    Mia Nony

    Gore, Google, and all of the biggest players have turned away from the climate game, it has outlived its usefulness. The final round has the key global players fully invested in the energy/data collection bubble, facilitated by the smart grid which the climate game made possible.
    One long term agenda for which the climate scare was to serve as pretext was the “necessity” to create and implement/deploy the ultimate technocratic grid, meaning transfer of wealth microwave global blanket called the smart grid.
    Once they are able to meter/monitor/ fully control every single structure linked to the electrical grid, all best are off. This was truly the bigger goal.
    Now the Bilderberg gang have been assured that they will be able to use the entire global smart grid to ration and sever as they wish ay and all use of energy, water and the ultimate control over electricity, which is the ultimate common denominator of all civilization. It is now their hand on the smart switches which control all things essential to survival.
    As well the smart grid makes it possible to ration water, not to mention the short term data bubble and the trillions to be made through it via surveillance of all human activity.
    The grid and the NSA/Snowden “scandal” are merely different faces of the same giant beast.
    Do not underestimate this global technocratic need to control, to deny, and to destroy the privacy and health of absolutely anyone, not to mention this system is by definition hackable and therefore collapsible at will by those who implemented it. So who needs the climate scare any longer, now that the global goal it served has almost been reached?
    Microwaves covering every corner of the earth have been simultaneously sold as a low carbon global scheme predicated on climate “disruption” necessity. The smart grid is being put in place to dissolve private property rights, erase sovereign nation state independence, while pimping the world’s remaining resources out from under any country where they happen to be located, by using diabolical tools such as trade agreements and ICLEI a la Agenda 21.
    Just as the derivatives scheme brought the world to its knees, the smart energy bubble justified by climate fear mongering will likely serve as the final act of a global Enron scheme able to create a post electrical dystopia… but only once the last of the assets of the masses are in the coffers of the plutocrats – at which point, other than a skeleton crew of serfs for the new feudalism, the elite would have no further use for the “useless eaters” global population as AGenda 21 author Kissinger has never been shy about calling the masses.
    Now that microwaving the entire ecosystem into oblivion is the new “green”, the climate scare as such is no longer needed in and of itself, because it was only needed as an interim measure to serve as the springboard for the smart grid, which has taken on a pathological life loathing life of its own.

    21

    • #
      Ace

      Own up, you are one of the Warcharsky brothers arent you!

      00

      • #
        Ace

        Wow this is genius…Ive been comin here months and its only just occurred to me: all I need to do to find out the time in Australia is post a comment!!!!

        00

  • #
    manalive

    Now that ‘mitigation’, doublespeak for subsidies, carbon taxes etc., is so ‘last year’s', it must now be time for litigation and compensation.
    Henry Ergas in today’s Australian:

    … the average annual electricity bill is nearly $1000 higher today than it was when Labor was elected: an 80 percent increase in real terms …

    I want my money back.

    20

  • #
    Dan Pangburn

    Find out what actually caused the warm up to 2001 and the flat average global temperatures since then at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html

    Some of the mistakes made by the IPCC and the Consensus are discussed at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/

    20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Dan, tried to comment on your site but it didn’t work. Not sure if that’s due to my AdBlock Plus plugin or something else on your blog.

      Anyhow…

      Data is available back to 1850. Why does your calculation only go back to 1880?

      Also, how accurate is its hindcast for 1990 to 2010 if calibrated only on 1850 to 1990 data?

      10

  • #
    Stew Green

    - People are getting excited about” Leave coal in ground: experts” the new ACC report Critical Decade 2013 – Climate Change Science, Risks and Responses. by Will “the dog ate my death threats” Steffen & Lesley “temp is going to make W. Sydney more violent” Hughes.
    - Strangely on the (unskeptical) Australian Skeptics Page
    Jo Nova is well documented as a cherry picker and graph forger. Her continued perpetuation of urban heat islands (debunked), claims of no warming (it is warming), and her claim that you linked to that it has only warmed a little (way to misunderstand global temperature and localised changes), only demonstrates her ignorance and deception on the topic of climate change.”..blah blah “we need to do something yesterday.. This point isn’t up for argument.”

    04

    • #

      Stew, that “Skeptics” page (link, not much use) is most probably the same type of desperate wanabee’s who think they are independent brains, but who slavishly follow whatever the mainstream opinion is. They argue from authority while kidding themselves they can reason.

      You can see they’re not the sharpest tool in the shed. Statements like: “claims of no warming (it is warming)” are mindless without a timespan. It has been warming for 300 years, but cooling for 5000. This turns a noisy graph into a “yes or No” idiot point.

      But saying I forge graphs is defamatory, can you provide the real link and name of the person saying that?

      62

      • #
        Heywood

        Hi Jo,

        It was a facebook post by a bloke named “Tyson Adams” made yesterday (17th Jun) at 6:59 on the facebook group “Australian Skeptics“. It was stated in a discussion following a post by Mark Carter (14:15).

        His website leaves little doubt as to which way he leans.

        I can forward a screen shot of the comment from my phone if you like…

        31

  • #
    Dennis

    Question: how much longer will this period of left insanity continue?

    20

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Question: how much longer will this period of left insanity continue?

      You obviously haven’t read the Liberal Party’s Environment Policy.

      .
      But to answer your question, for as long as Aussies go on voting for the major parties, which all support the “insanity”, one way or another.

      20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Dennis, am not sure if you are in Australia, but we have a show on the government TV channel ABC here on Monday nights called “Q&A”. (cue hissing in unison)

      I only watched tonight’s episode because Barnaby Joyce was one of the six panel members tonight – he’s one of the more sane centrist politicians, and a member of the National Party.

      Another panel member was Dr Fiona Stanley, a retired epidemiologist and oddly enough “she is a board member of the ABC and chairs the Alcohol Advertising Review Board.”

      Another member was Kate Lundy, a Labor Party government politician.

      Now here’s the example.

      One audience member raised the topic of national cricketer David Warner being caught punching someone in a drunken brawl and a week later playing professional cricket with a Victoria Bitter beer logo on his uniform. They asked the panel if there was a need to ban alcohol advertising in sport.

      First response was from Barnaby Joyce and unambiguous:

      “No. I just think I don’t want to turn this place into a complete Nanny State. You know… it’s a case of people having control of themselves. I get too concerned that we’ll just keep on banning, banning, banning and in the end we’ll just wrap ourselves in cotton wool and hide.”
      [not even sound of crickets from the audience]

      Second response was from Dr Fiona Stanley:

      “The Association of Alcohol Advertising in Sport is an oxymoron. I think alcohol advertising should be totally banned from sport, and seeking alternative sources of sponsorship is what we’re trying to push for now. ”
      [rapturous applause]
      “The biggest problem – apart from climate change – at affecting the future health of our children is alcohol and substance abuse that we’re seeing. Alcohol advertising is hugely effective in getting young people to drink and to drink excessively.
      …We’re not talking about stopping drinking, we’re talking about stopping excessive drinking which is harmful.”

      Third response was from Kate Lundy (paraphrasing):

      My answer is No, for a range of reasons. Firstly where we can make a difference with alternative sponsorship, and [a campaign to encourage responsible behaviour by players] we’ve put that in place. But in the bigger sports, no, as a government we’re not intending to regulate in that regard.
      But what we do ask is alcohol advertising must carry a responsible drinking message.

      [barely the sound of crickets from the audience]

      This probably speaks more to the Leftism of people who want to attend a Q&A recording, not necessarily across all Australians.
      The Nat poli and the Labor poli agreed there should be no ban on advertising, but the more leftist ALP member says beer companies should not be sponsors and beer adverts have to carry motherhood statements.

      But applause goes to the one who says ban alcohol advertising outright, as though intoxicated behaviour is no different to any other contagious disease that can be studied under a microscope and vaccinated against. Saving the people from themselves!

      That would be bad enough, but I know you want more.
      Now are you ready for some Leftist hypocrisy?

      When asked about improving health in Aboriginal communities Dr Stanley replied:

      “You have to engage properly with the people who are receiving these services. … The intervention [of government into aboriginal communities] broke that rule in terms of taking power away from people, that’s really important – that you need to empower people.”

      Right, Doctor, lemme see if I can summarize that. Young people and whiteys are assumed to be incapable of handling their own affairs and so any activity that requires them to exercise personal responsibility should be banned as it presents an insurmountable challenge.
      Only aboriginals should be asked what they want and empowered to improve their own lot in life.
      Right, got it.

      Whenever the Left is in danger of running out of victims to coddle it will fabricate some new ones!

      Now as it is a Monday night and I am white you’ll have to excuse me as I am suddenly filled with the overwhelming urge to drink myself stupid and punch some Q&A panel members! :D We should ban discussions of alcohol on the ABC – THEY are the ones who put these drunken violence ideas in my head! :D

      00

  • #
    Paul Hogan

    Al Gore said I was wrong, he should have added, but it doesn’t matter because I have made millions of dollars from been wrong. And, I laughed all the way to the bank, thank you, you gullible people.

    10

  • #
    JohnB

    Quotedd from article:

    “It was Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s announcement last week of an ambitious plan to stave off New York City’s rising seas with flood gates, levees and more that brought this transition into full focus.”

    ooh, ooh, … yeah, put up huge walls around the city … and then …

    Turn it into a huge prison (for deniers, of course)

    John Carpenter really is a Prophet in our time

    00

    • #

      Actually, assuming they don’t use the blueprints from the levees in New Orleans, the flood gates might actually provide some benefit during tropical storms and low level hurricanes. That puts this a step above the imaginary carbon credit market.

      It’s also interesting that we “have to do something about climate change” but when Ronald Reagan wanted “star wars” missile defense funding “just in case”, the democrats threw fits. It seems we only “have to something” if it’s in line with the liberal agenda. Otherwise, we take our chances.

      10

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    I am not the least bit surprised that some are beginning to jump ship. Most of those involved at the highest echelons of the climate caper are nothing but rent seekers, opportunists and quick buck artists. They are loyal to their wallets, not principles or ideals fueled by lofty motives.

    Once the taxpayer funded gravy train stops rolling then it is time for these shameless charlatans to disembark and find the next gravy train. Thats what grifters do.

    The real question is: what will be the next scam? I wonder what kind of odds Las Vegas is giving? Maybe we should start a pool?

    11

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      (while my above comment to Dennis about Left insanity on Q&A is awaiting moderation…)

      Eddy,
      the taxpayer funded CAGW gravy train in Australia is only now about to kick into high gear.
      I was just watching a replay of today’s federal parliament Question Time.
      Andrew Robb MP in the Opposition posed an astounding question. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will not begin to actually hand out money until 1 July this year – money obtained by the government taking out loans. Seems one of the first scams schemes they have lined up is a windfarm at about A$150M. Apparently the private banks were ready to fund this scheme – but the CEFC outbid them! That’s right, why do the same job in the private sector for less when you can do it for more with taxpayer money!
      On top of this it was revealed the wind farm will be 50% owned by a New Zealand government department that is going to be sold off and privatized soon. So it can’t even be assumed the new owners would continue with the farm or keep prices the same after privatization!
      Andrew Robb’s question to the Prime Minister was how can this possibly be spending taxpayer money wisely?

      Give them some credit, Eddy, the quick buck artists sure know how to move swiftly on a good deal.

      00

  • #

    Being a “progressive” means never to have to say you are sorry. All you need to do is say you meant well and change the subject. Then it is as if it never happened.

    When, in the rare circumstances your words come back to haunt you, you can say: “That old stuff again? We must look forward and not into the past.”

    If that doesn’t work, you get to say, “I didn’t mean for this to happen.” A final angry, “it was all Bush’s fault anyway” and “what does it matter now” is supposed to stop any further inquiry into the matter. The goal of all this is to make it as if it never happened.

    50

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Progressive types generally need to keep looking to the future, so as not to be confronted by their trail of destruction.

      40

    • #
      Joe V.

      The progressive mantra appeals to serial incompetents . Similarly the preachers of ‘change’ , whose dumb pursuit of constant change is always leaving room for and opening up new opportunities for improvement, usually by screwing up what has been working perfectly well.
      If it ain’t broke, don’t let them near it.

      20

  • #
    Dan Pangburn

    Andrew McRae – Earlier temperature measurements are less world wide and have more uncertainty. Also, NOAA and GISS only report back to 1880.

    When calibrated 1895-1995 the equation predicts a temperature trend anomaly about 0.04C lower than when calibrated 1895-2012 but R2 drops to about 0.8.

    10

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      That’s not exactly what I asked, but I get the point. Okay so there was probably some slight extra heat after the El Nino that isn’t predictable empirically by this equation.

      I also noticed an annoying discrepancy towards the earlier part of the graph. I wonder if that is because the Law Dome ice cores are not an adequate substitute for MLO. Seems to me that warming oceans were the main source of rising CO2 before 1950, so I expect the CO2 was actually following world temperature before then, which would imply CO2 was as high in 1880 as it was in 1930 and lower in between. But I don’t think this would be enough to close the gap, and increasing the C parameter would throw off the good match on the later years. What do you think there?

      Assuming we are not in the business of “hiding the decline” has there been much discussion elsewhere of how the equation could be modified to close the 1880s gap?

      I’ve heard (and repeated) good things about the model before but I’d never seen the equation or the graphs until now. It’s a remarkably good fit for so few internal variables and only one external forcing.

      00

  • #
    janama

    We have to understand that there is a plethora of University people whose existence depends on climate change being real. They have created whole departments within our universities called Dept of Climate change, Institute of Climate Studies, Centre for Climate Knowledge etc who depend on this myth. Without it they have no access to funding, no reason to exist.

    Like Will Steffen’s Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

    They will fight this out to their last dying breath. Their salaries depend on it!

    10

  • #
    Andrew

    On the bright side, since Sandy (a routine, if rather large, storm) caused such expensive damage then it’s rational to allocate money to storm surge walls. In fact, New Orleans probably wishes they spent a bit more.

    If CAGW lies are the Trojan horse to spend $1bn to save $30bn next time, good. Likewise some upgraded roads in Qld – elevating them so they don’t wash away each time.

    But I suspect this is just a way for the fraudsters to have two goes. Collect on carbon taxes, and then again on mitigation taxes.

    00

  • #

    Well, perhaps Gore and others have seen the writing on the virtual wall! At the G8 meeting currently underway, U.K. PM David Cameron (who’s the G8 President for this year) has kicked “climate change” off the agenda. He, too, may have seen the writing on the virtual wall – of a UN sponsored “Global Survey”:

    <shameless plug alert>

    NEWSFLASH! Action on climate change voted bottom of world’s priority heap

    00

  • #
    klem

    I don’t know, $20 billion over 10 years sounds like alot of money but in reality it isn’t that much. The money is to be spent on NYC infrastructure, a lot of workers will be hired, some mafia people will get rich off it as usual, but overall it sounds like another stimulus plan to me. Presently NYC is building an underground water pipe that will cost $6 billion alone. I don’t consider $20 billion spent on infrastructure to be a big deal. Besides, over 10 years the budget for NYC is about $750 billion.

    00

  • #
    Dan Pangburn

    Andrew McRae – The equation relates to global conditions. El Nino is only one of several named and unnamed ocean surface temperature oscillations. It’s the net effect of all of them acting simultaneously that is approximated by the (A,y) factor. Note that the oscillations contribute no energy and thus no change to true average global temperature. They are included in the equation only to account for the fact that reported average global temperatures use surface or near-surface measurements.

    Ocean oscillations and uncertainties are discussed further on page 1 at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html.

    The graph on page one of http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html is a co-plot of several measures of CO2 and NOAA temperature anomaly. This shows a steady progressive increase in CO2 even during the temperature decline trends from about 1880-1910 and 1940-1975,

    All coefficients were adjusted alternatively and repeatedly to find the absolute maximum R2. Any change to C making it different from the value thus derived would reduce R2. The equation was calibrated using measurements from 1895-2012. Prior to that involves temperature measurements of greater uncertainty. Projections assume that the drivers won’t change much but uncertainty in projected average global temperature increases with increasing time.

    10

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Yes good point about the ocean oscillations. Thanks for that.

      All I can really say about the CO2 and temperature in the ice cores is that climate science is plagued by a lack of accurate data. :)

      Also, yeah, I hadn’t quite understood the significance that this was a multi-variable optimisation on correlation, so fiddling the value of C isn’t going to help.

      There would have to be some other factor/variable introduced to close the 1880s gap. A non-solar source of the Svensmark effect could do it, but that is usually seen as such a very low power level changing so slowly that it doesn’t fit the glove.

      I’m kinda out of ideas there.
      Good luck with the projections though. It is probably only 5 or 7 years before the downturn becomes obvious and there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind that CO2 is weak and the natural cycles, such as this model, are still determining 90% of climatic change.

      00

  • #
    llew Jones

    Laugh along with Roy Spencer.

    …..Along with the fluctuations in ice abundance in each individual sea from year to year, in late years a most interesting phenomenon has been observed – a warming of the Arctic, as evidence by a gradual and universal decrease in ice abundance. The main evidence of this general warming of the Arctic are:….”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    00

  • #
    Crabby

    They will never give up! They, as in Governments and Scientists, want to control everything they can get their Grubby Hands on! Through ripping off and then spending TOO much of our Taxes, they create Deficits and Debt like drunken Sailors. The AGW, Climate Change, “Insurance” and whatever else they want to call it, they will never give up ripping us off till the cows come home. The reason being they want to look after their mates and then they concentrate what’s left on us and there generally isn’t enough left for us to make do on.

    At least in Australia we have the opportunity to kick out the Socialists and put the Gravy Train on hold for a while. I am a carer for my 2nd wife and while it’s a bit tough, we make do and even have some fun once in a while.

    00

  • #
    Backslider

    Yet more nonsense from John Cook:

    The planet has been building up temperatures at the rate of four Hiroshima bombs of heat every second, and it’s all our fault

    Climate change like atom bomb

    I would like to ask John exactly how he measured that…..

    00

    • #

      Perhaps more important, who gave him a degree in Physics and why are we listening to him since he clearly states he is not a scientist (like we can’t figure that out for ourselves?). No wonder people think climate scientists are idiots—they just keep proving this over and over and over. Thank goodness he had no part in the building of the bomb. What an idiot.

      00

  • #
    RWTH

    FYI Jo. The indoctrination of leadership… well Tim Fischer at least. See: http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2013/s3787449.htm

    TIM FISCHER: I did briefly, with John Moore – West Wing, famous meeting, 45 minute with Al Gore and we had a 40 minute lecture on climate change, on the violent weather that the world is going to be facing, and horrific advent of extreme weather – tornadoes and storms and the like.

    00