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

An offer I couldn’t refuse… Jo Nova gets outfoxed

UPDATE: This is just overwhelming. Amazing! New donations are coming in from the UK, Canada, France, Austria, New Zealand, Germany. Brilliant. Brilliant. Every bit counts. Thanks Anthony Thanks Jaymez.!

UPDATE #2: Donations (this random moment 9pm EST) are coming in the last hour from Columbus, OH; Lower Plenty, Victoria; Multi Way London; Newtown, New South Wales; Kew, Victoria; Aurora Ontario; Albion, QLD; Hollola Finland; Belmont, Western Australia; Sawston Cambridge, UK; Point Lonsdale, Victoria; Ermington, New South Wales; Witham, Essex UK; Marrickville, New South Wales; Ascot, Berkshire UK; Belair, South Australia; Oslo Norway; Tatura, Victoria ; Oxley, Queensland; Point Cook, Victoria; Stewarton, East Ayrshire UK …  I’m lost for the right word.

At this rate we might make the target Jaymez set.

UPDATE #3: Good news we are well over the half way  mark. I’m really delighted, thank you.

UPDATE #4!! Great news, we have claimed the full bonus from Jaymez. (Thank you! I owe a lot of people an email. I did not expect it to be reached so soon. :-)   Extra mention goes to donors to the NAB account, I have no way of identifying or thanking some of you personally (unless you email, please!). It all makes a big difference, and is support for us over the next few months. If you haven’t yet made a contribution, please don’t stop, the extra funds  are still very useful too — in the long run, we need to find a way to fund ongoing independent analysis, research and commentary in a more sustainable way. Any government will grow until something stops it. What stops it?  We, the people.  –  Jo

———————————–

I received a strongly worded email today from a long time loyal reader complaining that he almost missed this request which I placed at the bottom of yesterdays post.

Our bank account is looking very low. All contributions would be gratefully received. Thanks

   *    *   *

He claimed that hardly anyone would have seen it, and while I think I’m getting a great response, he thinks I’m crazy. He knows I hate asking for money (or even thinking about finances), but he also knows I work full time and despite the claims, big oil isn’t sending cheques, and there are no government grants to fund someone to fill in the gaps the CSIRO ($1.2b budget) and BOM ($300m) seem to miss. To cut a long story short he made an offer I just couldn’t refuse. I had to do a proper request for donations. He’s been ribbing me for ages to get onto it. I keep making excuses, but he’s finally outfoxed me, and in the nicest possible way.

This time, to ensure that I did so he made the extraordinary offer of giving me a dollar for every $4 I raise in the next week to a maximum of $5,000 (hypothetically if I was to raise $20,000). So any support you can give me would be gratefully received (and amplified by 25%). It will help me to keep not-thinking-about-money and think about corruption-in-science or getting logic-into-schools or trying to reduce your tax bill instead.

Indeed, it’s really just about our freedom to say what we think and the kind of civilization we want to leave for the kids.

I would love to claim the whole $5,000 he is offering, because it will be very useful (just wait ’til you see what’s been cooking around here). Just wait!

As Jaymez says: “So there is your challenge Jo! Now you have no excuse.”

Shucks, Thanks Jaymez.

Wow. Just wow.


For those who want to“buy” $1 units of chocolate support.  (Click on the currency button, and write in the quantity).

Deposit / Chq button

…or visit the Donations page.

Hate Paypal? There are alternatives (Deposit & Cheques button).

Why this odd arrangement? Would you believe — the Australian government say that I need permission from them to accept “donations”. (It might be your money, but you can only donate it to a Registered Charity.) So instead of accepting “donations” I’m “selling” units of $1 emergency chocolate support (for me) of which you may purchase as many as you want.


PS: For anyone wondering, Jaymez is not a magnate, not a wealthy businessman, and not in the fossil fuels industry. He spends some of his time working pro bono in developing countries. He writes that he “understands better than most how restrictions on industrial growth will impact the poorest in the world.”

PPS: I owe some other thank yous still.  They’re coming.

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (111 votes cast)
An offer I couldn't refuse... Jo Nova gets outfoxed, 9.4 out of 10 based on 111 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ogg56fa

273 comments to An offer I couldn’t refuse… Jo Nova gets outfoxed

  • #
    Keith L

    I do not know who this Jaymez character is but I have formed a fearsome and irrational feeling of intense rivalry with him!
    This is nothing to do with Jo or Climate Change or propagating the truth, this is pure primitive instinctive rivalry handed down from generations of cavemen. With clubs!
    I intend to cost him money!!
    GRRRRRR!!!!

    200

  • #
    MaxL

    Thank you Jaymez

    111

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Good on you, Jaymez, that’s putting your money where your mouth is big time. I hope you’ve clocked that Jo’s blog is global – it’s not 22.000,000 folk you’re divvying up to, it’s 7 BILLION. I’d consider a stop figure if I were you, nobody here will think any the worse of you. Jo, My pony’s in the pixels.

    81

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Kevin,

      I read “putting your money where your mouth is big time” as something quite different the first time around.

      50

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Shouldn’t have sped read the post. Sorry jaymez. Do you have your own pot for your projects in the third world we can fling funds at?

      —-
      I shall ask if I can release some details. Certainly the one I know of sounds excellent… – Jo

      60

  • #
    Truthseeker

    OK, money sent. When do I get my chocolate?

    50

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Jo. PayPal’s wibbled and told me that it can’t accept the transaction atm. Any problems your end?

    30

  • #
    janama

    Well we must understand that poor Jo lives with an academic which means he probably mops around the house feeling dejected because he just got knocked back for his job application to teach mechanical engineering 10.5 at the local TAFE for being overqualified. Then there’s the two brats who are constantly pestering her as to the location of their ipads and what’s for dinner and are we there yet.
    on top of that she has to put up with constant emails from her precocious site members who want to know why they were banned for calling another precocious site member a $%@*&^)(&*. Meanwhile she battles on and manages to produce the best skeptic website on the world wide web so I feel sorry for her occasionally and throw her some trinkets – makes her and me feel appreciated.

    [I know 'brats' was meant in the nicest sense of the word. Jo has three lovely and very active Children, a boy and two girls and they wish they had ipads! As Jo's very overqualified husband is also a well known skeptic, I'm not sure an Australian Academic institution would employ him given that it is seen as ok here for Academics to demand skeptics be blocked from speaking at our Universities. :) - Mod]

    150

  • #
    Raven

    Well done Jaymez.

    Like most men, I know nothing about the fairer sex but instinctively undersand it’s just not worth getting between a woman and her emergency chocolate support.

    In terms of memorable moments, it was surely the stunned look on the face of Anna Rose – “I Can Change Your Mind About Climate”.
    More power to you, Jo.

    No all i have to do is think up a plausible explanation for that “JOANNE” line item on my credit card without looking like Craig Thomson . . . ;-)

    Raven, thanks, will it help if I send you a paper on say, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation? – Jo

    130

  • #
    Jaymez

    Hi All,

    I am fortunate because I live in Western Australia I have had the opportunity to meet Jo Nova and her husband, Dr David Evans, at various presentations and functions including the anti-carbon tax rally. Like many of you I have been a long admirer of the fantastic work Jo is doing and am grateful for the resource she provides. I learn a lot from Jo, and from other contributors at this site.

    It is frustrating to me that so many people have been feeding off the Climate Change gravy train, yet despite the accusations from alarmist’s such as Flannery, Hamilton, Lewandowsky and many others, prominent skeptics like Jo Nova and David Evans do not reap financial rewards for standing up to the alarmism. On the contrary it is career and financially limiting, and attracts scorn from many quarters.

    Through all of this Jo’s determination and scientific accuracy hasn’t waned, which is remarkable for someone who comes from a Greens political background! :)

    Jo has received bouquets from the best known skeptics in the world and her material has been quoted by politicians and journalists. But that doesn’t pay the bills or put food on the table.

    I know Jo is terrible at asking for money and the only time she really did so was when she had absolutely no choice – her computer blew up and she couldn’t continue working without a replacement. Thankfully her supporters came through for her on that occasion.

    I know Jo has some regular and occasional ‘chocolate’ contributors, myself included, but that doesn’t give her any breathing space for when the car breaks down or the plumbing needs repairing. Jo wont say this. So I decided to force her to do something about it! I hope it works and I hope you guys can make sure I have to hand her a cheque for $5k!

    I am comfortable financially, but I am not wealthy, $5k is important to me, but so is the job that Jo Nova is doing for us.

    840

    • #
      Michael P

      I’d love to have the privilege of meeting Jo face to face. Unfortunately distance is rather a handicap for me,but I can but hope.

      50

      • #
        Jaymez

        Jo is a lively, intelligent, and unassuming person with a lovely smile and three gorgeous, polite children.

        110

  • #
    Jaymez

    As requested, here is some information on the projects in Cambodia:

    I provided some funds to establish a couple of very basic schools in Cambodia, one in Siem Reap near the World Heritage Listed Angkor Wat Temple area, and another at a village nearby called Anlung Pi. Between them they have about 600 students all from poor local families.

    Without these schools, these children would not receive even a basic education. The facilities are quite rudimentary and of course we are looking to improve them over time. One of the schools is on leased land though, so we are being careful not to put too much effort into those buildings until we can secure a permanent site.

    Most ongoing funding is provided from overseas donors like myself. There is about US$1.20 per month per child in funding from the Cambodian Government.

    The students are taught literacy in their Khmer language and in English to enhance their future employment prospects. There is also some Japanese taught to gifted students as Japanese tourism is growing dramatically. We recently also set up a small rice and fish farm with ducks to teach agricultural and husbandry skills and to provide food and an income for the community.

    All of this is done on an incredibly lean budget. Most of the teachers have other jobs because they couldn’t survive on the income from the school. Some teachers are past students who have gone on to university. We sponsor a number of students to attend college and University. If you ever go to Siem Reap and are in the VIP lounge at the airport it will likely be managed by one of our graduates Sreymao Sok. That is a huge achievement for a girl from the country, because in Cambodia there is still very much a ‘class’ divide, despite the war, Pol Pot and all that.

    There is a very cheap, well run clean air-conditioned guest house near the Siem Reap school which has double rooms for just $17/night. But 5 star resort hotels in Siem Reap can be got for US$100/night. That is a month’s salary for many locals.

    Everyone should see the Angkor Wat Temples sometime in their lives. there are actually abour 1,000 temples in the area from the very small to the 13 major ones built for a series of ruling kings over many centuries.

    If you do go, take some extra time and visit the school. They always welcome visitors. If you would like to volunteer to work there helping the teachers teach conversational English to young children, or if you just want to pitch in around the school, that would be greatly appreciated. Normally volunteers would stay for a minimum period of a week.

    It has NGO status in Cambodia, but doesn’t attract tax deductible status in Australia. But you get so much bang for your buck with these schools and students, that doesn’t matter. For example the operational budget for each school is under US$20,000 pa. So if you can sling some money their way it will make a huge difference.

    I will be there from 18th – 23rd March meeting with the Director, Togh Main to discuss long term plans and ways we might further improve self sufficiency. We are also looking at significantly expanding the agricultural programme.

    The primary web site with donation link for Pay Pal, (or Bank transfer details for Aussies) is here: http://vdca-cambodia.org/

    If you are interested in following the work going on, join the Director Togh Main’s Facebook Page here: https://www.facebook.com/togh.main

    Pictures from the Rice/Fish farm project here: https://www.facebook.com/RiceFishFarmProject

    270

    • #
      Oldseadog

      Jamez,
      If you contact your local Rotary Club they may be able to access funds that might help your project. It is just the kind of thing that Rotary International does well, although the red tape may take some time to unravel.

      30

    • #
      Geoffrey Cousens

      Ahh;education.Well done!

      00

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    Jo – The Tip Jar $US at the bottom of your post did not take me to the usual donation screen , ittook me to a PayPal login with no donation option. I has to use the Tip Jar in the side panel to buy chocolates.

    —-
    Thanks for being persistent. Sigh. I’ll look into it! Jo

    30

  • #

    Thank you! The response is exciting, this is really helpful. I see many familiar names…

    Thanks to Jaymez for the prod, the creativity and the incentive.

    30

  • #
    u.k.(us)

    Colin Henderson

    March 13, 2014 at 2:47 am · Reply

    Jo – The Tip Jar $US at the bottom of your post did not take me to the usual donation screen , ittook me to a PayPal login with no donation option. I has to use the Tip Jar in the side panel to buy chocolates.
    =====
    It did the same to me, I took the same route and ended up buying some chocolates.
    I only wish I could have bought more.

    30

  • #
    BernardP

    I would like to give via PayPal, but without registering on PayPal. There is away to do it. You can use Paypal as a “conduit” for a credit card, without registering. I use it for other donations and purchases.

    Here is an example from the SOMA-FM web site: (hope it works)

    https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=OeUQnt7ZkRgg_jwJ1RetQOMiFDRRcbyQwWWrFAbE-tg390WPOPNYV0dC01O&dispatch=50a222a57771920b6a3d7b606239e4d529b525e0b7e69bf0224adecfb0124e9b61f737ba21b081982546798d23b9808f2b0faaf533a5dbe5

    20

  • #
  • #
    BernardP

    OOPS again… Paypal seems to have recently changed its policy, as it is no longer possible to donate without creating a PayPal account.

    ————————-
    Thanks for trying Bernard. Paypal is …sigh… what paypal is. Unfortunately it is difficult to get money overseas, and for those already using it, it’s not a bad system. Otherwise it is amazing how far people post letters and what comes in them. Direct deposit is possible too, though charges make it inefficient for amounts under 3 digits. Cheers, Jo

    00

  • #
    NIc

    Since you ask – Of course I will donate.

    Keep up the good work.

    20

    • #
      Nic

      I should think before hitting submit.

      You must tell us how many countries your donors come from.

      [Good question Nic. I know we have comments from all round the globe! I'm sure Jo can do that. - Mod]

      30

  • #
    Nic

    BTW – the link at the bottom of the post is not the right one.

    Go to the Tip Jar link in the top right.

    10

  • #
    The Griss

    Jo, looks like I may have picked up a little job tapping directly into climate funding.

    Yes seriously, its with the guys up at UNSW. Quite a laugh actually :-)

    Friends in all the wrong places, one could say. Being a hons-1 maths alumni helped a bit too.

    (gunna have to keep my mouth closed, and my cape and mask handy, hey).

    Funding will probably start early to mid April, and although I have some bill catching to do, I will make sure some of it comes your way.

    80

  • #
    Meghal

    Try putting your bitcoin address.

    30

  • #
    scaper...

    A well known Australian is very passionate about the plight of Cambodian children. Doesn’t cost much to give a child a hand up and the person has done exactly that for whole villages.

    And the left says that this person is a scrooge with money. Could relate other instances of the person donating to other causes but the person prefers to donate anonymously.

    If every reader donated a little I’m sure the total would carry Jo through. I’ve got an elephant tusk sitting in the corner gathering dust. Will hock and donate.

    40

  • #
    TimiBoy

    There you go, thanks Jo. Don’t get fat now! We need you fit and strong to keep up the good Work.

    20

  • #
    Glen Michel

    Jo, your work is appreciated and I will donate as soon as I withdraw my support to Greenpeace,WWF!! Cheers

    30

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    I did see Jo’s request, but my round tuit hadn’t yet arrived. Sorry Jaymez, I hope this doesn’t hurt too badly.

    30

  • #
    JenJ

    “there are no government grants to fund someone to fill in the gaps the CSIRO ($1.2b budget) and BOM ($300m) seem to miss”

    Yes there are.
    http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/default.htm

    The problem is, they only give grants to people who are actually doing research. “Running a blog” doesn’t qualify.

    218

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … they only give grants to people who are actually doing research. “Running a blog” doesn’t qualify.

      Yes, strictly speaking, that is correct.

      But the Australian Research Council will always consult with, “Australian and international experts”, prior to making a grant.

      These “Australian and international experts” are hardly likely to recommend the approval of grants that will go contrary to the thrust of their own work, and thereby diminish the pool of available funding, are they?

      Funding, or lack thereof, is just one of the ways in which Government and Government Agencies maintain the status quo they prefer.

      170

      • #

        I would expect that these “Australian and international experts” would find a research proposal that goes against the mainstream very interesting. That that would be a plus. It should still be of good quality to compete with all the others.

        But if you think not, why not ask Big Oil directly for funding? They have many researchers themselves and fund a huge amount of research. Pre-competitive research in geology and technology. A large part of university funding comes from industry.

        If Big Oil gave it only a minimal probability that your research would lead to an interesting challenge that could prove mainstream science wrong, they would fund it. It would pay off enormously, because they have a lot to lose from the current understanding. From this I conclude, that not even Big Oil believes blog science.

        [Victor you are clearly not familiar with the common stories of skeptical climate scientists being hounded from office or having their funding withdrawn or careers ended. Read here, here, href="http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-and-corruption-of-peer-review/" >here, here,

        We have seen the reaction of the warmist activists to any suggestion that Big Oil or any Industry or any political party provides any funding to the skeptical side of the climate debate. It leads to demonstrations, calls to boycott products and services, and that's when the accusations of funding aren't even true! The relationship between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism has been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine scientific evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.

        In Australia Academics have signed petitions to stop skeptics making public presentations. So your assumption that a funding proposal from a skeptic would receive a fair hearing, or would be a reasonable market risk for a private company is naive. - Mod]

        117

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          “Australian and international experts” would find a research proposal that goes against the mainstream very interesting.

          As in the ancient curse, “May you live in interesting times”?

          You obviously do not know much about the way that funding works in the field of Climate Science in general, and in Australasia in particular.

          We are not talking about pure research, and scientific discovery. Most of that was done in the 1800′s. What we are discussing here, is Applied Science, where Governments and Corporations will fund research to achieve stated, if confidential, objectives. If you are not onboard with the objective, then you find it very hard to find funding, especially if you do not have tenure of employment at an academic institution, or within the public service.

          “Big Oil”, or industry generally, will put funding into both pure and applied research, especially when there are patents to be had, or advertising opportunities that can be exploited.

          But that is not what it is about.

          In a highly politicised public debate, such as climate variation, the questions surrounding where the funding comes from, is very important. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. Jo is successful for a number of reasons. Firstly, she is a very good communicator, and can explain complex subjects in ways that people understand. Secondly, she has built an online community of people who understand the social, political, commercial, and scientific issues. And thirdly, and most importantly, she is demonstrably independent of any funding bias. She has no ulterior motive – no hidden agenda – and she runs this site on a shoe string with the help of a few volunteers.

          She has the moral high-ground, and that is worth a great deal in public debate.

          Having explained all that, I am now confident that you will find it in your heart, to slip a few dollars into the chocolate jar, at the top of this post. Thank you.

          120

          • #

            Rereke Whakaaro, I have been able to find funding for a number of research projects by now, the last one on climate. Thus I feel I know a little how funding works in the field of Climate Science in general. From my perspective it sounds as if you are the one that does not know how science and science funding works. May I ask what your experience is? Understanding it “in general” is sufficient. Science is universal. Even if science funding would not work in Australia, that would not change the science.

            “Big Oil”, or industry generally, will put funding into both pure and applied research, especially when there are patents to be had, or advertising opportunities that can be exploited. But that is not what it is about.

            That is exactly my question. Why do they fund so much research, but none into climate science? If they thought they had good arguments and could show that mainstream science is wrong, they would make a huge amount of money by funding research on climate change. Climate change is a serious challenge to their business model.

            I do not know Jo Nova that well, but to be honest I was a bit shocked to see her moderator link to Salby and Monckton. That does not increase my confidence in this blog.

            [The link to Salby was regarding his being pushed out of a job at Macquarie University. The Monckton link was a presentation 50 academics signed a petition to demand it not proceed. These are examples of how climate scepticism is treated. Yet there are plenty of highly incompetent climate scientists, ones which have been caught acting immorally and unethically by the climate gate emails, many others whose theories have been falsified by the empirical evidence. Others who have written papers which have been so outrageously poor they have been retracted after skeptics found the obvious faults. Yet they maintain their funding and status. It is not an even playing field. -Mod]

            216

            • #
              the Griss

              “but to be honest I was a bit shocked to see her moderator link to Salby and Monckton. That does not increase my confidence in this blog”

              The fact that you are shocked, does not increase my confidence in you.

              0 + 0 = 0

              141

            • #
              the Griss

              And the fact that you link to SkS, downgrades that zero confidence level to a large negative.

              151

            • #

              Mod, you are right, it is hard to fire a scientist for bad behavior. That is exactly to make sure that scientists feel free to speak their mind and not worry about the consequences. Roger Pielke, Roy Spencer John Christy and Judith Curry can say whatever they want and are secure.

              Salby did not give his lectures. He could have given bad ones, but completely refusing to do your job goes too far.

              You are probably also right that the playing field is not even. If you are incompetent, best stick to the mainstream. If you are competent there is nothing better than making a good challenge to the mainstream. That is the fun for which one becomes a scientist.

              Monckton is not a scientist, whatever he does is not relevant to the discussion.

              As long as I do good science, I would not fear challenging the mainstream. In fact I am just working on an article like that. Almost finished. I expect that it will solidify my position as a leader in my field.

              [Climate science is extremely politicised - it doesn't equate to say engineering. The Climate gate emails proved that!

              You skipped over the fact that Academics signed petitions just to stop Monckton speaking at Notre Dame. It was nothing to do with research. No one ever worries that Al Gore is not a scientist! Salby isn't as straight forward as you make the case sound. There are plenty of Academics who aren't meeting their original arrangements - but they aren't preaching anti-establishment so that's OK. You totally ignored the DeFrietis issue and of course there are many examples other Climate scientists have spoken of about pressure brought to bear. Read Donna Laframboise's book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert (2011) which has dozens of quotes from Climate Scientists about the mistreatment is you didn't share the so-called 'consensus' view. You are living in a fantasy world, the fact is, the UN IPCC was established solely to determine the human impact of Climate, and Governments and Academic institutions are funding that bias focus which is why we have got extremely poor models of climate sensitivity now and very little advance in knowledge in natural climate variability.

              Your contention that there is little research/funding in the non-human caused climate change area, therefore climate change must be human caused is about as scientific as the UN IPCC reports! - Mod]

              115

              • #
                Heywood

                “Monckton is not a scientist, whatever he does is not relevant to the discussion.”

                Hi Victor,

                The above line is merely Argumentum ab auctoritate. Surely Monckton’s argument and presented information is more important than his qualifications or lack thereof?

                91

              • #

                Heywood, for the discussion about the influence of government funding on scientists, I would see self-funded non-scientists not as relevant.

                110

              • #
                mobihci

                science is following the path of idiocracy quite well. its a popularity contest, or who has the most votes for the next ‘truth’, which is what the precautionary principle is based upon. the peer review system makes sure this system is upheld.

                the left side of the spectrum (teachers/youth/students/arts/creativity/sales/acting etc) do popularity well.
                the right side of the spectrum (engineers/geology/electrical/physics/construction/scientists etc) do NOT do popularity well, but they are experts at science (logic).

                progress in this modern world has afforded the left a lot more freedom to expend into fields that they are not established in, nor should be. you cannot ‘create’ truth, it either is or isnt and science is there to find it, not create it.

                eg the models have failed, so that is that, it is obvious that our understanding of the feedbacks and sensitivity etc are just not close enough to draw anything from and any reasonable, logical and morale ethical scientist will call them for what they are. they cannot be used, yet here we have our governing bodies still using them!

                when someone says that they are all for science, and then turn around and proclaim that the current level of knowledge is worth acting on, then you know for a FACT that they are not scientists, they are salesmen, politicians, activists or just plain against the truth being found.

                50

            • #

              Adaptive parameterisation schemes enable more physical parameterisations by splitting the computation in a more physical calculation and an adaptive (statistical) generalisation.

              I think that this guy is into drawing elephants with swinging trunks.

              41

              • #

                That was the initial reaction of almost all my colleagues. My professor thankfully said: prove them wrong. I proved them wrong and wrote two articles about it. No problem with getting them accepted, no matter how strange the initial idea, because the results were clear.

                [Good for you Victor. But that is not the experience of most skeptical scientists working in the politicised activist area of Climate Science. - Mod]

                17

              • #

                “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”

                John von Neumann. I’m assuming that I got only two thumbs up and a thumb down because not many people have heard it.

                30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            That is exactly my question. Why do they fund so much research, but none into climate science?

            I am sure that the Oil Companies would look at any serious proposal for funding for research into climate change. In fact they have, numerous times, on the alarmist side.

            But you ignored my paragraph that started: “In a highly politicised public debate, such as climate variation, the questions surrounding where the funding comes from, is very important. He who pays the piper, calls the tune.” Was that deliberate, or merely oversight?

            If Jo, or any of the other reputable skeptics, received funding through vested interest channels, then the alarmists would use that fact to denigrate her, or them, ad hominem.

            Standing apart from any suggestion of corporate funding, from any source, and relying solely on public donations, gives her moral standing that she could not buy.

            So, speaking of donations into the chocolate fund … ?

            71

            • #

              But you ignored my paragraph that started: “In a highly politicised public debate, such as climate variation, the questions surrounding where the funding comes from, is very important. He who pays the piper, calls the tune.” Was that deliberate, or merely oversight?

              My apologies, I wanted to focus on the main question, why do fossil fuel companies not fund alternative climate science and show that the mainstream is bad science. My answer is: because it is good science and they know it.

              To answer your question, I do not experience the scientific discussion as high polarized. I know many scientists that are climate “skeptics”. In fact last year I was working for one. Funded by the local Academy of Sciences, which is dominated by economists and funded by big coal. In all the decades this project was running no bug in mainstream science was found. And everyone is on speaking terms.

              Last year, I again visited the International Meeting on Statistical Climatology. It is sometimes jokingly called the climate skeptic meeting, because many of the organizers are climate skeptics. It is a good conference, worth visiting and I did not notice any bad vibes anywhere.

              It was only when I started blogging and thus got into contact with the hostile highly politicised public debate. Within all sciences there are groups that do not get along. As far as I can judge this is not worse in climate science and also not along political lines.

              I am a scientist and do not work for a funding agency, thus I do not have an inside view. If your project is directly funded by a company, you may experience some pressure to come up with results the company likes. If the results are not to their liking, they may not fund you again. This may bias the presentation of the results a little, I would personally not risk my reputation to state something that is wrong and would prefer to look for another funding opportunity instead.

              Most of the funding comes from the government. Some of it via programs, some of it via various science foundations. The government has influence on the topic of these programs. In case the money flows via the science foundations, they do not even have that influence. The government has little influence on the outcome. Reviewers from the scientific community judge the soundness of the proposals. These reviewers and the persons making the final decision change all the time. Influence is also limited because many of these programs are one time opportunities. Once the results are there, the money is gone. One can also see how small the influence of the government is by the presidency of George W Bush. While the USA is large, this did not change climate science.

              I am not aware of any scientific articles by Jo Nova, but if her funding comes from Big Oil, I agree that that would certainly be used in the public debate. If the scientific article that is produced by this funding is sound, however, it would be taken into account by the scientific community. It would probably be viewed with more suspicion and be tested in more detail before one builds on it. However, if the arguments are solid, such scrutiny should be no problem.

              110

              • #
                Geoffrey Cousens

                In law, ‘Vic.”,ignorance is no excuse and for god’s sake stop wasting so much valuable space and time with rhetorical innuendo[learn].

                30

        • #

          Mod, short reply: None of this is relevant for the question why Big Oil does not fund research.

          My browser still states: “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”, thus I thought others could not see my comment and I wrote a longer reply at my blog.

          [Victor at your blog you wrote, "I expect that a proposal that challenges the mainstream would have more chances of being funded. Is anything more beautiful fundamental research?". In a perfect world you would be correct. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where far too many bureaucrats, academics, scientists and politicians have staked their reputations on the 'climate consensus'. The last thing they are going to do is fund research which is going to leave them looking stupid. It will take a long while for society to back down from the position where our leaders were telling us climate change was the single greatest moral challenge of our time. Where climate scientists were telling us not one single serious scientist in the field does not agree with the scientific consensus. And any politician who questioned action on climate change was labelled a climate denier. We are nowhere near a level playing field where there is an open mind towards research finding.- Mod]

          011

          • #

            I’ll add a personal story here. I did a PhD in Emulsion polymerisation. I discovered that for my particular example, with a rarely used monomer, that the polymerisation rate and particle growth were slow but close to what was expected from modelling being done over 50 years. My supervisor made his name from computer modelling of this complex process.

            I found that if I purified the monomer more thoroughly (polymerised a quarter in bulk and then distilled the remaining monomer) that everything completely changed. The particle sizes did not continue to grow after an initial particle forming stage but formed and grew quickly to a large and constant size almost all the way to the end.

            I was threatened with being called a fraud if I tried to publish. I had not pasted a print out from the instrument in my lab book. The results were written down and dated, and the raw data was still on the instrument but he insisted that as the calibration curve was missing that I could still be called fraudulent. This is despite any calibration curve being good enough to confirm that the sizes were constant.

            I called his bluff and my career came to a shuddering halt. This is what science is about.

            90

            • #

              That is horrible. Should not have happened. I had something similar as a PhD student where my results showed an error in the work of an influential professor.

              It was not sufficiently important, so I moved on. Had it overthrown the greenhouse effect, I would have continued and would have gotten it published.

              And still, there is scientific progress in chemistry, even in polymer chemistry. Science would not work, if it depended on everyone being an angle.

              16

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Talk about “overthrowing the greenhouse effect” here is a recent post on Roger Tattersall’s blog.
                Since the fallacious “greenhouse effect” rests to a large extent on the 1896 paper of Arrhenious, there is plenty in that post for you to work with Victor.

                21

              • #

                I will not even ask if you can explain why the Earth surface is warmer than 255K. Because if there is something I have learned the last weeks, it is that it is impossible to convince people that do not believe in the greenhouse effect. Please have your informed discussion at one of these blogs I linked to.

                My life time is too precious for such utter nonsense and it is such an insignificantly small group that it is not worth it. Even mainstream climate ostriches fight greenhouse effect denial.

                Do you mean the Roger Tattersall of the pal review journal Patterns in Physics? Ouch.

                23

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                You’re a real charmer, Victor, with your multiple logical fallacies.

                22

              • #
                James Bradley

                VV,

                “My life time is too precious for such utter nonsense and it is such an insignificantly small group that it is not worth it. Even mainstream climate ostriches fight greenhouse effect denial.”

                If this is really the case then why would you even bother visiting this site or responding to those who post unless you are projecting your own insecurities about the lack of direct evidence and are merely attempting to reinforce modelled beliefs by causing some dissent… but that would be too much like opening up a forum for debate which others have tried to smother.

                21

              • #
                the Griss

                “the pal review journal Patterns in Physics”

                Its no more pal reviewed than most of the rest of climate science.

                When you get someone to review a paper, you should use someone who at least has some idea what your paper is saying.

                That leaves out all so-called climate scientists of the alarmist persuasion.

                From all reports, the actual reviewing was very thorough, something very lacking in most climate science.

                Let’s see if M.Mann puts his next paper to S. McIntyre for a review of the statistics. .. yeah. like that’d happen.

                21

              • #
                the Griss

                “My life time is too precious”.. roflmao..

                VV is just too precious. !!

                And then you link to W. Connelly.. seriously !!

                Your credibility just dropped below ZERO…..

                21

              • #

                I wrote:

                “My life time is too precious for such utter nonsense and it is such an insignificantly small group that it is not worth it. Even mainstream climate ostriches fight greenhouse effect denial.”

                James Bradley:

                “If this is really the case then why would you even bother visiting this site …”

                The host of this site, Jo Nova, accepts the greenhouse effect:

                People are being caught by semantics. Technically, strictly, greenhouse gases don’t “warm” the planet (as in, they don’t supply additional heat energy), but they slow the cooling, which for all pragmatic purposes leaves the planet warmer that it would have been without them. It’s a bit like saying a blanket doesn’t warm you in bed. Sure, it’s got no internal heat source, and it won’t add any heat energy that you didn’t already have, but you sure feel cold without one. – Jo

                Thus I had not expected to have to debate such extremists here. I am not smothering discussion, but offered you two links were you can discuss this.

                My question why Big Oil does not fund research against the mainstream, can naturally be reformulated in the question why Big Oil does not fund research that rejects the greenhouse effect. The answer is even more obvious.

                You could also have a nice discussion with Jo Nova or Anthony Watts. If you manage to agree on an alternative to mainstream science, that would help the credibility of your political movement.

                the Griss, could you have the discussion on pal review with Anthony Watts? If you find a common position, I would be happy to give my opinion on it.

                13

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Thus I had not expected to have to debate such extremists here

                That sounds like the “science is settled” to me.

                I am not an “extremist” simply because I don’t buy your poppycock about a phenomenon that is science fiction.

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                “I would be happy to give my opinion on it.”

                And why would be interested in your opinion ??????

                00

              • #
                the Griss

                So.. since you keep referring to Jo and Anthony as what we should believe, I assume you think they are correct about everything.

                Jo and Anthony thank you very much. :-)

                Welcome, fellow skeptic :-)

                10

              • #
                Winston

                VV,

                You are a somewhat disingenuous person in your attempt to paint everyone who comments here as a “denier” of the Greenhouse effect, a deliberate ploy of misdirection I believe and not really an honest attempt to engage as you pretend to portray. But, what else is new, as every alarmist who has ever ventured here seems only to have ever done so to provide a snatch of soundbite offerings to attempt to deliberately muddy the waters or impugn the motivations of those who have the temerity to disbelieve the very nascent applied “science” of climate science.

                A number of people here believe in the “reality” of the greenhouse effect, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the planet. Many of those however do not believe that the evidence supports a positive feedback loop with water vapour that amplifies this minor warming effect. The evidence for this occurring in a real atmosphere, rather than a virtual one, is almost non-existent and belief in this on the behalf of alarmists is a religious “eye of faith”, not an objective scientific observation.

                Some like myself, consider that the greenhouse effect, if it exists at all, is poorly understood (does it truly back-radiate or does it thermalise) and relies more (in a planetary atmosphere sense) on the heat trapping qualities of H20 and its unique phase changing abilities. Also, that any effect that CO2 has in this regard is relatively minor, that any anthropogenic effect is therefore tiny, and that net feedbacks in the system are more likely to be negative, especially as CO2 no doubt facilitates stratospheric radiative cooling AND quite possibly also to some extent increases convective heat transport in the atmosphere in ways which climatologists are blissfully unaware, and have yet to model accurately.

                Those that don’t believe the greenhouse effect is real are entitled to their opinion, since it has yet to be demonstrated experimentally in an uncontained atmosphere, and the fact that people believe this is tolerated here because the science is NOT settled on the issue and diversity of opinion is welcome (as it should be), in spite of your protestations to the contrary. In fact some of the most vigorous defenders of the greenhouse effect are denizens here (e.g Andrew McRae and our hostess for example), and they don’t require negating the greenhouse effect’s existence to be wholly skeptical that the putative catastrophic outcomes advocated by alarmists are completely without factual support, and are more reflective of political advocacy than true scientific adherence to principles.

                In the end, it doesn’t matter what anyone here believes, it is what your alarmist friends can prove, and what proof you have is not at all convincing as you claim.

                42

              • #

                Winston:

                “You are a somewhat disingenuous person in your attempt to paint everyone who comments here as a “denier” of the Greenhouse effect, a deliberate ploy of misdirection I believe and not really an honest attempt to engage as you pretend to portray.”

                If we have to go this way, I hope you will excuse me for writing that you are a somewhat disingenuous person in your attempt to act as if I claimed that every who comments here is a denier of the greenhouse effect. What I wrote was is the complete opposite:

                “I had not expected to have to debate such extremists here”

                Winston:

                In the end, it doesn’t matter what anyone here believes, it is what your alarmist friends can prove, and what proof you have is not at all convincing as you claim.

                My experience with people who deny the existence of the greenhouse effect is that it is completely and utterly irrelevant what evidence science provides. That is the reason why I prefer not to debate these people.

                the Griss:

                “So.. since you keep referring to Jo and Anthony as what we should believe, I assume you think they are correct about everything.”

                That is not a logical conclusion from my request to first try and come to an agreement with Jo and Anthony about the greenhouse effect and if I would use the same tone as Winston, I would call you disingenuous.

                13

              • #
                Geoffrey Cousens

                “Quiet Please”

                01

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                May I point out your lament:

                It was not sufficiently important, so I moved on. Had it overthrown the greenhouse effect, I would have continued and would have gotten it published.

                Arrhenious got it wrong. I was directing you to an opportunity to get your name in lights.

                Did you have a nice trip?

                10

              • #
                the Griss

                ” first try and come to an agreement with Jo and Anthony about the greenhouse effect ”

                Why ??????

                Winston has explained this very well.

                Except it…….. or don’t.

                20

              • #
                Winston

                Does everyone see what VV just did then, he got uppity about wing called out as disingenuous by trying to suggest everyone here denies the greenhouse effect, then he quotes me and then follows with a comment about people denying the greenhouse effect! Guilty as charged, Victor. So transparent.

                10

              • #
                the Griss

                “My experience with people who deny the existence of the greenhouse effect is that it is completely and utterly irrelevant what evidence science provides. ”

                And it is My experience with people who believe in the existence of the greenhouse effect is that it is completely and utterly irrelevant to them, what evidence science doesn’t provide.

                10

              • #
                Winston

                In 24.1.1.2.16 above- wing*- should read being called out as disingenuous. Sorry, hard to comment from a mobile, never tried it before and won’t again.

                My point was that Victor tried to paint us all as “extremists” -none too subtly I might add and code for “tin foil hat”, not to be trusted, proponents of way out theories, etc etc. Most of us here don’t propose any alternate theories per se, merely we remain to be convinced by the CAGW case, which is full of holes and advocating incredibly expensive and damaging non-solutions to a potential non-problem. The onus of proof is squarely on alarmists to prove the case for “action”, and to detail what that “action” would be in practical terms, what damage it would allegedly prevent, and how it would be effective in preventing any putative negative that is alleged to be consequent to it. Thus far any attempts at doing so have been pathetic, frankly. Reliant as they are on cobbling together observational apples with oranges (merging high resolution modern thermometers with low resolution proxy data for example), making supposition upon assumption upon premonition, and using every averaging and homogenising trick in the book to persuade without really having sufficient evidence or the necessary open debate required to genuinely inform and therefore convince the public, having made such extraordinary claims. The standard of evidence required for any alarmist should implicitly be commensurate and proportionate with the severity of the consequential actions it requires, but manifestly this has not been the standard by which alarmists hold themselves in this whole CAGW meme.

                I think it is important to identify just who is in denial here. There is no tropospheric hotspot as theory would dictate, there clearly hasn’t been an exponential (or even significant) rise in temperature since 1997 as predicted but rather an embarrassing lack of warming, all GCMs are running way too hot and actually diverging from observations, and with the lack of correlation of global temperature observations with model predictions actually INCREASING their confidence in their theory being the piece de resistance of denialism. So, I think it is a case of put up or shut up. If you provide convincing proof to confirm that we will be warming due to water vapour magnifying the effect of slowly rising CO2, then lets see it.

                20

              • #
                James Bradley

                VV,

                “My question why Big Oil does not fund research against the mainstream, can naturally be reformulated in the question why Big Oil does not fund research that rejects the greenhouse effect. The answer is even more obvious.”

                Yes it is obvious – Big Oil and Big Coal also own Big Gas and makes more money off the back of supplying peak-load gas fired electricity at inflated tariffs (due to Green energy policies) when solar and wind aren’t producing which is pretty much most of the time.

                Big Oil and Big Coal like Big Green Schemes because everything green is expensive and like the Big Green Schemes, Big Oil and Big Coal are not fussy who has to suffer to pay their inflated prices.

                20

              • #

                I will not even ask if you can explain why the Earth surface is warmer than 255K.

                Heat is lost from the atmosphere as LWIR. We have incoming energy from the Sun and heat transfer by convection of heat and latent heat in water vapour from the surface to the upper troposphere. The mean temperature at the equator is around 235-220K at 10-12km up (tropopause). The equatorial mean temperature on the moon is 220K. Coincidence?

                I think that you need to talk to Dougy.

                00

              • #

                Victor, I have read your first link after posting the above.

                The comments on the link are a joke. They basically agree that adiabatic lapse rate predicts the temperature gradient but say that the only disagreement with sceptics is the starting temperature, which is set by the greenhouse effect.

                Two points; 1)the effect as the IPCC describe it is heating of the surface from back radiation of the upper troposphere. This LWIR radiation doesn’t warm the surface directly. If it could make it through 10km of atmosphere, then there would be no absorption on the way up.

                This means that the temperature gradient should differ significantly from what is predicted by the adiabatic lapse rate.

                2) You get ridiculed for bringing it up in discussion by alarmists but apparently its only sceptics who don’t get it?

                You’re a propaganda whore and I hope everyone else realises now what is next on the agenda.

                00

          • #

            I hope my above comment on the funding system clears some problems. And I would like to note that your comment is very general and applies to any science. Thus your description is either wrong or scientific progress is an illusion.

            18

            • #

              That was a reply to the inline comments of the moderator. “Victor at your blog you wrote, …”

              17

              • #
                the Griss

                Here’s a challenge for you, then VV

                Come up with a scenario for a paper that challenges the AGW “meme”.. I bet you cannot get funding.

                That bet is a $50 donation to Jo.

                If you get funding within a stipulated time, I will donate an extra $50 (I intend to give $50 already, when I can)

                If you are unable to get funding, you donate $50.

                Is that fair ?

                The challenge is on.. Go for it.

                61

              • #
                the Griss

                eg, Brief abstract..

                “This paper will examine the reasons for the massive divergence of 97% of climate model projections against reality.”

                61

              • #

                Griss,

                1. If I had a good idea, I would already be working on it.
                2. That is a bad bet, even with the best idea, the chance of getting funded is way below 50%.
                3. You do not know in advance what the evidence will show. Thus you do not write a proposal that challenges AGW mainstream. You write a proposal to study a certain problem.

                19

              • #
                the Griss

                “You write a proposal to study a certain problem”

                It is a proposal to investigate a very big problem.

                In fact, one of the most major problems facing all of the climate change meme.

                52

              • #
                the Griss

                Ahh the time signature show you may not have read my second posting. Sorry about that.

                00

              • #
                the Griss

                The silence is deafening.. cicadas everywhere !

                10

              • #
                the Griss

                darn, hit the “del“. But the link still works. :-)

                00

              • #
                the Griss

                very similar to Al Gore or Flannery talking.. or HJ posting.

                11

              • #

                the Griss: “This paper will examine the reasons for the massive divergence of 97% of climate model projections against reality.”

                Just for the record. I did answer this, but while your comment is not considered off topic, my answer is. I guess I am not welcome here.

                02

              • #
                the Griss

                “1. If I had a good idea, I would already be working on it. ….tG: but you haven’t had a good idea.. ok, I understand.

                2. That is a bad bet, even with the best idea, the chance of getting funded is way below 50%……tG.. ummm.. so that is NO?

                3. You do not know in advance what the evidence will show. … tG: I have a few ideas we could look at.

                ….Thus you do not write a proposal that challenges AGW mainstream…..tG: model accuracy is very much a challenge to the climate mainstream.

                …You write a proposal to study a certain problem…… tG: see above. a very big problem.
                ——
                “but while your comment is not considered off topic, my answer is”

                What the heck are you talking about ?
                ——
                “I guess I am not welcome here.”

                That’s up to you. I certainly am not making that judgement. Just don’t expect a free ride.

                00

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              SPACER!!

              10

          • #
            Winston

            None of this is relevant for the question why Big Oil does not fund research

            Victor,
            Why would Big Oil fund research at this point in time directed against CAGW mythology? This predicates on the idea that they have anything whatsoever to lose through competition from renewables. If wind and solar were not the only cards on the table- oil companies would be mobilised against a genuine threat to it’s profitability. As the situation currently stands, those who are advocating an alarmist approach are advocating a switch to wind and solar only, which will never ever be more than a boutique niche provider of small percentage competition to their profit margin, but they know full well that the ONLY persons to suffer under the present arrangement is the consumer. They can make money investing in worthless infrastructure like windmills and solar panels, and defer any threat from genuine alternatives in the process. That’s why they have invested in such scams because they collect either way, a bit like a drug company producing a generic in competition with itself.

            I also think they hope that governments of Western democracies will become so “hooked” on the income generated from taxation from fossil fuels (much like they are currently from taxing smokers) that they will cease to function properly without this fiscal incentive, and hence we are, ironically stuck with fossil fuels even if something like cold fusion or thorium nuclear or some other genuine competitor comes along.

            In short, you make several assumptions:
            1) That oil companies aren’t gaming the system on both sides of the fence.
            2) that wind and solar are anything other than useless and that you can effectively run our modern society on them without fossil fuels.
            3) that oil companies aren’t manipulating this debate to avoid genuine alternatives ever seeing the light of day.
            4) that oil companies care whether the poor in developed countries can afford power or not, since they are charging a premium to those who can.
            5) that in a globalised world that when one market is in decline, that they can’t generate the same or higher profits in countries like India or China, with vastly higher populations and an exponentially increasing market share likely in the near future.

            50

  • #
    Hank McCard

    Good luck, Jo. PayPal worked for me …

    Keep up the good work.

    A ‘Yank’ from the state of Maine in the US.

    20

  • #
    Hank McCard

    BTW, it is 6:04PM 3/12/14 here in ME …

    10

  • #
  • #
    handjive

    Amazing Discovery.

    Earth has a secret reservoir of water, say scientists

    “Writing in the journal Nature, scientists on Wednesday said they had found an elusive mineral pointing to the existence of a vast reservoir deep in Earth’s mantle, 400-600 kilometres (250-375 miles) beneath our feet.

    It may hold as much water as all the planet’s oceans combined, they believe.

    The evidence comes from a water-loving mineral called ringwoodite that came from the so-called transition zone sandwiched between the upper and lower layers of Earth’s mantle, they said.
    Analysis shows that a whopping 1.5 percent of the rock comprises molecules of water.

    Ringwoodite is named after Australian geologist Ted Ringwood, who theorised that a special mineral was bound to be created in the transition zone because of the ultra-high pressures and temperatures there.”

    More juicy info @ link.
    . . .
    Another part of the climate puzzle un-modelled?

    30

  • #
    James Bradley

    Big money from a few is weighing down AGW debate – a little mony from many may balance it.

    110

  • #
    James Bradley

    I actually still believe a good little guy can beat a big bad guy.

    100

  • #
    Wally

    Just done a bank transfer. Avoids the Paypal fees. Enjoy the chocolate.

    50

  • #
    Heggs

    Enjoy the chocs !

    40

  • #
    pat

    thanx for the alternative methods, jo.

    abc Big Ideas has flannery Audience Q&A from Anne Summers interview. listening to what the audience laughs at is telling. children prominent in the questioning (undoubtedly understanding climate science). flannery says, if you are 7-yr-old, he has a challenge. ask your parents to show you the last electricity bill (laughs) tell them if you can save $50 of it, can you have that as pocket money (applause/laughter). we’re working on behalf of the sceptics’ children as much as our own children. i just know what is right & what we have to do:

    12 March: ABC Big Ideas: Tim Flannery
    In his first major public appearance since the government abolished the Climate Commission, Tim Flannery joined Anne Summers in conversation about the climate and other challenges to our environment..
    This is Tim Flannery’s interaction with the audience. But you can listen to the unedited conversation with Anne Summers via the link below.
    (2 COMMENTS ONLY, BOTH BY SCEPTICS)
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/tim-flannery/5291070

    11 March: Weekly Standard: Michael Warren: Harry Reid: Climate Deniers ‘Becoming Less Credible’ With Bad Weather
    “Every day that goes by, every week that goes, every month that goes by, every year that goes by … there’s more evidence of the dangers of climate change,” Reid said Tuesday afternoon, in response to a question from THE WEEKLY STANDARD. “The more climate changes, the more extreme the weather gets, and we’ve seen that in spades.”…
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/harry-reid-climate-change-deniersbecoming-less-credible-bad-weather_784618.html#

    American concern for “climate change” rates 14 out of 15:

    12 March: Gallup: Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S.
    U.S. concerns with the quality of the environment dropped in 2014
    This was the first year Gallup included “climate change” in the list of worries tested in the annual March Environment survey. Americans are less worried only about race relations than they are about climate change. The majority of Americans say they worry about these two issues “only a little” or “not at all”; more than half of Americans worry about the other 13 issues at least “a fair amount.”
    Thirty-one percent of Americans indicate that they worry “a great deal” about the quality of the environment this year, marking the lowest level of worry about the environment more broadly since Gallup began measuring this in 2001. Americans were most concerned about the environment in 2007, when 43% worried a great deal…
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

    20

  • #
    pat

    NOTE: “Critics of Lomborg argue that it does not makes sense to try to model impacts so far into the future, as there are so many variables and projects never end up where you think they are going to.”

    the writer gives no examples of these “critics”, but is referring to CAGW believers. surely this sentence is even more true for CAGW climate predictions!

    13 March: Guardian: Jo Confino: Bjorn Lomborg: the climate-centric agenda is squeezing out other issues
    Author of Skeptical Environmentalist says the climate change debate is ‘polluted with myths’
    Despite the controversy over his book the Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg is not afraid to continue ruffling feathers, complaining the global debate on global warming is “polluted with myths and wishful thinking”, arguing extreme weather events are not on the rise, that climate change will on balance benefit the world’s population until around 2070 and that a high carbon tax is misguided.
    The head of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre also warns the climate-centric agenda is squeezing out other key societal challenges that can be more easily solved, such as the nearly four million people killed annually from indoor air pollution…
    ***Critics of Lomborg argue that it does not makes sense to try to model impacts so far into the future, as there are so many variables and projects never end up where you think they are going to. He admits that predictions get more imprecise the further ahead you look but insists that economists should be thinking 100 years ahead to try to understand the implications of actions taken today…
    http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-debate-skeptical-environmentalist

    30

  • #

    My silence here indicates a form of guilt, guilt that I just cannot find a way to contribute here, and anything I say would only sound like an excuse, and that excuse is explained by perhaps a pitiful form of explanation.

    I served for 25 years in the Air Force, and that entitles me to a fortnightly Superannuation payout. I am also on a part pension as is my good lady wife, the age pension.

    So, in fact, from both of those, then just like Scrooge McDuck, I’m rolling in it.

    Well, not really.

    My Super covers the rent with a little left over. The following week, we get our part pensions, as my Air Force Super counts as an income, so both our Pensions are only a little over half the full amount. That is what we live on and pay the bills etc. We live very frugallly, and luckily, there’s only the two of us.

    That’s why I can’t contribute to Joanne’s chocolate supply, not because I don’t want to, but because I really can’t.

    I know. Excuses excuses!

    So then, lets pretend something for a minute.

    Say there was a much beloved environmental activist Greens Senator from South Australia with an extended name, who has already served one term of six years, and is now re-elected to serve a second year term. Let’s pretend for a minute that for some reason or another, this fine Senator decides not to run again at the end of this term, so the Senator will have served for 12 years all up.

    This Senator is now entitled to a fortnightly payout from the Parliamentary Super fund. That fortnightly payment will be five times higher than mine, and here I’m not taking in the added extras that will also be an entitlement, so just the fortnightly payout.

    So I served my Country more than twice the time this Senator will have, and yet the Senator receives five times what I do.

    I know I know, the Senator’s job is far far more important than mine ever was, and I’m just complaining for the sake of making an excuse to weasel out of giving something to the chocolate jar.

    I just use this as an example, because even though there might seem to be a small inequality here, we both get by as best we can on what we get, and trust me on this. Life is good!

    Well, except for the pangs of guilt anyway.

    So I offer my humble apologies here, and hope none of you think less of me for this.

    Tony.

    350

    • #
      Jaymez

      Just hold Sarah Hansen-Young to account!

      90

      • #

        *****Moderators, please remove my earlier Comment which (inadvertently) had an incorrect email address, and hey it makes me glad I have my image as my avatar, because that angry looking one is most definitely not me!

        That comment said this.

        Thank you all, and if I may offer a polite observation.

        Note how many of the usual naysayers names appear at this Thread.

        At least now we know how to make them stay away!

        Tony.

        80

        • #
          The Griss

          Yepo, ask them to actually contribute in any way at all.

          20

          • #
            James Bradley

            Don’t be too harsh in your criticism of Pro-AGW contributors.

            Clauses in their funding agreements from their very powerful, wealthy and politically resourced entities restricts any sort of balanced contribution.

            However I note that they will stoop to anything else as long as they get a free ride.

            30

        • #
          Catamon

          since you tossers brought it up, some people are picky and donate to worthwhile causes rather than the comedy channel.

          http://www.redcross.org.au/donate.aspx

          http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/

          :)

          18

          • #
            Winston

            http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/

            And then you go and blow it by linking to the comedy channel.

            20

            • #
              Catamon

              Boom Tish winnie!! You are sooooo easy. :)

              18

              • #
                the Griss

                Sooo easy ? yet you got conned into giving funds to Flannery !

                OMG, you gullible fool !! I really hope you feel it was worthwhile .. roflmao !!

                30

              • #
                James Bradley

                Yeah that million dollars is just enough to pay the year’s salaries of the five councillors and the commissioner… oh and give a few spare minutes left over to cut and paste scary stories and attach artfully balanced photographs.

                30

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            Equating a global humanitarian charity with a zombie QUANGO (Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation) is your latest fail in a never-ending stream. The Red Cross is so big that most of a donation goes in admin costs. In charitable giving, small is beautiful. Take a look at jaymez’s charity – there’s a lot of bang for your buck there.’

            40

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            And then there is you, right?

            00

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Tony. Your unselfish sharing of your knowledge of the minutiae of power generation and distribution adds far more to this blog than we who can only throw in a few shekels from time to time in support. You have absolutely nothing to apologise for, and much to be proud of, in your contributions to this blog.

      240

    • #
      The Griss

      You give of yourself and your electrical supply knowledge ..

      A very worthy donation indeed. :-)

      190

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Tony, most people would agree when I say you don’t have to explain yourself to anyone mate, just by serving your country you’ve done more than any other shiny ass leech out there regardless of the financial imbalance imposed by position.
      In fact I know your angst as many also do for the past year I’ve only had part time work due to the economic downturn and simply had nothing to give Jo as we didn’t know when the next pay was coming, but recently I have a full time job so some chocolates are on their way :)
      I don’t think we can put a price on your services to end this current madness Tony via your endless useful and honest information on power generation , so I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks and offer to shout you a drink or twelve if ever we meet.

      Cheers Yonnie.

      130

    • #
      SasjaL

      My belief is that salary levels should be guided by performance and responsibility and should be introduced at least everywhere where public and government services are provided.

      If so, …
      … the responsibility applies to extremely few politicians, if any, so no money here …
      … the consequence of the performance is that many politicians will owe money to the public …

      30

    • #
      Colin Henderson

      Tony, I have learned a LOT from your posts so I am sending a handful of chocolates to Jo on your behalf.

      80

    • #
      Nic

      Tony,

      I have enjoyed your contributions to this site.

      Now (with my tongue firmly in my cheek) do I see an Australian whingeing ?
      I thought only us POMs were supposed to do that.

      So I will put in a donation on your behalf – If you continue to make your informative comments.
      You have just put 50 into the chocolate fund.

      80

  • #
    pat

    two more Australian CAGW articles unattributed! where are these MSM pieces featuring CAGW sceptics???

    13 March: Australian: Staff Reporter: No ‘serious voice’ denies science: Tory minister
    Britain’s Conservative Party Climate Change Minister, Greg Barker, says there should be “lively debate” over how to tackle climate change but that “no serious” voice in government questions the science, the UK Telegraph reports.
    According to the newspaper, Mr Barker made the comments to the parliament’s energy and climate change select committee amid accusations some of his party colleagues were sceptics.
    “I don’t know any serious voice in government that is questioning the Climate Change Act or the overall science of climate change,” he said, while accusing the media of giving undue prominence to sceptics, reports the Telegraph. “I think the number of people who are refusing to accept that the climate is changing or that man has a role in that are diminishing and I think are given disproportionate airtime on the media,” he said…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/no-serious-voice-denies-science-tory-minister/story-e6frg90f-1226853497333

    13 March: Australian: Staff Reporter: Chief scientist attacks ‘irrational’ Ridley
    Science journalist Matt Ridley’s suggestion that the benefits of climate change will outweigh the risk is “completely wrongs”, according to UK government scientists who report to Cabinet, The Financial Times reports.
    According to the newspaper, the ideas of Ridley, the author of The Rational Optimist, were being discussed in British parliament, prompting the response from the government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Mark Walport.
    “Whilst there may be trivial benefits in some parts of the world for some of the time, the long-term direction for all of us is a negative direction,” Sir Mark said. “I understand the point he’s making but I think he’s completely wrong, unfortunately. He describes himself as a rational optimist. I’m not sure about the rational bit.”
    Meanwhile, FT adds, Sir Mark has brushed aside suggestions that governments could wait for climate models to improve before tackling climate change in an appearance at Commons to defend the IPCC’s predictions for global warming.
    “The question is, when do you take out fire insurance? If you take out your fire insurance by the time the first storey of your house is in flames, then you’re a bit late,” he said, according to the newspaper.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/chief-scientist-attacks-irrational-ridley/story-e6frg90f-1226853468472

    20

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      ” ..that “no serious” voice in government questions the science,… That’s because all the serious voices in the Conservative Party are banished to the backbenches. The are no serious voices anywhere in the Liberal Democrats at all.

      60

  • #
    pat

    Tele original, illustrated by the old stranded polar bears pic:

    12 March: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: No serious voice in government denies climate change, Greg Barker claims
    Tory climate change minister insists there is consensus behind the science of climate change, despite accusations that some of his colleagues are sceptics
    On Tuesday Mr Barker told MPs there was “increasing acceptance of the basic science of climate change” and accused the media of giving undue prominence to climate science sceptics.
    “I think the number of people who are refusing to accept that the climate is changing or that man has a role in that are diminishing and I think are given disproportionate airtime on the media,” he said.
    He said the media should not present sceptics’ arguments as “equally valid” when in fact they were a “relatively small minority amongst the climate scientist community”.
    However, he acknowledged that people were now “more ready to in particular to question the cost” of responding to climate change.
    That’s not least because, as we go up the trajectory of emissions reduction, you get beyond the low-hanging fruit, the easy wins, and you get to some more challenging and potentially costly or potentially more cost effective solutions, and that will excite debate,” he said.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10691190/No-serious-voice-in-government-denies-climate-change-Greg-Barker-claims.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    13 March: BusinessSpectator: Reuters: China cites Australia in carbon market baulk
    China is reconsidering plans for a carbon tax as local air pollution trumps concerns over climate change and some rich nations back away from imposing a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, a top official said…
    A carbon tax is increasingly controversial among lawmakers, said Zhu, adding that an environment tax would be easier to push through without carbon in the mix.
    The carbon and air pollution taxes would target mostly the same sources, and in difficult economic times China is wary of hitting companies with too many costly regulations.
    Zhu also referred to the fact that Australia, under a new conservative government, is trying to abolish its carbon tax, while a price on carbon has been blocked in the United States…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/3/13/carbon-markets/china-cites-australia-carbon-market-baulk

    30

  • #
    Reinder van Til

    Maybe Jo can take a Skrill account (previously known as Moneybookers)as well. That works better for me in Europe

    I’ll have to look into it. Thanks, – Jo

    20

  • #
    Don Gaddes

    I eagerly await your recently mooted ‘Climate Revelations’ Jo.
    However,if they contain anything to do with the ENSO Fantasy, or Decadal Oscillations, I will be ‘sceptical’ to the point of disbelief.
    After a Two Year ‘Wet’/Normal Period,the next ‘Five Year’ Dry Cycle has started over China,(circa 110 degrees East of Prime Longitude,)and will reach Australia in early January 2015. (Thirty degrees of longitude/month with the Westward orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field.)
    One Earth/Solar Year equals 360 days/degrees,or 12 Earth months. (Earth/Solar orbit.)
    One Earth/Solar Month equals 30 Earth days.(axial rotation.)
    If the Climate Council/BoM/CSIRO think this Summer was bad, wait until they experience the next Five!

    These ‘Dry Cycles’ were ‘discovered’ and a method for their exact prediction provided by Alex S. Gaddes in his work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (1990.)

    An updated version of this work (including ‘Dry Cycle’ forecasts to 2055,) is available as a free pdf from dongaddes93@gmail.com

    10

  • #
    pat

    China throwing “carbon” under the bus, and now it seems those Bonn talks are not going well:

    EU’s domestic-only climate proposal reflects global stalemate
    BONN, March 12 (Reuters) – The European Union had little choice in proposing not to outsource more of its emission cuts abroad to meet a 2030 target because the slow pace of global talks to develop new carbon markets gave it nothing to buy, a senior EU official said…
    https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4474169

    40

  • #
    AntofYJ

    I’m in. I ate some chocolate too as a show of support.

    90

  • #

    [...] http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/an-offer-i-couldnt-refuse-jo-nova-gets-outfoxed/ Rate this:Share this:GoogleTwitterFacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggEmailLike this:Like Loading… [...]

    Thanks Anthony!! – Jo

    60

  • #
    Anthony Watts

    Ping!
    Traffic coming your way.

    \–

    Brilliant! Just Brilliant – This is so useful. Thank you! -Jo

    180

  • #
    habbers

    Hi Jo, I don’t suppose a goldnerds subscription would count towards the week’s takings? I’ve been meaning to resubscribe…

    ——

    I shall have to ask Jaymez, I wouldn’t want to presume, but I like your creative thinking. – Jo

    70

    • #
      Jaymez

      I’m happy with that. Perhaps Jo needs to explain what that is.

      40

    • #
      Joe V.

      Would that GoldNerds subscription accept a Visa payment from a regular foreign Visa card (in $Au of course, or $US ) ?
      While I’ve little inclination to operate an Aussie GoldNerds account, if that would avoid all the PayPal thing and their hefty cut on foreign transactions then a CC with low foreign fees on purchases is all I’d need, and already have.
      Better still, can Jo process Visa purchases for chocolate directly ?

      20

  • #
    DaveL

    From Utah, USA, thanks for all your work, keep up the good fight!

    100

  • #
    Sean Peake

    I’m in.

    100

  • #
    DMA

    Thanks for all you do Jo.
    I would really appreciate an update on Professor Murry Salby if that fits into your efforts. His presentation was very convincing and I have not seen any credible rebuttal of it so far. I am also concerned for his well being as he was discarded by the university and possibly had his work confiscated as well.
    Thanks again

    120

  • #
    PAUL767

    Hi Joanne:

    Came over from WUWT and knowing you do good work, just had to help out. Enjoy the chocolates!

    Paul from Texas.

    120

  • #

    Jo you are a world treasure. Happy to support you in need. Please keep up the good fight.
    Craig

    80

  • #
    Skitz

    Thanks for the choccy – feel a build guilty for not loading up for a while. Happy blogging and laying waste to the eco-loons !

    90

  • #
    PapyJako

    Carry on Jo and enjoy the chocolates from Orleans, France
    :-)

    70

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    Good luck Jo.

    I know you’ll keep up the good work.

    All the best:

    Jimmy.

    80

  • #
    peter horne

    Can’t afford a lot but what I can afford, you got.

    Good luck to she who gives the clearest and most easily understood explanation of the climate sceptical position on the net.

    120

  • #
    Stefan

    Jo, glad to do something back. Greetings from Holland

    90

  • #
    pat

    Nader’s solution – form another CAGW group! antiwar dems at democracy now resort to agreeing with DoD that CAGW is a threat to “national security” – you can’t make this stuff up:

    12 March: Democracy Now: Nader on Senate’s Climate Stance
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Republicans dismissed the marathon session and called Democrats, quote, “alarmists.” This came as the U.S. Department of Defense released a new report Monday about the threat climate change impacts pose to national security…
    RALPH NADER:…They went all night, led by Harry Reid and Senator Ed Markey in the U.S. Senate, making statements about the documentation for climate change, often called global warming, and the need for congressional action. But it’s got to go way beyond that. The Congress has been an immobile bubble in this whole swelling concern around the country, involving demonstrations and picketing and some lawsuits, but it hasn’t permeated Congress…
    And the second point is this, that when you have very affluent people, like George Soros, Tom Steyer and Al Gore, who are really out front warning about climate change, when you have them, they’ve got to come and build a very powerful external lobby on Congress, where you have a hundred professional scientists, lawyers, organizers, public relations specialists descend on Congress every day in every member’s office, in the corridors, in the cafeterias, building a concern here…
    And we’re going to ask some of these affluent environmentalists to ante up and start a brand new group, so that Congress is literally as overwhelmed by people on this issue as they have been overwhelmed by the drug industry or the real estate industry or the oil industry…
    http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/12/nader_on_senates_climate_stance_insanity

    10

  • #
    pat

    no doubt this Press Club address has been all over abc, sky news, & will get multiple repeats on A-PAC, etc:

    13 March: SMH: Lisa Cox: Abbott government is putting business profits ahead of the community: Bernie Fraser
    Mr Fraser, in an address to the National Press Club, has also expressed surprise at the “brazenness and scale” of the campaign waged by the government and big business against the carbon and mining taxes.
    The chairman of the Climate Change Authority, which the government plans to abolish, said on Thursday that the debate over climate policy in Australia was now devoid of balance and maturity.
    Mr Fraser said Australia was at risk of being left behind other countries that were acting more quickly to reduce their emissions…
    Mr Fraser criticised the government’s “ongoing campaign to demonise the carbon tax” and said that as long as business and government interests were aligned, the debate about climate change in Australia would remain “lopsided for some time to come”…
    On Wednesday, former treasury secretary Ken Henry backed comments by economist Ross Garnaut that the Abbott government’s direct action policy would cost closer to $4 or $5 billion, rather than the $1.5 billion the government has predicted…
    The Climate Change Authority has called for Australia’s emissions reduction target to be increased from 5 per cent to 15 per cent by 2020.
    Mr Fraser said on Thursday the increased target was “credible and desirable” and more in line with targets being imposed by other countries, including the United States.
    Mr Fraser said the reaction from business to the proposal had been mixed and there were many small businesses who supported active policies to reduce emissions.
    “But these people while they are numerous, they’re often shouted out by larger companies and, I have to say, particularly the mining industry,” he said.
    Environment Minister Greg Hunt’s office has been contacted for comment.
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-government-is-putting-business-profits-ahead-of-the-community-bernie-fraser-20140313-34os6.html

    linked from the above – what a joker Arup is?

    13 March: SMH: Tom Arup: Tony Abbott or Ken Henry, Bernie Fraser and Ross Garnaut – who do you believe?
    Ken Henry, Bernie Fraser and Ross Garnaut are lions of Australian economics. They carry more intellectual and institutional weight then most of us mere mortals put together.
    So if they broadly agree on any course of action we should all probably sit up and listen, right?…
    Henry, Fraser and Garnaut are hardly alone in their views – most senior economists support carbon pricing as the best mechanism to cut emissions.
    And all three men are serious, economically minded people. Ignore them at your peril.
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/tony-abbott-or-ken-henry-bernie-fraser-and-ross-garnaut–who-do-you-believe-20140313-34oxf.html

    10

  • #

    UPDATE: This is just overwhelming. Amazing! New donations turning up every 3 minutes and coming in from the UK, Canada, France, Austria, Holland, New Zealand, Germany. Brilliant. Brilliant and of course, from every corner of Australia

    130

  • #
    pat

    ***love how their mission is to get across the “right” information, not necessarily the correct information:

    13 March: DailyNewsOnline NY: GO ART! presents climate change documentary
    BATAVIA — The Genesee-Orleans Regional Arts Council will present “Comfort Zone,” a new feature-length documentary exploring the effects of climate change on upstate New York, at 3 p.m. Saturday, April 12, in the Conable Technology Building at Genesee Community College’s Batavia campus.
    The film was produced and directed by upstate New York residents Kate Kressmann-Kehoe, Sean P. Donnelly and Batavia native David S. Danesh. The screening (67 minutes) will be followed by a Q&A with the filmmakers…
    “There are a lot of things here we take for granted that could be gone, and it would be a very different place,” said co-producer Kressmann-Kehoe. The film highlights how New York residents’ daily lives will be affected, from winter sports to apple picking to gardening.
    “If we take New York and we warm it up four degrees, that’s like moving it… to almost Virginia,” said Art DeGaetano, Professor of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University…
    “I used to teach my students in introductory classes that when we had climate change issues, that these were things that could take hundreds of thousands of years. We now know from the ice core records that decade time scales can be involved, which changes everything,” said John Tarduno, Professor of Geophysics, University of Rochester.
    ***Arming the community with the right information was a goal for the filmmakers.
    “I want to see us do the right thing as a society and we are not going to do the right thing if we don’t have the right information,” Donnelly said…
    “The threat to our way of life is huge. Everything we do is completely dominated by the use of fossil fuels. It’s pulling the rug out from under all of us,” said Rochester-based author Bob Siegel…
    Despite the serious topic, the film has a light touch. Viewers are coming along on a journey of discovery with the filmmakers, not being lectured at or told what to do. Humorous animated sequences provide both information and relief. The film also explores deeper spiritual and psychological dimensions of society’s responses to the issue…
    http://thedailynewsonline.com/entertainment/article_d102b78a-aa23-11e3-ae77-001a4bcf887a.html

    10

  • #
    Joe V.

    Does Jo have a merchant’s Visa account for her Chocolaterie ?
    The Chocolaterie – wicked movie ;-)

    20

    • #

      Ooo-er. No. But GoldNerds does. Only the shopping cart has preset amounts and they are not small ones. Hmmm. I might have to talk to the accountant and the webmaster about converting it to G&B’s85% or Lindt. If anyone uses that, do send an email… joanne At joannenova.com.au

      30

  • #
    Michael

    Anyone can give you a gift( or anyone except for a few legal restrictions) just not a legal donation.

    40

    • #
      Geoffrey Cousens

      This does remind of my fervent,frothing cousin Micheal Cousens,a London “defense”barrister,64.Out here in oz at xmass he bemoaned the dismantling of the magic pudding British legal aid system by the cruel and out of touch semi right wing powers that be who had managed to stop the bottomless pit legal aid [rort]funding idea.No money allowed from suspect[the defendant]sources and unlimited largess to the [cause]aggrieved in the dock.This electric car driving lawyer estimated the cost at 2 B. per annum.The point is I believe he thought that it was ok.

      00

  • #
    Freddie Stoller

    a small piece of Swiss chocolate on the way.

    60

  • #
    Cdt J-Cl Michel e.r. (Belgium)

    Hi Jo,
    Money sent. Enough for 5.6 kg famous Belgian chocolate.

    60

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Please accept my modest donation as an apology from the Climate Establishment for all the damage they have achieved on the altar of bad science to achieve absolutely nothing useful.

    Guys*, puffing your own egos and feathering your own nests, is not considered achieving anything useful.

    * Refers to those high profile individuals profiteering from the Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Shift

    100

    • #
      speedy

      Peter

      It seems humility is a rare trait amongst the warm-mongerers.

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      60

      • #
        Peter Miller

        Thanks Speedy

        This should serve to remind us all that the alarmist establishment outspends the sceptics by at least 1,000 to 1.

        Just imagine what we could achieve if this figure fell to 50 to 1!

        Nevertheless, the alarmists are losing the argument, only the goofiest of politicians accept what they say – step forward Rudd, Cameron, Milliband, Davey & Obama. What a motley crew represent the West’s leaders, no wonder Putin is running rings around them.

        30

  • #

    Donations (this random moment) are coming in the last hour from Columbus, OH; Lower Plenty, Victoria; Multi Way London; Newtown, New South Wales; Kew, Victoria; Aurora Ontario; Albion, QLD; Hollola Finland; BELMONT, Western Australia; Sawston Cambridge, UK; Point Lonsdale, Victoria; Ermington, New South Wales; Witham, Essex UK; Marrickville, New South Wales; Ascot, Berkshire UK; Belair, South Australia; Oslo Norway; Tatura, Victoria ; Oxley, Queensland; Point Cook, Victoria; Stewarton, East Ayrshire UK …
    lost for the right word.

    70

  • #
    speedy

    Jo

    And did I hear correctly that you’ve been nominated for a Bloggie or three?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    40

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Thank Anthony for alerting me to your need, I hope you meet your goal

    60

  • #
    meltemian

    Donation coming from Greece via the UK.
    Sorry it’s not nearly as much as you deserve but my finances are pretty much the same as Tony’s….and I’m not nearly as useful!!

    90

  • #
    John Abbott

    Why not get a job and stop being so lazy?

    [If only climate alarmist could work as hard as Jo Nova, we wouldn't have them insisting the science was settled when it clearly isn't! - Mod]

    128

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      I believe you’ve missed/sarc off your comment. Either that or you’re off your rocker.

      70

      • #
        Peter Miller

        Probably both.

        We have to remember that the amount of vested interests in keeping the CAGW myth alive are huge. This is probably just a minor pathetic instance of this.

        50

      • #
        James Bradley

        The vested interets keeping the CAGW myth alive are neither minor or pathetic – the vast resources required to shut down world wide CAGW debate in all forums is beyond reason and logic if, in fact, those vested interests actually had the science settled.

        The fact that the global shut-down of all CAGW debate is so over the top is proof enough that that big reputations and even bigger money are pushing the pro-CAGW agenda that personal and finacial interests are being advanced rather than the public good.

        20

    • #
      Nic

      She does have a job.
      She presents climate science information and hosts a forum that allows discussion.

      We pay her for this.

      Just as I would pay for a cinema ticket or to hear a lecture or buy a newspaper or buy a book.

      It is a real job. The difference between hers and yours is that you get paid a fixed fee for just turning up each day.(Apart from paid holidays, and when you have “man-flu” or a hangover and claim to be sick).

      80

      • #
        James Bradley

        People don’t buy climate consensus.

        Jonova supplies a product that people do buy.

        20

      • #
        Karen

        So which science Journal do I find her “work” in?

        Or is it only available on the internet where you can basically say whatever you like?

        02

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          So which science Journal do I find her “work” in?

          There is no rule or regulation that says that all research must be published in a recognised Science Journal. At one time, Science Journals were the only way to distribute research findings. But that has all changed. The internet has the largest circulation of working scientists and engineers, imaginable. The only people who cling to the old publishing principle are a) the editors and publishers of the “Official Journals”, and b) those scientists who crave the kudos of seeing their name on a piece of paper, in a magazine.

          Or is it only available on the internet where you can basically say whatever you like?

          The internet has the largest resource of peer review you can imagine, so you can’t “basically say whatever you like”, without appearing a fool. Jo gets support from her readers, because she encourages debate, such as this. I personally think it is very healthy, because it cuts through the elitism, and it also provides a measure of understanding to the educated and interested lay-person.

          Also, in a recent survey on this site, contributors were asked to state their discipline and their qualifications. A significant number are scientists or engineers, who come here because they are tired of the fantasies woven around climate “science” (previously known as Global WarmingTM).

          20

        • #
          Mark D.

          Karen says:

          So which science Journal do I find her “work” in?

          Firstly, do you have something to counter comments here by Jo ? Or are you just working off of a tangent of argument from authority?

          Or is it only available on the internet where you can basically say whatever you like?

          Yeh sure, like many warmists, you’d love to restrict free speech wouldn’t you? Perhaps you’d like to selectively eliminate people you disagree with?

          10

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Which journal do we find your common sense in?

          00

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Your not the same John Abbot from John Brooks’ blog are you? as in his only subscriber there, if so it’s a pathetic attempt to mar such an upbeat and inspiring turn of events with your weak slight which is effectively like a turd being steamrolled to the thickness of your moral fabric.
      It must be such a deep feeling of brutal realization when it finally dawns on someone that not only were they duped into a scientific cult and were not only wrong but discovered they are the opposite of their opponents integrity and character.
      Have a nice day. :)

      50

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Or she could easily convert to the dark side, and live off the government dole. You seem to be doing fine that way.

      00

  • #
    Phil Ford

    Just donated via the ‘Tip Jar’ link at the top right of the page (the other links took me to a PayPal log-in page, but the Tip Jar link takes me straight to my usual PayPal page). Anyway, always a pleasure to help Jo – especially now that all that mythical ‘Big Oil’ money seems so scarce, lol. Keep on keeping on, Jo!

    Best wishes to all our Australian friends from the UK!

    70

  • #
  • #
    richard

    Jo hates asking for money but her readers like to give, it’s just that often we just keep putting it off unitl she gets desperate and that’s not fair for the amout of work she puts in.

    I think the choice of the tip jar and a suscription button would be a good idea.

    70

  • #
    Mike Singleton

    Just sent you enough to buy some Cadbury Fruit and Nut bars. I’m assured the fruits and nuts did not come from those in the climatastrophy garden.

    60

  • #
    Roman Column

    My fellow Centurions congratulated me on using 10 sestertii to buy some emergency chocolate rations. Some of them promised to do the same.

    Keep up the good work, the Roman Legions salute you!

    40

  • #
    harry kal

    Just made a donation for the well done analysis of the CAGW-scare by Jo Nova over the many years.

    Harry

    70

  • #
    Richard

    How much money does it take to run a web-page? My friend runs a very elaborate art website very successfully and earns very little. He dosen’t get a great deal from advertising either. Still if there was one blog I’d donate to, it would definitely be yours Jo. Keep up the great work! I’d like to see more in-depth info on Agenda 21 here though, after reading James Delingpole’s latest book I feel it’s something everyone really needs to know about.

    40

  • #

    I do not come onto your blog (time constrained) but I have made a contribution because I am aware of the fantastic work you do for the community and the reputation of science.

    70

  • #
    scaper...

    I’ve alerted the guys at Bolt and Akerman blogs.

    30

    • #
      Jaymez

      Well done Scraper!

      20

      • #
        scaper...

        No worries. Actually, the handle is ‘scaper’. My business name and the … is Morse to complete such. I’m told that auto correct is responsible.

        For years I’ve had to present cheques made out to scrapers. It is a long running joke by the girls behind the counter. The main thing is the cheques are accepted.

        10

  • #
    motvikten

    “understands better than most how restrictions on industrial growth will impact the poorest in the world.”

    There is a IMF conference, Africa Rising, in Mozambique May 29-30. The global focus should be on electricity and clean water for the poorest, not climate change. A quote from the program.

    “Infrastructure investment, rehabilitation and maintenance needs remain massive in most Sub-Saharan African countries. Limited availability and quality of transport, energy, and water infrastructure poses obstacles for productivity,
    business development and external competitiveness. In particular, power generation capacity in SSA has stagnated for the past two decades, in contrast
    to rapid expansion in other regions. Wide-spread and costly energy subsidies have absorbed increasing budgetary resources in many countries and have discouraged investment in the energy sector. But while increasing financing options are available, public investment and debt management capacity often remains inadequate.”

    10

  • #
    Robber

    May you receive chocolates in abundance. The link worked for me – it goes through Paypal but you don’t have to join.

    40

  • #
    AndyG55

    Hi Jo,

    Been rather busy..

    I hope you can wait for a couple of weeks. Seems you have been getting enough chocolate to keep you going for a while now.

    Uni tutoring pay starts coming through at the end of March IFF they get their act together.

    If they don’t get organised by then, I can’t pay my rent, and will have to do some sweet talkin’ to the rental agency, that’s how tight I’ve drawn things.

    60

  • #
    Joe V.

    One Chocolate Subscription via Gold Nerds, for just 1% on the Visa Foreign Exchange rate.
    What a Bargain !
    Enough to Warm the cockles of a Scotsman’s heart :-)

    (‘ hope your bankers don’t gobble up much more at your end).

    40

  • #
    john

    I am glad that the donations are coming forth to Joanne and keep them coming. There are a few of us who have been working tirelessly on these and other issues. We are self funded and have no political or other affiliations involved. We do this with very little resources (our own), will never ask for money and only want justice and the truth/science to prevail. I came here because of her great work and hope that others will continue to contribute to Joanne, Anthony Watts and others who are accused of blasphemy (and funding from interests who play both sides of the issue). A real problem crops up when political/financial science is confused with real science. I do this for the kids sake. We do not appreciate pollution as most of you would agree and yes, the climate changed again about 11.000 years ago where I sit. The current financial/geopolitical game is getting a bit out of hand and now more than ever, we need reasoned thinking. Thanks for what you and others do.

    Here is a flashback of something we are working on (connecting the dots) and have been doing so for over a decade.

    China Buries Obama’s ‘Sputnik’ Goal for Clean-Energy Use

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-03/china-buries-obama-sputnik-aim-for-clean-power-as-kissinger-advises-bank.html

    China is beating the U.S. in the race to supply clean-energy technologies to the world, helped by a government bank whose advisers include Henry Kissinger.

    China Development Bank Corp., which listed the former U.S. secretary of state as an advisory board member in a 2010 bond prospectus, agreed last year to lend 232 billion yuan ($35.4 billion) to Chinese wind and solar power companies. The U.S. gave about $4 billion to their American competitors in grants and offered about $16 billion of loan guarantees. Adding in private investment, China also led.

    CDB, which has almost twice the assets of the World Bank, is matching U.S. expertise with Chinese financing and manufacturing prowess to dominate a market both nations say is critical to their future. Chinese solar-panel makers such as LDK Solar Co. Ltd. were the biggest loan recipients and for the first time last year supplied more than half the global market, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which begins its annual conference today in New York.

    “What China’s doing is really smart,” said Jon Anda, vice chairman of UBS AG’s securities unit in Stamford, Connecticut, who runs the Swiss bank’s environmental markets business. “Without a clear policy path, we’ll get crushed.”

    10

  • #
    Neville

    Ezra Levant and Marc Morano pull apart Hansen and Gore because of the money they’ve made from their stupid CAGW claims. This is Morano at his best, just unbeatable with fact upon fact.
    And Canada’s energy minister rips into Hansen as well because of his lack of simple maths, AGAIN. Hansen’s response is pathetic.

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/minister-joe-oliver-slams-green-activist/2338450624001

    30

  • #
    Annie

    My husband has just done a bank transfer for emergency rations of Green and Black’s 85%. Don’t eat too much at once! Annie

    40

    • #
      Annie

      I’ve just eaten some Green and Black’s 85% in support…it goes nicely with a cup of proper coffee!

      30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Not exactly on topic but maybe still relevant.

    Old Butch

    Fred was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred
    young ‘pullets,’ and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs.

    He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup
    pot and was replaced.

    This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached
    them to his roosters.

    Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance,
    which rooster was performing.

    Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by
    just listening to the bells.

    Fred’s favourite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but
    this morning he noticed old Butch’s bell hadn’t rung at all!

    When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy
    chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the
    roosters coming, would run for cover.

    To Fred’s amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it
    couldn’t ring.

    He’d sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.

    Fred was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Brisbane City
    Show and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

    The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the “No Bell
    Piece Prize,” but they also awarded him the “Pulletsurprise”
    as well.

    Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a
    politician could figure out how to win two of the most coveted awards
    on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the unsuspecting
    populace and screwing them when they weren’t paying attention.

    Vote carefully in the next election, you can’t always hear the bells.

    I swear, this is verbatim as it came to me. I didn’t modify a word. I have no idea who wrote it.

    If I had that kind of sense of humor I could make money at it. ;-)

    170

  • #
    gallopingcamel

    Hi,

    I tried to send a tip in “US dollars”. My intention was to send $50 but the amount stuck at $1 which is a travesty given what you do.

    Eventually, I gave up trying to increase the amount and pressed the button to send you $1. My contribution was rejected because my home is in Florida rather than Australia. My ZIP code is 32955 but your web site chokes at four digits.

    Do you have any idea how famous you are? If you can fix this problem I will send $100.

    [If I understand your problem correctly you are trying to alter the dollar amount. What you need to alter is the number of units of chocolate you wish to donate. If you make that number 100, the contribution will be $100 at $1.00 per unit. - Mod]

    50

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      This message is from Nancy. This is in reference to #87 — comment to GallopingCamel. I just did the exact same thing. If you look in the upper left corner where the Amount is displayed, on the left is quantity in an “open white box.” You need to mark that 100 to get your revised wish in to Jo. We live in a 5-digit zip code in Washington State, and it worked fine — after we realized we had just submitted only one buck. I hope this solves the problem so Jo won’t have to worry further with it, and she’ll get a large box of chocolates instead of just one. :-) NBH

      30

  • #
    James the Elder

    Done. Hurt a bit, but some things must be done. I’ve forgone my next order of cigars but the coffee in the morning sun with the dog is still enjoyable without a good smoke.

    30

  • #
    pat

    Big Mining, Big Oil, Big Money – all with the CAGW program:

    Vale, Braskem to enter cap-and-trade simulation in Brazil
    SAO PAULO, March 13 (Reuters) – Some of the largest Latin American corporations including mining company Vale and financial conglomerate Itau Unibanco, will take part in a nine-month simulation of a cap-and-trade system in Brazil starting on Friday…
    https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4497500

    Braskem is the largets petrochemical company in Latin America!

    Braskem: Manifesto on Climate Change
    We must Mature to be Green
    The main cause of climate change around the world, greenhouse gases (GHGs) represent a threat to life and are currently an immense environmental problem. According to International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) data, the global temperature has increased by more than 0.7oC since the beginning of the industrial era.
    The consequences of this trend, such as water shortages and increased problems relating to health, hunger, etc., could have serious impacts on life on this planet, especially humankind…
    Click here to read the Braskem Manifesto on Climate Change.
    (MANIFESTO BEGINS WITH)
    Being Green is a matter of Maturity
    Maturity is being aware of one’s responsibilities…
    http://www.braskem.com.br/site.aspx/braskem-manifesto-Climate-Change

    10

    • #
      diogenese2

      Braskem Manifesto: Do these people do joined up thinking?
      “the global temperature has increased 0.7c since the beginning of the industrial era”
      “the consequences of this trend….. health, hunger, etc, could have serious impacts on life on this planet”

      In the timescale referred to the global population has risen exponentially with a lifespan to match. Ill health and hunger have correspondingly declined. So the problem must be the “etc”. Global “etc” must be reaching alarming proportions.
      What is it we have got too much off?
      Well obesity is a problem so we obviously have too much food.
      Traffic is a problem so we have to much oil.
      The answer is of course is in Briskems Product Catalogue -
      petrochemicals and biofuels!

      10

  • #
    pat

    UPDATE 1-EU warns of double-counting risk in U.N. emissions cut plan
    LONDON/BONN, March 13 (Reuters) – The United Nations risks creating huge auditing problems and overstating environmental benefits by promoting the cancellation of carbon credits as a way of tackling climate change, the European Union said on Thursday…
    https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4495464?&ref=searchlist

    EU compromise on airline emissions faces opposition
    LONDON/BRUSSELS, March 13 (Reuters) – A number of EU politicians plan to vote against a deal to exempt long-haul flights from paying for carbon emissions until the end of 2016 in an attempt to prevent the European Union from bowing to international pressure…
    https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4494445

    10

  • #
    pat

    can’t recall this being posted previously. any comments? i feel we should be using more gas & coal for starters:

    24 Feb: ABC The World Today: NRMA warns of looming fuel crisis
    The NRMA is calling for governments to cap liquefied natural gas exports…
    PAT MCGRATH: Today’s report from the NRMA estimates Australia now imports about 90 per cent of its crude oil and refined petrol. That’s compared with 60 per cent 14 years ago…
    PAT MCGRATH: It’s so good that last year Caltex announced plans to close its Kurnell oil refinery in Sydney, and convert it into a fuel import terminal. That decision came after Shell closed its Sydney refinery.
    Australia now has only has only five operating refineries, and a question lingers over the future of Shell’s operation at Geelong, which was bought by global oil supplier Vitol last week.
    NRMA director Graham Blight believes the loss of the refineries and the increase of imports makes Australia vulnerable to sudden and drastic disruptions in the global oil supply.
    GRAHAM BLIGHT: Within three days, we would have no fuel in petrol stations, and there would be an obvious panic, what have you. There would be a lot of the fuel used up in security forces and essential services.
    We would… in three days, we wouldn’t have any hospital pharmacy supplies, because it’s just-in-time management. In seven days, retail pharmacy supplies would be gone. Seven days, chilled and frozen food stocks would be gone. Nine days of dried good stocks.
    Now, that’s just on that side. The social disruption – how do people get to work? And then you’ve got to ask the question, well, if it went on for any length of time, what work?
    PAT MCGRATH: Today’s report says Australia is the only member of the International Energy Agency that fails to meet the required 90 day stock holding. Last year, the country held an average of 60 days worth of oil in reserve.
    PAT MCGRATH: It’s also suggesting that the huge reserves of liquefied natural gas that Australia’s developing for export could be used domestically.
    VLADO VIVODA: It’s not just evident in the approach to oil, but also, you know, with gas, where we refuse to reserve a percentage of our gas production for domestic usage and just think about and worry about export markets, although our gas prices domestically are rising and are very high by international standards…

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3950922.htm

    20

  • #
    pat

    14 March: Guardian: Lenore Taylor: Bill Shorten sticks with ‘market-based system’ to lower greenhouse emissions
    Labor leader says party will take its plan to voters in 2016, based on the ‘principle that climate change is serious and real’
    Pressed about the starting point for a new policy in an interview with Guardian Australia, Shorten said it would be based on the “principle that climate change is serious and real and that we need to do something real in response. We will be guided by best science and best economic argument, which is a market based system.
    “We will vote against the repeal if the alternative policy is Direct Action.
    “I am not going to reveal my 2016 policies in March of 2013 … the principle is we need to do something serious about climate change.”…
    Asked by Guardian Australia to describe himself as a leader, Shorten said: “I would say I was a consensus builder, I am middle of the road, I am pragmatic, I am future focused and I would use as an example of that approach the NDIS [the national disability insurance scheme, for which he doggedly built a case as a junior minister].”
    He has also said he will be more constructive than Tony Abbott was as opposition leader…
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/bill-shorten-reduce-greenhouse-emissions-system

    00

  • #
    pat

    so many writers, yet only the Greens (5 paras) get quoted:

    14 March: Australian: Qantas urges level playing field
    by Mitchell Neems and Elizabeth Redman with AAP
    The airline faces a record fuel bill of $4.6 billion this year and had a carbon tax bill of $106 million last year, which is a significant cost across the industry, he said…
    Greens senator Lee Rhiannon said she hoped Mr Joyce would be forthcoming with the inquiry about the true state of the airline’s financial woes.
    The minor party will grill the Qantas chief about his plans for the thousands of employees on the chopping block.
    “Where did Mr Joyce get that figure from?” Senator Rhiannon told ABC radio on Friday.
    “A real concern is that the strategy here is to talk about 5,000 jobs, many of them will go, but then re-hire and it will be on reduced wages and conditions.”
    The Greens oppose easing foreign ownership restrictions on Qantas and want the government to inject capital into the struggling airline to ensure it remains majority Australian owned.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/senate-set-to-probe-qantas/story-e6frg90f-1226854446799

    00

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Hi Jo,
    My wife, Nancy, and I were working through the “buy Jo a box of chocolates” routine using the Tip Jar and on the first try failed to enter a quantity greater than 1. Thus, the transaction was for 1 US$. It was processed by paypal and we think there is a fee for that. So, we went back through and tried again. Still not a great big box of chocolates but we, also, are waiting for our ship to come in.

    [[If I understand your problem correctly you are trying to alter the dollar amount. What you need to alter is the number of units of chocolate you wish to donate. If you make that number of dollars you wish to contribute, that should do it. - Mod]

    10

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Hi John

    Try a bank transfer on the net if you have net banking without Paypal.

    Details:

    To: Unqwerty Pty Ltd BSB 086-420 Account 563148308

    Thanks Jo

    KK

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Sorry John

      Just noted you are in the US.

      The above detail probably wont be enough for an international transfer and would require expensive currency conversion.

      KK

      10

  • #
    Rogueelement451

    Done ! I think? I may have hit a pay pal thingie that will delay things for 14 days but c,est la vie , all that chocolate at once would make you ill.
    A pleasure to donate by the way , I have learned more in the past 4 months on various web sites and had more fun than I could have imagined was possible, so well worth it!!

    30

  • #
    pat

    46 variations of deniers on this single page (incl comments):

    13 March: The Conversation: Rod Lamberts: Facts won’t beat the climate deniers – using their tactics will
    (Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science at Australian National University
    Disclosure Statement: Rod Lamberts has received funding from the ARC linkage program)
    (WAY DOWN IN THE ARTICLE)
    Time for Action
    The fact is that the time for fact-based arguments is over…
    What’s worse: being convinced bad things are happening and resorting to “unscientific” means that inspire real action, or watching things go to hell while taking comfort in the knowledge you were a worthy, well-behaved scientist who didn’t stoop to getting political?
    Ultimately, we can only say “that’s not cricket” for so long. Eventually we have to stop tutting and accept that others aren’t even trying to play cricket – they’re boxing. We can decry climate deniers for their unfair, lowbrow tactics, but their tactics are getting them exactly what they want. Ours are not…
    So, what now?
    There’s no profit in trying to change the position of deniers. Their values and motivations are fundamentally different to those of us who listen to what the weight of scientific evidence tell us. So forget them.
    Forget the Moncktonites, disregard the Boltists, and snub the Abbottsians. Ignore them, step around them, or walk over them. Drown them not just with sensible conversations, but with useful actions. Flood the airwaves and apply tactics advertisers have successfully used for years.
    What we need now is to become comfortable with the idea that the ends will justify the means. We actually need more opinions, appearing more often and expressed more noisily than ever before…
    https://theconversation.com/facts-wont-beat-the-climate-deniers-using-their-tactics-will-24074

    ANU ok with linking this trash from their own website:

    13 March: Australian National University: Rod Lamberts: Facts won’t beat the climate deniers, using their tactics will
    http://cpas.anu.edu.au/news-events/rod-lamberts-facts-wont-beat-climate-deniers-using-their-tactics-will

    About Rod, from The Conversation:
    Dr Rod Lamberts is deputy director of the Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science (CPAS) at the ANU, a founding partner of the Ångstrom Group, and a former national president of the Australian Science Communicators. He has been providing science communication consultation and evaluation advice for than 15 years to organisations including UNESCO, the CSIRO, and to ANU science and research bodies. He also has a background in psychology and corporate communication consultancy and facilitation.
    Rod’s professional and research interests include: science in society; science and public policy; perceptions of expertise in science; and risk and crisis perception/ communication.
    He has been developing and delivering science communication courses since 1998, and supervises a large range of postgraduate research projects.

    Contact Rod for:
    Multidisciplinary Research Collaboration
    Contract Research
    Speaking Engagements
    Expertise Requests
    Talking With Students
    Consulting Offers
    Career Opportunities
    Media Interviews

    10

    • #
      handjive

      Pat’s link to the conversation has the money quote on why it is worthwhile to buy chocolate dollars @ Jonova:

      “We have enough facts now and none of them are good. Yet here we are, in Fraser’s words, watching the “bad guys” win.”

      Because of websites like Jonova, ‘we’ are winning. They know it.

      And, if being a ‘bad guy’ is fighting to stop wasting any more money on a non problem (17+ years of No Global Warming) by people who wish to deny you having an opinion, then, who are the ‘good guys’?

      Jonova attempts to find $5k to keep going, Obama wastes $20 Billion.
      And Jonova is winning.

      00

  • #
    Regular Lurker

    Didn’t see Ireland on the list. Just corrected that mistake. Keep up the good work.

    30

  • #
    Rogueelement451

    Does anyone else think my new nickname for CAWG alarmists ,is something that should merit being moderated off the page at The Guardian?
    I think “Alarmist Pucks” is quite reasonable considering the amount of times they have been hit upside the head by a Hockey Stick??

    40

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      My guess is they do not understand your play on words, or pun, or even know what a Hockey Stick looks like. Or they lack a sense of humor. Significant character flaws there at the Guardian.

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        As one who not only does understand the pun but thinks it’s a very fine type of humor, also one of the oldest, going back into Old Testament times several thousand years ago, I like “Alarmist Pucks”, the Guardian notwithstanding. :-)

        30

  • #
    Joe V.

    When I think of all the magazine subscriptions we used to have, to magazines we might just read the first couple of issues of then leaving subsequent issues to be read at a later date , piling up and often still wrapped.
    The only reason to pay for such things any more seems to be to support the quality & independence where we see it.

    If I think of the time now spent on JoNova & learning compared to thumbing idly through the odd issues of subscription magazines in the past, it’s a no-brainer where all the value is and JoNova’s just keeps on giving (if not in quite they same way as warmists do), so overcome any shyness and just think of all those wasted magazine subscriptions you have been saved from by your time here, as you indulge Jo in more Chocolate.

    20

  • #

    From Texas with love; keep up the good work – enjoying the ‘chocolate’! Your blog is one of the few I read on a regular basis, Jo.

    30

  • #

    Thank you to everyone. For me it’s been a remarkable day. (See UPDATE #4 above). I’m sorry I have no marvellous pithy post to deliver today, there have been many competing forces on my time. It’s a long story… I’ve had some extraordinary emails both welcome and unwelcome.

    I shall have to wrap up (Australian time) with another list. People did seem to enjoy the random smattering of donation locations. (Some got quite competitive about it). It is a testament to Western Civilization.

    Lower creek, New South Wales; Mells, Somerset UK; Greystones, WICKLOW Ireland; Tumansburg, NY US; Stockbridge, MI US; Delta British Columbia Canada; Arundel, Queensland;St Helier, Channel Islands UK; Amesbury, Wiltshire UK; Ripon, North Yorkshire United Kingdom; Bathurst, New South Wales; Carwoola, New South Wales ; Ridgewood, Western Australia Finspång Sweden; Greenslopes, Queensland; Abbotsford, NSW; North Perth, WA; North Tamborine, Queensland ; Newcastle, Northumberland; Elizabeth North, South Australia; Coolbellup, Western Australia; Brownwood, Texas, US; Singleton, New South Wales; Albany Creek, Queensland; Glen Iris, Victoria; Lyons, Australian Capital Territory; Ellensburg, WA, USA; Richmond British Columbia Canada; Riverdale, UT, USA; Drouin, Victoria ; Renton, WA, USA;

    I am quite humbled. And inspired. More soon!

    30

  • #
    Jaymez

    Well done people. I am please to say that you have all proved me right.

    There are many hundreds of us who value the work Jo does on this blog and only need to be asked when she is short of funds to keep up her great work.

    What you have done, and by what I hope others will continue to do, as there is no reason to stop just because my limit of matching contributions has been reached, is ensure Jo can work for the next few months without financial stress. You have confirmed my faith in human goodness and I know you have re-inspired Jo Nova.

    Today I cheerfully transferred $5,000 to Jo Nova’s bank account. I only wish I could afford to give more.

    I trust Jo’s loyal readers and contributors can keep building her chocolate fund, and will rise to any future calls when she is in need.

    Congratulations!

    180

  • #
    richard

    Dear Jo,

    You do not owe me an email, I have paid for information and wisdom you have given me and it was about time i paid for it!!!

    regards

    Richard

    60

  • #
    richard

    Moreover I would like to set up some kind of direct debit, it won’t be a huge amount, but it will be nice to think i am part of this site, albeit a very small part!!

    [If you are in Australia it can be set if with the bank details supplied - otherwise Jo is looking into it p Mod]

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    With theories flying like flies around a trash pile about the missing Malaysian Boeing Triple 7 I thought I’d start a comment for the most outrageous one you’ve heard.

    Almost everyone with a forum of some kind is discussing this thing to death and yet we really know only two things about it beside the fact that it’s missing:

    1. Within 5 to 6 hours after takeoff it was certainly either on the ground or in the water.

    2. No one knows where it is.

    I’ve heard aircraft failure, bomb explosion aboard, hijacking (by both the flight crew and someone else) (with and without terrorism) and now theft of the airplane (motive unspecified) and pilots getting distracted by having their mistress(es) in the cockpit (co pilot is known to have done this in the past). I’m left wondering what we’ll hear next.

    Given the seriousness of this to those aboard, their families and friends, I doubt that any of this speculation is helpful.

    I’m left feeling relieved that I’m not under any onus to find this airplane because the search seems to be entirely uncoordinated and haphazard, at least so far.

    If you’ve heard some other theory I’d be interested in hearing it. And I’m not making light of the seriousness of what’s happened, just the thrashing around in search of an explanation.

    30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Roy,

      At the dire risk of going off-topic for this thread …

      We (the company I work for) have been tracking events.

      1. MH370 was electronically shown by flight-tracker as “landed” some 39 minutes after departure from KL. This either implies complete radio failure, or it has gone down.

      2. Other reports say that radar contact was lost 2 hours after takeoff. On the “inland” route, that would put the position over the mountains and jungles of south central Laos, about 200km west of Da Nang.

      3. A further analysis, looking at the “normal” flight paths on the “coastal” route, would put the aircraft over water, in the area of Con Son Island.

      Give the lack of reports from satellite imagery, I suggest the third option, as the most plausible, preceded by a loss of communications, and possibly loss of navigation aids.

      If navaid was lost, and neither pilot could navigate by star-chart (a dying art), then they could easily have gone off track. This applies equally over either dense jungle or water. Lost, with no communications, the pilots would attempt to fly in ever increasing circles looking for any form of recognisable landmark. They would also have done this to lessen the fuel load.

      If the plane came down in the sea, there may be little evidence on the surface. The same applies if a plane comes down in the jungle, especially if all of the fuel has been spent, and there is little fire. The jungle canopy just closes over it.

      In either scenario, there is unlikely to be any survivors. Even if people survived a crash landing, the environment they were in would claim them, unless they had previously gone through advanced survival skills training.

      40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Rereke,

        Flight-Tracker could be using anyone’s guesswork. So no information there. If the airline knew the plane had landed anywhere or was down off airport it would be in both their short and long term interest to say so.

        Radar contact is another matter because the only clear fact is that the transponder quit responding when interrogated. Depending on where the plane went from there it might still be on radar but too easily confused with some other aircraft or simply a return from something else. It happens — that’s why transponders were invented.

        Satellites need to be looking almost exactly where the plane is at the time or they miss it.

        To lose the radar transponder (it probably is redundant) is a major failure but if there were major power problems at that point so as to cause loss of the transponder, why did the flight continue to ask for a satellite connection for some time afterwards so it could report aircraft performance data? And by the way, from reports I’ve seen the airline did not subscribe to the Boeing service that would be receiving that data. So there’s another question. And there are batteries good for at least minimum equipment for long enough to have returned to KL.

        Nav aid loss: They would most likely be relying on GPS, another system that would be redundant and GPS would probably be flying the plane (today’s pilots are button pushers first and pilots afterward).

        The assurances that have been broadcast far and wide that the 777 has a stellar safety record aren’t of much comfort because it only takes one crash to ruin that record. If there’s a failure at just the wrong time or in the wrong place… Need I go on?

        There are already Airworthiness Directives from the FAA addressing the fact that the triple 7′s aircraft systems are on the same on board network as those used by in flight entertainment and accessible to passengers. And Boeing has apparently acknowledged this little “oversight”. So there’s (maybe) some small possibility of hacking.

        As I said to Joe below, being tracked depends heavily on the aircraft wanting to be tracked and cooperating in that effort. More so in that part of the world. Remember, radar is line of sight and over water there are no nice convenient radar sites.

        I think we have a lot of questions to which a lot of speculative answers have been put forth and unless something has broken the mystery while I’ve been typing this, we still know only the 2 things I said.

        20

  • #
    Joe V.

    It does seem incredible, how could anyone in this day and age just lose an airliner, even they tried ?

    Reminds us just how big and unknown a world we still live on.

    Could the Americans , the Russians & the Chinese really know nothing of its whereabouts (not to mention the aliens) ?

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Joe,

      Sorry to have to say this but tracking an airplane in flight depends heavily on that airplane wanting to be tracked and cooperating in the effort. In a place like the U.S. it would be easier because radar facilities are all over the place. But in that part of the world it is even more important to want to be tracked.

      It certainly is possible for some of those you name to know something not made public. I think that’s improbable, witness the useless Chinese “best effort” satellite photos.

      00

      • #
        markx

        Hi Roy-

        A camera with a suitable prime lens (fixed focal length)should be the tool. Take photos of an object of known size at a known distances (ie – a building, a tower).

        Then take digital photos of the planes as they come over. Identify the type, seek dimensions, such as wingspan, or hull diameter. Match the scale of the photos. Calculate how big (mm on photo) the plane’s dimension should be at the known distance. Calculate the real distance by proportions. If the plane dimension is twice as big in your photo as it would be at the known distance, it was at half that known distance when the shot was taken. If it is 10% smaller than it would be at that known distance, it is 10% further away.

        The proof will be in the photo metadata – the focal distance of the lens will be recorded (right click, properties)as will date and time – (You can actually use a zoom, but must to ensure all photos are taken at the same focal distance setting). Note sometimes different methods of sending a digital photo will strip the metadata. Perhaps it is best to bring the photos up on the screen, show the properties, then screen capture the complete page. The photo file name will appear at the top of the screen and also on the properties box.

        Mark. Boring admin note. Please add the last two letters of your email address. Darn autofill misses them. Ta! – Jo

        00

    • #
      Joe V.

      Rather OT, but I need to track airliners going over my house at the moment.
      The airport says they’re following a path that passes over 4000 ft away, while I’m staring at their underbelly and having the birdsong & church bells drowned out.
      Cant trust that radar tracking data they put up on websites for them, showing where they should be. I need some kind of point & shoot device to capture where they are really at and what noise they’re making.
      I guess there must be some kind of app. for that, but how to find a half decent one.

      10

      • #
        markx

        Hi Joe
        (Sorry, I accidentally answered Roy above!)

        A camera with a suitable prime lens (fixed focal length)should be the tool. Take photos of an object of known size at a known distances (ie – a building, a tower).

        Then take digital photos of the planes as they come over. Identify the type, seek dimensions, such as wingspan, or hull diameter. Match the scale of the photos. Calculate how big (mm on photo) the plane’s dimension should be at the known distance. Calculate the real distance by proportions. If the plane dimension is twice as big in your photo as it would be at the known distance, it was at half that known distance when the shot was taken. If it is 10% smaller than it would be at that known distance, it is 10% further away.

        The proof will be in the photo metadata – the focal distance of the lens will be recorded (right click, properties)as will date and time – (You can actually use a zoom, but must to ensure all photos are taken at the same focal distance setting). Note sometimes different methods of sending a digital photo will strip the metadata. Perhaps it is best to bring the photos up on the screen, show the properties, then screen capture the complete page. The photo file name will appear at the top of the screen and also on the properties box.

        Mark. Boring admin note. Please add the last two letter of your email address. Darn autofill misses them. Ta! – Jo

        10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Joe,

        That’s a common complaint around almost all airports with homes near the final approach and takeoff paths. Are you looking at planes landing or taking off? If taking off they can diverge from the runway center line by quite a bit once airborne because of the wind. And not all pilots pay strict attention to wind correction on takeoff. If landing then they would be trying to stay lined up with the runway center line, or should be trying.

        How far are you from the runway? On landing the greater the distance from you to the runway the more leeway the pilot has to be off the runway center line and still make the landing.

        Unfortunately radar horizontal positioning can be less than perfect. The beam is focused as well as they can but as each pulse leaves the antenna it spreads out and as the antenna rotates it may be getting a return from the same aircraft through several degrees of rotation and the image on the scope gets placed by some algorithm that has to split the difference. Same goes for the maps. And the data on the maps may be delayed for as much as 10 or 15 minutes for security reasons.

        Distance from the antenna is much more accurate. But even there you can have local phenomena that distort the result.

        In your position I would try to get airport management to visit my house a few times during the busiest hours and simply observe.

        00

        • #
          Joe V.

          Thanks Roy, 6 nautical miles from end of runway on a 20° divergence from the centreline.
          Landings aren’t a problem, just takeoffs.
          They’ve introduced a new RNAV1 departure route diverging at just 20° from the original centreline departure.
          That passes about 4300ft from my place and the airport acknowledge a spread up to about 380ft either side.
          At anything up to 4000ft altitude I shouldn’t be bending over backwards to watch them at that distance.
          Why do I complain living just 6 NM from sn airport ?
          In 25 years here have never heard more than a distant rumble, from that centreline about 12,600 ft away, then all of a sudden, one morning last month, with no prior announcement, it all started, up to 1 every 2 minutes from 6am.
          It has been like that ever since, apart from windy days from the East.

          Britain’s airports have been split up and sold off individually, so they’re all now competing for traffic and despite an oversupply of capacity they are all intent on increasing throughput.

          00

    • #
      Geoffrey Cousens

      Time will tell.Clearly the truth is politically incorrect.

      00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Congrats Jo!

    But in the 4th update did you really say “more sustainable”?

    10

  • #
    pat

    15 March: Gatton Star (Qld): Greener pastures ahead for region’s producers?
    Australian Carbon Traders’ Ben Keogh will travelling around the Burnett to provide an update on making and trading carbon credits through the Carbon Farming Initiative.
    Mr Keogh works at the coalface of the carbon market and is highly experienced in brokering on-ground projects through the initiative…
    Mr Keogh kicks off his series of presentation in April at a business breakfast in Bundaberg but will make stops at Monto, Eidsvold, Booubyjan, Kingaroy and Pomona, meeting with Landcare groups.
    For information regarding presentations in Monto, Eidsvold, Booubyjan and Kingaroy contact Michelle Haase on 4181 2999…
    Mr Keogh’s visit to the Burnett Mary region is an initiative of the Carbon Farming Project, a collaborative project of the Burnett Mary Regional Group, the Burnett Catchment Care Association and the Bundaberg Fruit & Vegetable Growers. Funded by the Australian Government’s Extension and Outreach program…
    http://www.gattonstar.com.au/news/greener-pastures-ahead-regions-producers/2199904/

    15 March: NZ Herald: AP: Audit says US project in Haiti missed carbon goals
    A U.S. program that seeks to save Haiti’s forests by shifting people away from charcoal stoves has largely failed to reach its goals, according to an audit by the U.S. Agency for International Department.
    Few Haitians bought the alternative stoves, in large part because even the cheapest cost $10, while charcoal stoves go for as little as $2. The liquefied petroleum gas stoves aimed at commercial and institutional users cost about $100. The World Bank says nearly 80 percent of Haiti’s 10 million people live on less than $2 a day.
    The audit reported a lack of financing available to help people cover the costs.
    It said only 337 of a hoped-for 4,550 street food vendors, orphanages, and schools shifted from charcoal to liquid petroleum gas, and a minority of those targeted for the smaller stoves made the switch…
    The $8.2 million project was launched in 2012 by Chemonics International Inc., a for-profit company based in Washington, D.C., that works throughout the developing world. It is among the many U.S. groups that received contracts to help Haiti rebuild following the 2010 earthquake.
    The new audit is the latest to report that Chemonics failed to meet targets for its work in post-quake Haiti.
    A review in 2012 revealed that a $53 million contract from USAID wasn’t on track to complete its work on time, had a weak monitoring system and didn’t involve community members. Two years prior, USAID auditors found the firm failed to hire thousands of Haitians as planned under a cash-for-work program, and instead spent the funds on equipment and materials.
    Spokeswomen for Chemonics and USAID separately said that they welcomed the latest audit because its findings help improve performance***…
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11220119&ref=rss

    ***how comforting.

    10

  • #
    pat

    a bit agenda 21-ish:

    14 March: MIT Technology Review: Are Big, Rich Cities Greener Than Poor Ones?
    When it comes to cities, being big and rich is better for the planet than being big and poor, according to a new study of carbon dioxide emissions from cities around the world. But is this correct?
    Today, we get an answer of sorts from Diego Rybski at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and a few pals. These guys give an interesting twist to the debate. They say that big cities in rich countries are greener than small ones but big cities in poor ones are the opposite…
    The bottom line, according to Rybski and co, is this: “We conclude that urbanization is desirable in developed countries and should be accompanied by efficiency-increasing mechanisms in developing countries.”…
    A more serious problem is the nature of the data. It is notoriously difficult to define the size of a city either geographically or population-wise. So an important question mark over this study is whether the data from different places is really comparable.
    Only last month, for example, we reported on a study claiming to have found that big cities in the US produce more carbon dioxide per capita than small ones. That directly contradicts the findings here…
    http://www.technologyreview.com/view/525571/are-big-rich-cities-greener-than-poor-ones/

    10

  • #
    pat

    abc not being biased…again:

    14 March: ABC Fact Check: Tony Abbott not telling the full story on Alcoa and the carbon tax
    The verdict
    Claim 1: Although the Prime Minister said the carbon tax was “not the only factor in the closure of Point Henry”, his claim that the Alcoa Point Henry smelter closure is indicative of “the carbon tax doing its job” fails to take into account that rather than being crippled by the carbon price, the company has benefitted from a system which leaves it with excess, lucrative carbon units.
    Claim 2: Mr Abbott’s claim that “under a carbon tax aluminium production will be down by more than 60 per cent” doesn’t take into account that the figure depends on other major economies adopting similar carbon pricing schemes.
    Overall: Mr Abbott is not telling the full story.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-14/abbott-not-telling-the-full-story-on-alcoa-closure/5320468

    in a nutshell (nutty shell?) the climate talks in Bonn, now in their final day, are not going well:

    15 March: Bloomberg: Matthew Car/Alex Morales: Trade Concern Limits Rich-Nation Effort to Cut Carbon
    “Until leadership is shown by developed countries, developing countries won’t accept the 2015 agreement where it says it’s applicable to all,” Ravi S. Prasad, a negotiator at India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests, said yesterday in an interview. Poorer countries “won’t buy” arguments richer nations need to protect their economies, Prasad said…
    In Europe, home to the world’s biggest carbon market, industry and lawmakers are debating efforts to push up the price of carbon dioxide emissions amid concerns it will force manufacturers to move to countries with looser emissions rules. ArcelorMittal was among 64 steel companies that this week called for European Union governments to weigh the impact of climate policy on an industry that provides 350,000 jobs in the region…
    “The EU needs to show it can impose a price that leads to decarbonization without closing down its industry,” Andrei Marcu, the head of the carbon market forum at the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels, said in a March 11 interview…
    Global emissions need to fall about 12 percent in 2020 from 2012 levels to prevent temperatures rising 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial times, according to the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. It estimates carbon output won’t fall under existing climate commitments…
    The discussions are about making sure “that all the major economies are controlling their emissions,” Dirk Forrister, the head of the International Emissions Trading Association, said in Bonn on March 11. “They worry about competitive distortion.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-14/trade-concern-limits-rich-nation-zeal-to-cut-carbon.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    no doubt done for the Bonn climate talks. wasted effort!

    15 March: Bloomberg: Andrew Childers: ‘Cost of Carbon’ Doesn’t Include Some Climate Risks
    The $37 per metric ton figure that federal agencies use to calculate the impact of climate change in their regulations is either missing or improperly quantifying the threats posed by increased risk of high-ozone days, drought, ocean acidification, loss of species and habitat and other impacts, according to the report, “Omitted Damages: What’s Missing From the Social Cost of Carbon,” issued by the Institute for Policy Integrity, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council…
    The report recommends that federal agencies continue to use the $37 per metric ton of carbon dioxide figure while they reconsider the factors they use to determine the risk of climate change…
    However, the report said that the revised carbon figure is limited by the models used by the interagency task force that reviewed the social cost of carbon. The models don’t accurately reflect all of the harms posed by climate change. That may be because it is difficult to model the physical or economic harms caused by some effects of climate change, the report said…
    The Institute for Policy Integrity, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council launched the website http://costofcarbon.org/ to collect academic research on the social cost of carbon figure…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-14/-cost-of-carbon-doesn-t-include-some-climate-risks.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    14 March: EurActiv with Reuters: EU ruled out 2030 offsets due to carbon market drought
    The EU had little choice in proposing not to outsource more of its emission cuts abroad to meet a proposed 40% reduction in greenhouse gas output by 2030 because the slow pace of global talks to develop new carbon markets gave it nothing to buy, a senior EU official said…
    Jürgen Lefevere, a senior official at the Commission, the EU’s executive, insisted that the bloc was willing to open up its carbon market but was restricted by a lack of reform at international level.
    “All of the work on this has moved tremendously slowly or not at all,” he said on the sidelines of the latest round of UN climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany. “That provides us with a challenge where there is no definite framework out there. How can we expect to buy international credits from something we haven’t seen defined?”
    International talks on how to set up new markets and links via common accounting standards have been shelved until June after breaking down last year. Poor nations refused to allow progress without guarantees that richer countries would increase efforts to cut their own emissions…
    With few other sources of demand, the supply of credits ballooned and hammered prices to a record low of 0.14 euro ($0.19) per ton of emissions on Tuesday from over 20 euros five years ago, slashing investment in new schemes.
    The EU has extended technical support to wealthier economies such as China, Mexico and South Korea to help them set up their own carbon markets.
    ***But efforts to link the ETS directly with more advanced schemes in Australia and Switzerland have been put on hold, due to political opposition in those nations.
    http://www.euractiv.com/energy/eu-ruled-2030-offsets-due-carbon-news-534131

    00

  • #
    pat

    disclosure: i don’t back the nuclear option & especially not in the name of CAGW but, of course, EDF would want higher carbon tax:

    12 March: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: UK nuclear power plant builders want higher carbon tax
    This is interesting stuff for Tony Abbott’s conservative government. Many of his advisors favour nuclear, the nuclear option will be canvassed in the upcoming energy white paper, and some members, such as the climate-denying, would-be science minister Dennis Jensen, suggest that car workers could be retrained to run nuclear plants.
    Apart from the improbability of that last suggestion, it seems clear that if Abbott was ever to entertain nuclear as a serious option – it could only do so by abandoning the idea of a cheap fuel source, accepting the need for loan guarantees, and for a carbon price
    Maybe they should just focus on what they have got – ironing out the cost absurdities in network pricing and building its renewable energy portfolio.
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/uk-nuclear-power-plant-builders-want-higher-carbon-tax-28916

    Giles Parkinson (& his ilk in Australia) never acknowledge obama’s nuclear plans & massive subsidies, & conveniently ignore Labour Party support for nuclear in the UK:

    24 Feb: NorthantsTele: Press Association: Labour backing nuclear plant deal
    Shadow Energy Secretary Caroline Flint : “No. We’re supporting the contract because we believe in the long run that actually it’s important, we hope that actually this is the first of many new nuclear builds and actually as we go forward the cost will come down…
    “But it’s important to recognise that when you look at the unit cost of electricity generated by nuclear it actually works out cheaper than other forms of renewable energy.”
    She went on: “It’s not, I think, helpful for governments coming in, if you like, to say ‘we’re going to renegotiate all contracts’. I don’t think that’s right.
    “Down the road, obviously, the Public Accounts Committee will look at the details of this, but I do believe nuclear is right and I do think it’s important to get the price right…
    http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/national/labour-backing-nuclear-plant-deal-1-5896166

    10 March: UK Telegraph: EDF to miss its own deadline for Hinkley Point nuclear decision as EC state aid investigation drags on
    Amid intense scrutiny of the Hinkley plan, EDF is also lobbying strongly against a long-term freeze of the UK’s rising carbon tax, which it fears would weaken the case for Hinkley by pushing up the bill for direct subsidies for the plant.
    Under October’s deal, EDF has been guaranteed a price for the power the plant generates of £92.50/MWh, almost double the current market price for power, with the difference subsidised through levies on consumer energy bills.
    A rising UK carbon tax would push up the market power price, reducing the total direct “top-up” subsidy to Hinkley and potentially making the deal more palatable to politicians and the EC alike.
    But under pressure to tackle rising energy bills the Chancellor now is expected to announce a freeze of the carbon tax in next week’s Budget.
    ***EDF – whose existing nuclear power plant fleet would also benefit significantly from the rising carbon tax – is understood to be urging the Chancellor to guarantee that any freeze would last no more than a two years and that the tax would then revert to its upwards trajectory.
    The company, which is still in talks with potential investors to take stakes in the Hinkley Point project, also argues that a policy u-turn on the carbon tax would damage the UK’s attractiveness.
    Conversely, uncertainty over the future carbon tax trajectory could also help make the case for state aid for Hinkley, because one of the EC’s central criticisms of the deal was that a rising carbon price would make the plant economic without any subsidies within a few years.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10688788/EDF-to-miss-its-own-deadline-for-Hinkley..-Point-nuclear-decision-as-EC-state-aid-investigation-drags-on.html

    10

  • #
    Geoffrey Cousens

    Labor,well aware of their time constraint,have left lots of dirty bombs somebody will have to clean up.Now we have the DLP by stealth.Immeasurably superior than actual labor armed robbery all must remain vigilant.

    00

  • #
    Alan

    Jo, I admire you and the job you do enormously. And I like chocolate.


    Thank you:- ) – Jo

    20