JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



If you ask questions about our theory you are a horrible person

In response to Australia removing the Carbon Tax the ABC News report broadcast the best arguments of believers in man-made global warming . They tell us we should spend billions to manage a ubiquitous natural molecule with a fake market, in the hope we’ll get nicer weather. If you question that you are a bad, bad person. You are the kind of vile, stupid and selfish person, a troll, who doesn’t mind killing people with asbestos or tobacco, you are an international pariah, a shock-jock and an irrational, unthinking denier.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is our national debate, by our leading “thinkers”, broadcast on our national public news service:

ABC News 17-7-2014

ADAM BANDT, DEPUTY GREENS LEADER: This is the Australian Parliament’s asbestos moment, our tobacco moment, when we knew what we were doing was harmful but went ahead and did it anyway.

RICHARD DENNISS, AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE: … We’re outing ourselves as a pariah. We’re outing ourselves as a country that’s not committed to tackling climate change.

BILL SHORTEN: Direct Action is a Clayton’s climate policy, designed for the audience of internet trolls and shock-jock radio announcers and climate sceptics.

It is but namecalling. They pretend it is science. The ABC put these arguments forward as if they were a sensible addition to the debate. Sarah Ferguson does not notice that the intellectual depth of the arguments amounts to social opprobrium and character attacks.

In a similar vein, Tim Flannery wants your money so he can “respond with the facts”. But instead of facts he offers us religious instruction about which beliefs are socially approved:

“…an unprecedented rise in climate denialism.”

“… these fringe views.”

“… support me and discredit deniers…”

Jo wonders which dictionary defines two-thirds of the population as “fringe”?  It must be another Flannery “fact”.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (168 votes cast)
If you ask questions about our theory you are a horrible person, 9.6 out of 10 based on 168 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ncse2sv

254 comments to If you ask questions about our theory you are a horrible person

  • #

    Hell hath no fury like a parasite pulled away from its host, blood still dripping from its leech-mouth. Needless to say, the propaganda has never been about facts, much less about science. It’s always been about greed, about enabling some people to enjoy their bourgeois lifestyle without doing any productive work. From the executives of government climate change agencies, down to the man who puts solar panels on his roof to reduce his own power bill at the expense of his neighbours, they were all parasites.


    Report this

    910

    • #
      Peter Miller

      It is the complete lack of evidence of any serious climate change/global warming outside of dodgy, inaccurate, biased, computer models that gets me.

      Sure, the world has warmed up a bit over the past century, most of this is obviously not due to the sections of man, but to natural climate cycles. At a stretch, you can make some sort of argument based on the late summer Arctic ice extent, but that unravels when: I) you look at what is happening in Antarctica, and ii) you take into account the effects of increasing levels of soot in the Northern Hemisphere, the Arctic’s variable salinity levels and occasional hydrothermal activity on the Arctic Ocean floor.

      So what motivates alarmists?

      1. For many, it is the supreme ego trip of wanting to be seen to be “saving the world.” There is a lot of that around, especially amongst the more unscrupulous politicians.

      2. The Gravy Train effect; has any field of research ever had so much money sloshing around looking for a home? Here, you get the ‘flies around a dog poo effect.’

      3. Leading alarmists are mostly, but not always, highly paid bureaucrats or politicians, who would suffer financially if they had to find a real job, or career.

      4. Those on the left are constantly seeking a cause to justify their existence to cover up their complete lack of management and economic skills when in government, or trying to get into government. What better cause than something intangible with which they can accuse the right of being typically uncaring?

      5. Fame for its own sake, although this is not universally true, it is widespread and Flannery, Gore, Hansen, Mann etc, are all clear and obvious examples of this.

      On the other hand, what motivates sceptics?

      In my case, I do not want to see widespread economic ruin and energy poverty brought about for no reason whatsoever other than bad science and the whims of the types of people listed above.


      Report this

      981

      • #
        Kenneth Richard

        So what motivates alarmists?

        1. Anthropocentrism.

        2. Being “right.”

        3. Making those who disagree with them look like anti-science buffoons by erecting straw man arguments.


        Report this

        311

        • #
          Peter Miller

          Anthropocentrism is not a word I had heard of before. Interesting concept and helps to explain why alarmists believe natural climate cycles are a heresy. Encyclopedia Britannica’s definition is:

          anthropocentrism, philosophical viewpoint arguing that human beings are the central or most significant entities in the world. This is a basic belief embedded in many Western religions and philosophies. Anthropocentrism regards humans as separate from and superior to nature and holds that human life has intrinsic value while other entities (including animals, plants, mineral resources, and so on) are resources that may justifiably be exploited for the benefit of humankind.


          Report this

          190

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Well, that pretty well sums up 97% of climate alarmists.

            The Shorter Oxford Dictionary also defines: anthropocentrist n. A person who adopts, or applies the principles of anthropocentrism.

            We can now name the beast – well done guys.


            Report this

            180

          • #
            Tim

            Is there an Anti-anthropocentrism? Love to drop that one at a dinner party.

            There’s John Gray’s thesis in his book: ‘Straw Dogs’. He contends that since human beings are animals, they are no more capable of directing their collective lot than are monkeys or marmosets. We, like other animals, are subject to what our ‘assemblage of genes’ dictates; population growth, decline and eventual extinction included.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            llew Jones

            Interesting that Will Steffen, who poses as a climate expert is, in fact a specialist in the Anthropocene.

            This I suggest is the, potentially destructive to human life, concept that most scientifically illiterate lay alarmists embrace and are motivated by.

            http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1938/842.full


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Geoff Sherrington

              Do not promote use of “Anthropocene”. Geological eras are proposed and formalised by geologists, not by Johnny-come -lately climate people.


              Report this

              20

        • #
          Kenneth Richard

          One of my favorite abstract summaries for a peer-reviewed paper. The word “anthropocentrism” is used entirely in the context in which I had been applying it….

          http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/t223v450754p6612/
          We are experiencing a period of intense anthropocentrism: humans flatter themselves they can govern the thermal machine of the ocean-atmosphere system and build models of atmospheric circulation (that solve hundreds of non-linear equations for each box of a three-dimensional grid covering the globe) to demonstrate that Earth’s recent warming is attributable to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, the results of such a reductionist approach are questionable, since the atmosphere and oceans form a complex interactive system that cannot be recreated in a laboratory experiment, and where the many physical and chemical processes are regulated by dynamic and thermodynamic parameters, interconnected in a non-linear way, and there are various positive and negative feedback processes. Only a holistic approach that analyses the system in its entirety, and drastically reduces the number of degree of freedom, can provide information on the way in which the global environmental system operates. When the Sun, atmospheric circulation, Earth’s rotation, and sea temperature have been investigated as a single unit, the linkage between the Sun and climate is confirmed (Mazzarella, 2007, 2008); application of this integrated model provides a forecast estimate for a gradual cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere in this decade.


          Report this

          160

      • #
        Matty

        “On the other hand, what motivates sceptics?”

        Having their time, attention & taxes wasted

        Their civilisation going to waste.

        Deep Green apoplexy.


        Report this

        260

      • #
        Raven

        On the other hand, what motivates sceptics?

        Easy . . . I just resent people pi$$ing down my back while telling me it’s raining.


        Report this

        190

      • #
        jon

        What motivates them?

        http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/3/3/299/pdf

        “2. ‘The Plan’
        For more than 25 years the conventional view has been that an international political solution to climate change can be negotiated if driven by the engine of science. That is, if a strong enough scientific consensus on the causes and consequences of anthropogenic climate change could be forged and sustained, then the compelling force of such rationality would over-ride the differences in worldviews, beliefs, values and ideologies which characterise the human world. Such a Scientific consensus would bring about the needed policy solutions. This is the “If-then” logic of computer programming, the conviction that the right way to tackle climate change is through what Dan Sarewitz at Arizona State University has called “The Plan” [8]. And there are those who still believe in this
        project. They excoriate others who obstruct and obscure this pure guiding light of rationality—a position adopted, for example, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in their recent book Merchants of Doubt [9].
        From the vantage point of 2014 we can now see that the credibility of such a narrative hinged on a set of circumstances peculiar to the late 1980s and early 1990s. These included: (i) the belief in the ‘end of history’ and the triumph of (neo-)liberal democracy; (ii) the seeming continued marginalisation of religion in public life; and (iii) the emergence of a globalised environmental science. This latter enterprise secured its first big success in 1987, when the predictive power of the newly minted Earth System science was co-opted by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. It was the convergence of these circumstances in the years around 1990 that helped fashion the conventional climate change project—“The Plan”—and allowed it to surge forward with optimism.
        At the time it seemed entirely reasonable that with one of the last “enemies” of progressive
        Enlightenment liberalism having been swept away (i.e., communism), a new irrepressible world order would emerge. And it would be one that would now fully exploit the predictive power of fruitful globalised science.”


        Report this

        10

        • #
          jon

          The Plan
          International political solutions can be negotiated if driven by the engine of science. That is, if a strong enough scientific consensus could be forged and sustained, then the compelling force of such rationality would over-ride the differences in worldviews, beliefs, values and ideologies which characterise the human world. This is hinged on a set of circumstances. These included: (i) the belief in the ‘end of history’ and the triumph of (neo-)liberal democracy; (ii) the seeming continued marginalisation of religion in public life; and (iii) the emergence of a globalised environmental science. With progressive Enlightenment liberalism a new irrepressible world order would emerge. And it would be one that would now fully exploit the predictive power of fruitful globalised science.”

          That is why they actively politicize science. By doing that they can politically exploit the PREDICTIVE Power of politicize global science.

          This is so ugly and undemocratic that it makes one Wonder what where those People letting this happend thinking?


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Jon

            What they really say?
            With progressive politicized Enlightenment liberalism a new irrepressible world order would emerge. And it would be one that would now fully exploit the predictive power of fruitful politicized globalized science.
            ?


            Report this

            00

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      From 2005…..one wonders?

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

      NEWS BRIEF: “Why the Sun seems to be ‘dimming’ “, By David Sington, BBC News, 13 January, 2005

      “We are all seeing rather less of the Sun, according to scientists who have been looking at five decades of sunlight measurements. They have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface has been gradually falling … The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Dr Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation.”

      ” ‘There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me’. Intrigued, he searched records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked. Sunlight was falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to one to two per cent globally every decade between the 1950s and the 1990s. Dr Stanhill called it ‘global dimming’ … his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.”


      Report this

      160

      • #
        Kenneth Richard

        They have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface has been gradually falling …

        http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
        “[T]here has been a global net decrease [of 3.6%] in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [which has led to] an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.” [between 1979 and 2011]

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00482.1?journalCode=clim
        Surface incident solar radiation G determines our climate and environment, and has been widely observed with a single pyranometer since the late 1950s. Such observations have suggested a widespread decrease between the 1950s and 1980s (global dimming), that is, at a rate of −3.5 W m−2 decade−1 (or −2% decade−1) from 1960 to 1990. Since the early 1990s, the diffuse and direct components of G have been measured independently, and a more accurate G has been calculated by summing these two measurements. Data from this summation method suggest that surface incident solar radition increased at a rate of 6.6 W m−2decade−1 (3.6% decade−1) from 1992 to 2002 (brightening) at selected sites.


        Report this

        100

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Global dimming was one of the hypotheses for the “current pause in warming”. I suspect this is their attempt to quantify it.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Annie

        Interesting but is it still happening?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Backslider

        So, were they saying that TSI is a major climate driver, or what?|


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Yes, they were saying that TSI is a major climate driver with the singular exception that, when David Evans is considering it as part of his hypothesis, it is not.


          Report this

          90

          • #

            Rereke Whakaaro July 20, 2014 at 7:46 am · Reply

            Yes, they were saying that TSI is a major climate driver with the singular exception that, when David Evans is considering it as part of his hypothesis, it is not.

            (sarc)
            David Evans is but a lowly Engineer, a train driver, never an esteemed Skyintest!
            (/sarc)


            Report this

            10

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I am glad you put the sarc tags in, because Dr David Evans does have a relevant PhD. The trouble is, that anybody can do advanced maths (i.e. more than adding up a grant application) is not accepted into the Climate Change fraternity, because they tend to confuse people by using pesky facts.


              Report this

              10

    • #
      Robert O

      Although I agree that AGW is a global scam and there are many on the gravy train, I fail to see why those with solar panels are parasites when they are generating useful quantities of electricity which is used by their neighbours during the day. Sure, they accepted govt. subsidies which were available at the time, but perhaps research monies could be directed at methods of storage for this power, batteries, molten salts etc.


      Report this

      63

      • #
        Mark D.

        Robert O, I’ve seen 12 volt lead acid batteries melt down and self destruct. It scares me greatly to imagine a storage battery in multiple megawatts capacity no matter what the chemistry is.


        Report this

        31

    • #
      Steve

      As Maggie used to say ( thus reinforcing the delicious tag assigned to them of parasite):

      “Socialists are very good at spending other peoples money”

      Damn that’s gotta hurt……he he

      Sometimes something is so eloquently summed up it just can’t be improved upon.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    BilB

    It is good that you put it that way, Jo, because that is exactly what you all here say about people who attempt to clear up your all mis understandings on the subject. The fact is that study has been underway for many decades and the reslts are conclusive. Those who think otherwise have failed to demonstrate any believeable alternative which does not depend upon name calling or mystical forces. And now that the one big threat to the imagined well being of the suffering public has been removed, the price on Carbon has been removed, it is going to be fascinating to see what comes next. Going on the opening line of this thread it seems that we are in for an endless string of replays. Or have you got something else in mind.


    Report this

    171

    • #
      the Griss

      Again, you haven’t got a scientific leg to stand on.

      You have NOTHING except the AGW propaganda and misinformation that is constantly spewed up by your green totalitarian agenda leaders (see above).

      Your so-called facts are NOT conclusive in any way shape or form.

      One doesn’t need an alternative to a fabrication.

      Firstly, the climate is behaving exactly as it has always behaved.. up and down in response to mainly solar forcing.

      There is NOTHING UNTOWARD happening with the climate. !!! Do…. you…. understand !!!!!

      To quote Crowded House.. “It’s Only Natural”


      Report this

      542

      • #
        Bones

        Griss,we will have to put up with the same $h t storm we are still getting after the last election.No facts,just daily doses of vomit from those soon to be jobless.


        Report this

        231

      • #
        BilB

        I’ve got 97 legs to your 3 to stand on, Griss.

        That can’t or won’t read is the problem you have.


        Report this

        127

        • #
          BilB

          Auto correct malfunction

          That YOU can’t or won’t read is the problem that you have.


          Report this

          112

        • #
          the Griss

          Ah.. so you have the brain of a centipede…. I over-estimated. !

          Your many posts have shown that all you have is a parroting of the climate misinformation put out by places like SkS and Al Gore.

          These have basically NOTHING to do with science, just PROPAGANDA.


          Report this

          162

        • #
          James Bradley

          Bilb,

          Let’s be clear on the consensus from the records of John Cook himself – 69 opinions supporting CAGW cherry-picked from some 11,000 that did not support CAGW – does not add up to 97% of all world scientists.

          Your trolling on this and other realist blog-sitees is a blatant attempt to encourage subscribers to troll alarmist sites like SKS for statistical purposes:

          Because posts on Sks only acheive an average of one comment, if you managed to have one realist respond to your baiting by trolling SkS then you would proudly proclaim support for your beliefs had doubled since the Carbon Tax was repealed.

          Realist don’t feel the need to troll alarmists or challenge your beliefs and only respond to you out of courtesy because the facts speak for themselves.

          That’s how you work the stats


          Report this

          172

      • #
        BilB

        Yes Griss, it is perfectly natural for ice to melt and storms to cool, there is indeed nothing unnatural about the earth cooling itself when more energy is in the system. It is perfectly natural for increased CO2 to trap heat (that is after all why CO2 lasers work so well) and put more moisture into the atmosphere.

        ITS PERFECTLY NATURAL


        Report this

        120

        • #
          Backslider

          It is perfectly natural for increased CO2 to trap heat (that is after all why CO2 lasers work so well) and put more moisture into the atmosphere.

          Sorry, but the theorised water vapor is missing.

          You lose, yet again, Bilbo


          Report this

          171

          • #
            llew Jones

            Of course without the long postulated positive water vapour feedback (which may be nothing more than the figment of a fervid imagination given the pause in GW) from the relatively insignificant global warming effect of CO2, acting alone, there can be no significant, let alone catastrophic global warming.

            Then there is that little bit of “settled science” that tells us that the rise in global temperature due to increasing atmospheric CO2 is proportional to the natural logarithm of the change in the CO2 ratio. Thus this coming catastrophe better get its finger out or else there will be no driving force left from CO2 to get involved in that postulated positive feedback.

            Which only proves one has to be a junior high school maths illiterate to take CAGW seriously. It also helps, so it seems from reading some of the comments here, if one is also more generally intellectually challenged.


            Report this

            120

        • #
          James Bradley

          Bilb,

          “…there is indeed nothing unnatural about the earth cooling itself when more energy is in the system.”

          I don’t understand, how can an increase in energy lead to an increase in entropy?

          “It is perfectly natural for increased CO2 to trap heat (that is after all why CO2 lasers work so well) and put more moisture into the atmosphere.”

          And just how did this natural mechanism precipitate global warming following the great ice ages?


          Report this

          90

        • #
          the Griss

          Except there is no water vapour.

          And do you really think the atmosphere is like the insides of a CO2 laser.

          Man, you are SERIOUSLY DELUDED !!!!

          And obviously have ZERO idea of the workings of either..


          Report this

          100

          • #
            the Griss

            Typo..

            Except there is no rise in water vapour. (as Backslider has shown)


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            I spent 2 years on laser research, including CO2 as more than half the time.
            Why is so much trouble taken to keep moisture out of the light paths of the CO2 laser when used in an industrial machine like a cutter or a welder?
            …..
            The analogy is misleading, in any case.
            There is too much emphasis on the stage of light interacting with CO2.
            There is too little discussion on what happens to the heat after it has been generated.
            In industry machines, it is taken away by copious cooling water. The net effect is to remove hot spots and to distribute the heat. Overall, we have a simpler equation, namely that large amounts of electricity are converted to temporary low grade heat that is for a short time above its surroundings only by an amount related to how much electricity went in. Some of it must end up as “lost to space” otherwise we would have a continuous temperature rise on Earth.
            In Nature, if energy goes into the air and ends up as heat, it is distributed into the surroundings also. The surroundings also include “lost to space”, otherwise we would have a continuous temperature rise on Earth.


            Report this

            30

        • #

          Do you claim any possible understand of CO2 lasers, or how they operate?


          Report this

          30

        • #
          Kenneth Richard

          Yes Griss, it is perfectly natural for ice to melt and storms to cool, there is indeed nothing unnatural about the earth cooling itself when more energy is in the system. It is perfectly natural for increased CO2 to trap heat (that is after all why CO2 lasers work so well) and put more moisture into the atmosphere.

          ITS PERFECTLY NATURAL

          What natural climate factors used to cause CO2 levels to rise from 180 ppm during the glacials to 300 ppm during the interglacials during the last 800,000 years—since it wasn’t humans? Where’d all that additional CO2 come from?

          During the Holocene Thermal Maximum, when CO2 levels were in the 250 ppm range, temperatures were 2.0 C warmer than now, the oceans were 2.0 C warmer than now, forests grew in northern Siberia, the Arctic was ice free during the summers, Antarctic ice was receded 80 km behind where it is now, relative sea levels were 1.5 meters higher and rose at a far more accelerated rate compared to now….

          How did all this happen with 150 ppm less CO2 present? After all, CO2 is the variable that causes warming. Right?


          Report this

          40

        • #

          Do you have even the slightest idea how lasers work?

          I’ll give you a hint – on strictly thermodynamic grounds they are negative temperature devices.


          Report this

          30

    • #
      Ian

      BilB My apologies but I’m not at all sure exactly you’re coming from. You write

      “The fact is that study has been underway for many decades and the results are conclusive. Those who think otherwise have failed to demonstrate any believeable alternative which does not depend upon name calling or mystical forces.

      To what study are you referring? That computer models show CO2 is causing global warming or the studies that show there are natural factors at play and that high temperature levels in the past have been associated with low CO2 levels? Without clarification it is difficult to be sure of what the conclusive results Similarly it is very unclear what the mystical forces are to which you refer. Is it increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations that have not caused the warming they were forecast to create or natural entities such as the PDO and AMO? To what name calling do you refer? The use of the term “denier” with its associations with the Holocaust or the use of the terms “warmist” and “alarmist” neither of which are associated with anything other than climate change or global warming as it used to be called before the current “unfortunate pause”. As for the imagined threat of the CO2 tax on the suffering public, if it didn’t increase prices and in so doing force people to use less power, what was its point? It would be much appreciated if you would address these points to clarify your position.


      Report this

      430

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        We have previously established that BilB is a second rate propagandist, who has absolute faith in the various pronouncements of witch doctors, based on a reading of chicken entrails.

        The only novelties he has brought to the debate is to substitute dubious academics, in place of the witch doctors, and the sacred climate models, in lieu of chicken entrails (which is a good thing, because chicken entrails start to smell after a while).

        His usual brilliant tactic is to totally ignore Occam’s razor, and keep on demanding that we provide proof that mankind is not the perpetrator of whatever ill he is complaining about at that particular moment.


        Report this

        271

        • #
          the Griss

          “because chicken entrails start to smell after a while”

          Believe me, those climate models.. they’ve got a real pong to them, too !!


          Report this

          200

        • #
          stan stendera

          Correction: Third rate propagandist.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          john robertson

          Rereke, we could only wish they would use chicken guts, those scryers at least ate well and often caused a small local feast.
          These fake shaman are in love with their own computer phantasies.
          Its SIM world all the way down.
          Are they also Vegans? With the associated vitamin deficiencies causing their ongoing madness?
          Chicken entrails would require blood,sharp instrument and contact with reality, climatology never goes there.


          Report this

          61

      • #
        BilB

        In that sense the term “study” is a collective term mesning all science with relevence to how energy interacts with the biosphere.

        Global warming which continues apace is about retained energy and its effects on the climate. Energy operates within the biosphere in many ways. You people here have a single dimensioned fixation with temperature. You just refuse to understand that the backscatter infrared energy trapped by CO2 temporarily resides in air but is quickly transfered to any available water. When there is no water available the air just gets hotter, hence an increase in hot spots along with higher humidity are signatures of Global Warming, less so average air temperatures at various times due to the temperature suppression effect of moisture. The supposed temperature hiatus is the atmosphere shifting into another gear as increased humidity increases atmospheric turnover. Climate Change is all about the effect of moisture in the atmosphere. More energy in the system means more moisture which means greater atmospheric turnover. This atmospheric turnover creates events such as the Phillipines being drowned over snd over, Pakistan being drown to the extent that half the entire country was under water, ever increasing flooding in Europe, Lake Ayre filling twice in the same decade, etc. All of these things happened during this supposed temperature hiatus. There may or may not have been a levelling of temperatures for a time, but there is most definitely an energy hiatus.

        The problems Jonovians exhibit are poor observation skills, bad memories, and the inadility to add things together. So while you are fixated on a short term levelling of temperatures you are completely missing the continued melting if polar ice, disappearence of glaciers increasing atmospheric moisture levels, continued warming of oceans, increased storm intensity, etc.

        The system is heating up, not just air temperatures.


        Report this

        224

        • #
          Chuck Nolan

          Sorry BilB but, where’s your evidence?
          “So while you are fixated on a short term levelling of temperatures you are completely missing the continued melting if polar ice, disappearence of glaciers increasing atmospheric moisture levels, continued warming of oceans, increased storm intensity, etc.”
          Ain’t nothing unusual happening.
          This is just more natural cycles.


          Report this

          80

        • #
          the Griss

          Floods in Philippines

          Pakistan floods (goto slide 46

          And Lake Eyre.

          Again, you haven’t done your homework have you, naughty little child.

          No wonder you are doomed to remain in IGNORANCE the rest of your worthless propaganda existence.

          I repeat, because you seem to have basic comprehension issues, due no doubt to your brain-washing..

          (They obviously used a high pressure hose, and left an empty space behind, where a brain might once have been)

          NOTHING UNTOWARD IS HAPPENING .

          ITS ALL JUST NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY.


          Report this

          62

        • #
          Kenneth Richard

          You just refuse to understand that the backscatter infrared energy trapped by CO2 temporarily resides in air but is quickly transfered to any available water.

          According to Levitus et al, 2012, ocean heat content has risen by just +0.09 C since 1955. Again, that’s merely +0.09 C of “warming” in 57 years! And between 1955 and 2012, CO2 levels exploded by 80 ppm…and yet ocean heat content did not explode. In fact, the heating of the oceans actually decelerated when compared with the first half of the 20th century, when ocean heat content warmed much faster.

          (By the way, for the time being, let’s disregard that ocean heat was 2.0 C warmer than now during the Holocene Thermal Maximum, when CO2 levels were in the 250s and 260s ppm. Hmmmm. How’d that happen, since CO2 is the only variable that heats the oceans according to the CAGW hypothesis? Anyway…)

          Using data found in this peer-reviewed paper (Gouretski et al, 2012)….

          http://rhinohide.org/climate/publications/Gouretski/NearSurfaceOceanWarming1900.pdf
          “The upper 400 meters of the ocean warmed by about 0.3–0.7C since 1910, with a central estimate around 0.5 to 0.6C.”

          …and putting these figures together with Levitus et al (2012) estimate of +0.09 C of ocean heat since 1955 (we’ll round up to 0.1 C), we can estimate that the upper 400 meters of the oceans warmed by about 0.4 or 0.5 C between 1910 and 1955, but then slowed down to just 0.1 C of ocean warming between 1955 and present (after actually cooling during the 1960s and 1970s). Considering that CO2 ppm levels were still in the low 300s during the 1910 to 1955 period, and then exploded up to 400 ppm after that, this once again establishes that there is no correlation between rapidly amplifying CO2 and rapidly warming oceans, as the trends are reversed: less CO2 produced rapid ocean warming, and much more CO2 produced much less ocean warming.

          “Climate Change is all about the effect of moisture in the atmosphere.”

          And the CAGW hypothesis assumes that there are only (runaway) positive feedbacks with moisture (water vapor, clouds). Peer-reviewed science (Lindzen and Choi, 2011, Spencer and Brazwell, 2011, Richard P Allan, 2011, and many others) tells us otherwise—the feedbacks are net negative.

          For a succinct summary, see Jo’s blog entry and read the pdfs for the last 3 papers by Miskolczi (2007, 2010) and Paltridge et al. (2009) listed on the reference list at the bottom from the link below…

          http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/#more-21688

          “When there is no water available the air just gets hotter, hence an increase in hot spots…”

          Where are the hot spots? The models and theory predict hot spots will appear in the mid-troposphere about 5 km up…and satellites tell us conclusively that they’re not there. When a hypothesis is tested and isn’t confirmed, scientists discard the hypothesis. Well, they’re supposed to, anyway.

          From Jo’s blog entry above:
          Miskolczi developed a theoretical explanation for the absence of a tropical hot-spot in 2004, postulating that the production of entropy would already be maximized, therefore, an increase in one greenhouse gas will be matched by a decrease in another (namely water vapor) so that the efficiency of radiation leaving the Earth will not be changed[xiv] ,[xv]. He estimates that the greenhouse effect as shown by the atmospheric optical depth has not changed in 61 years (he used estimations of greenhouse gas concentrations, and radiosonde recordings of temperature and humidity).[xiii] Other studies by Paltridge et al 2009 [xvi] have shown that water vapor levels have dropped as CO2 levels have risen. Miskolczi’s 2010 work has not been challenged to date at a peer-reviewed level.


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            I am with the many other scientists who refute claims of ocean warming on the basis that instruments are too sparse in time and space and too inaccurate to provide a coherent picture.
            When Argo was accepted about a decade ago, all previous readings were essentially found to be in error or under suspicion. One day, a new generation of ocean temperature sensors will be introduced. It is a scientific outcome to be expected that they will again throw suspicion on all that has gone before.
            Science works that way, time after time.
            Have a look at the way a similar series of events unfolder with satellite sensors measuring the top of atmosphere radiation balance. Same thing.


            Report this

            20

        • #
          Bames Bradley

          Bilb,

          “There may or may not have been a levelling of temperatures for a time, but there is most definitely an energy hiatus.”

          An admission of the pause and recognition of the cause – less energy = lower temperatures.

          Yet contradicts your own statement at 2.1.3 where:

          “there is indeed nothing unnatural about the earth cooling itself when more energy is in the system”

          So, Bilb, a bett each way – the temperature rise levels with less energy and the temperature decreases with more energy.

          Your settled science certainly defies all known laws of honesty and integrity.


          Report this

          51

        • #
          Backslider

          Bilbo…

          increasing atmospheric moisture levels

          Yet again (how many times must you be told), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration does not agree with you.

          You do realise that this lack of atmospheric water vapor totally falsifies you CO2 theories, do you not?


          Report this

          20

    • #
      cohenite

      Bilby, even by your standards that comment is incoherent. The only thing conclusive about AGW is that it is a failed theory.

      When and if the dust finally settles on AGW and its believers can no longer censor it will be fascinating to consider the psychology of the AGW believer. My own feelings are that belief in AGW is similar if not identical to religious belief with the responses from the believers mirroring criticism of any religion: that is ranging from polite but determined resistance to any critique to arrogant, condescending dismissal of any who have temerity to question the validity of the saved who accept the holy gospel of AGW.

      There is no attempt to justify AGW in open debate by AGW believers. They only want to censor and resist any suggestion their belief is ill conceived.

      For me the whole sorry saga has been another example of how otherwise smart people can have scrambled views when their emotions and beliefs get involved.


      Report this

      611

      • #
        BilB

        Cohenite, you exhibit that phenomenon we see in tribal lands after an election where all sides declre a victory ignoring the facts. AGW is proven 97 to 3 by study and 25 to 1 by physical expression in the biosphere. What more is there to say.


        Report this

        223

        • #
          Backslider

          AGW is proven 97 to 3 by study and 25 to 1 by physical expression in the biosphere.

          You mean like this?

          Nice physical expression. Fail.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          cohenite

          The 97% claim is such a lie. Jo analysis is here.

          In a recent exchange at the Newcastle Morning Herald John Cook was given a right of reply to this article.

          Cook’s reply is here.

          In the comments to the first article this is noted in reply to Cook’s comment:

          In your paper you define the consensus position as being:

          “That humans are causing global warming.”

          That consensus position is defined in your categories by category 1 of Table 2 which I have already quoted. The rest of your categories reflect
          varying degrees of lessor support for AGW [categories 2 and 3], or indifference to AGW [categories 4a and 4b] or active opposition to AGW [categories 5 to 7]. Only the first 3 categories could be defined as giving support for AGW.

          However, on the basis of the categories 1-3, of the original 11944 Abstracts from papers on climate you selected you discarded 8048 papers or 67.4% because they had no position.

          Of the remaining 4014 papers or 32.6% of papers 3973 or 99%
          of the remaining abstracts fell into categories 2 and 3. Only 41 or 1%
          expressed support for YOUR definition of the consensus that:

          “Humans are causing global warming.”

          That’s 1% not 97%.

          Now you say you had the authors of the papers rate their papers according to your criteria; you say:

          “1200 scientists rated their own papers, resulting in over 2000 papers being categorised by the papers’ own authors. Among papers that were self-rated as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.”

          The author’s self-rating is shown by Table 4 from your paper.
          In fact 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. Your paper says of those 2142 self-ratings 1342 are described as Endorsing AGW. That is confirming the consensus position or category 1 of your 7 categories. The caption to Table 4 says:

          “Self-rated papers that endorse AGW have an average endorsement rating less than 4.”

          But that would include categories 2 and 3 which are LESS than
          the consensus position. So the question remains exactly how many self-rated Abstracts actually conform to your own definition of the consensus as defined only in category 1.

          In addition, the self-referencing shows that 761 scientists have no position on AGW which as the caption to Table 4 says conforms
          to categories 4a and 4b of your categories which is 761/2142 X 100 = 35.52%. That is much less than your paper’s initial selection and discard of 67.4% of the 11,944 papers because the Abstract had no position on AGW.

          Maybe the only scientists who responded to your invitation to self-rate were those who initially had a position on AGW. If so 35.52% of them changed their minds from being in categories 1-3 to being in
          categories 4a and 4b!

          Any way you look at this the % actually supporting the consensus, as defined in your paper, is less than the claimed 97%.

          By any logic or reason Cook’s thesis of the 97% consensus is contradicted but it doesn’t stop acolytes like bilby claiming it time after time. The 97% is symptomatic of AGW belief in general. No matter what proof is presented the believers will keep on believing.


          Report this

          140

        • #
          Ross

          BilB

          From your post above “The fact is that study has been underway for many decades and the reslts are conclusive. ”

          From your latest post “AGW is proven 97 to 3 by study and 25 to 1 by physical expression in the biosphere. What more is there to say.”

          If this all correct then can you tell us what efforts you are putting in to persuade the Australian Government to STOP FUNDING AGW research ? If it is so clear cut there should no need for any more research. The scientists and some of the funds, can move on to other fields of research that have been neglected in recent decades.


          Report this

          120

        • #
          Kenneth Richard

          “AGW is proven 97 to 3 by study and 25 to 1 by physical expression in the biosphere. What more is there to say.”

          Well, since it is “proven,” then surely you will be able to answer this two-part question with ease. Let’s see you do it.

          1. What was the man-made percentage of attribution (an actual percentage number between 0 and 100%) for the rapid warming of +0.5 C that occurred between 1910 and 1940, when CO2 levels only rose from 300 ppm to 305 ppm?

          2. What was the man-made percentage of attribution (an actual percentage number between 0 and 100%) for the global cooling of -0.2 C that occurred between 1940 and 1976, when CO2 levels rose from 305 ppm to 335 ppm?

          Put another way, how could just 5 ppm of additional CO2 cause +0.5 C of warming in 30 years, but 30 ppm of CO2 caused -0.2 C of cooling in the next 35 years?

          Support your answer with peer-reviewed science. Again, this should be easy for you…since it’s been proven by John Cook.


          Report this

          90

    • #
      Backslider

      I was following this thread, complete with a couple of CAGW bogans…. until they chickened out and closed the thread.

      Cohenite’s comment fits perfectly:

      There is no attempt to justify AGW in open debate by AGW believers. They only want to censor and resist any suggestion their belief is ill conceived.


      Report this

      460

      • #
        BilB

        Tell me, Backslider, did you allow your children to persist with false ideas and understandings or did you educate them with truth and reality?


        Report this

        115

        • #
          Backslider

          Oh wow! I am so honored to have the legendary Bilbo ask me such an erudite question.

          In short, no.

          I’m not sure however which “truth and reality” you are referring to. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me?


          Report this

          110

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I wouldn’t get too excited, just yet, Backslider. BilB has obviously just mastered chapter three of Propaganda for Dummies, and it trying out some of the techniques.


            Report this

            110

            • #
              the Griss

              Gees, I though he was just struggling to get past the preface. !

              Hasn’t mastered anything.

              Nothing of any worth coming from his direction.. as usual.


              Report this

              70

            • #
              Bames Bradley

              Hi Rereke,

              I think he actually ordered ‘Dummies for Propaganda’ – rookie mistake, and that’s what happens when you read the sequel first.


              Report this

              50

        • #
          James Bradley

          Bilb,

          If I may answer, my children are now in their 30′s and both were allowed to make independent decisions based on documented facts and direct observations.

          Consequently, on the topic of global warming both concluded that the planet has warmed since the Little Ice Age.

          Since the human population of the planet was far less then than now, and since the industrial revolution had not yet commenced, facts and observations seem to contradict the hypothesis that humans and CO2 are responsible for global warming.

          Both then concluded that the mechanism must be natural and they were grateful for it.


          Report this

          130

        • #
          the Griss

          “did you allow your children to persist with false ideas and understandings.”

          Your parents obviously did.

          But since you are obviously still only in high school, you may still be able to gain some basic education instead of propaganda lies and mistruths.

          But you will have to release your mind from its brain-washed stupor, first.

          No signs of that happening in the near future.


          Report this

          81

    • #
      Leigh

      http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm
      Flannery once said,
      PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.”
      If thats the best your science has got and your still wondering why skeptic numbers are still rising god help us.
      Enough said.


      Report this

      440

    • #
      James (Aus.)

      More to the point, it’s staggering to read something like this,

      ” Those who think otherwise have failed to demonstrate any believeable alternative which does not depend upon name calling or mystical forces”,

      after how many years of private and public education which should at least include some grounding in the methodology of science.

      BilB is unwilling to admit the obvious; that there has been no support for any hypothesis (I wonder if he knows what an H is..) regarding (A)GW with CO2 as the variable under test. None.

      Instead, this fellow trots out the usual whine of the scientifically illiterate: show me why something I believe in, but has never been supported, is not right.
      It’s the 21st century, yet still this pre-Enlightenment miasma persists among his ilk.

      ” it is going to be fascinating to see what comes next”; how about the dismantling of dishonest “renewable” scams and the closing of ratbag “climate” activist outfits presently parasitising the public, BilB? You know, a return to honesty, integrity and the Scientific Method.

      (And how about Flannery’s whining begging video. There’s your big chance, BilB, pop something big in the velvet collection plate or Flanners will have to send his partner back to work again..)


      Report this

      440

      • #
        Backslider

        there has been no support for any hypothesis (I wonder if he knows what an H is..) regarding (A)GW with CO2 as the variable under test.

        It’s known as denial.

        One of the core tenets of AGW/CO2 theory is that that CO2 provokes a “forcing” of increased water vapor however we find that even though human CO2 emissions have been increasing exponentially, water vapor has in fact been in decline: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html Upon this the whole theory fails. – here


        Report this

        70

    • #
      aussie pete

      BilB, I like to be scared out of my wits but only if its a genuine threat. Can you tell me the names of two reputable (in your opinion) climate scientists who predicted something SCAREY in say 1998 that has actually happened. I will become a faithful disciple of such persons. I am troubled that my own searches have proven unfruitful, especially since apparently 97% of everyone has all the answers.


      Report this

      250

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        B..b..but that carbon dioxide is a horrible poison creating post-apocalyptic nightmares every hour of the day, just imagine how scary it would look if CO2 was purple instead of invisible. See! Simulations are empirical evidence and their imagination is all the proof you need. Be afraid, be very afraid!


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Andrew,

          Why do you suppose that the purple CO2 floated upwards in that simulation?

          CO2 is heavier than air, so it should have sunk downwards. Perhaps they simulated the water vapour instead, thinking that CO2 = H20?

          Yes, that is what must have happened. Hence we get all of the “apparent CO2″ coming out of the aircraft engines, which are very efficient, and burn all of the liquid hydrocarbons in kerosene, just leaving water vapour.

          Otherwise the simulation proves nothing, other than the maker know swat all about science.


          Report this

          40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … tell me the names of two reputable (in your opinion) climate scientists who predicted something SCAREY in say 1998 …

        I can do better than that, and go back to 1978 when a number of Climate Scientists, including Dr Gifford Miller (who is currently researching Arctic ice melt) and Dr Stephen Schneider (who is now deceased, but was very prominent in the warming movement prior to his death) were two of about two dozen PhD’s who (in a television series) put their names to the belief that a New Ice Age would arrive by the end of the Twentieth Century. From what we see now, they may have been out by about twenty years.

        If you predict something, then something will happen … eventually.


        Report this

        20

    • #

      BilB, you say here: (my Bolds)

      It is good that you put it that way, Jo, because that is exactly what you all here say about people who attempt to clear up your all mis understandings on the subject.

      How about YOU clear up a misunderstanding for US then, eh!

      Go and read the Post at this link, and tell us where our misunderstanding is. Be frank and offer an opinion. Tell us what it is that WE misunderstand about that.

      Bet you won’t dare.

      Tony.


      Report this

      400

      • #
        handjive

        TonyfromOz,

        Incase you missed this one:

        Where have all the billions gone?
        From WUWT and Energy Matters we have this graph from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy putting into perspective how much solar ,
        wind, and biomass have contributed to world energy contrary to green fantasies.

        http://www.climatecommonsense2.com/2014/07/where-have-all-billions-gone.html


        Report this

        130

        • #
          Bones

          Handjive,when you put the number of wind turbines at more than 200,000 it makes one realize what a nice little earner the scam has been over the years.


          Report this

          80

        • #

          If it wasn’t for Hydro Power, Renewables would not even rate a mention.

          Less than 2% Worldwide for Wind and all Solar.

          And it only cost Trillions.

          What a bargain. (/sarc)

          China Hydro actually makes worldwide renewables look like a decent percentage, and lucky those hydro plants are in China. Greens wouldn’t allow any Developed Country to put in any new dams anywhere. And therein lies the green hypocrisy. They claim renewables are doing so well, and without that China Hydro, virtually zip.

          China Hydro provides almost 23% of all China’s total power generation, almost 240,000MW in Nameplate, (the equivalent of 120 large scale coal fired power plants) supplying almost 1,000TWh per year, and for perspective on that, Australia’s total generation from EVERY source is only 235TWh per year. China also has another 50,000MW of Hydro Capacity still under construction.

          All up when finally all online, even though further construction will just go on, all that Hydro means around 150 large scale coal fired plants do not need to be built.

          That’s the inconvenient truth about Hydro which those green religious followers would not like you to know.

          They just proudly proclaim renewables are at an all time high percentage when virtually all of it is Hydro, China Hydro at that.

          Tony.


          Report this

          241

          • #
            Leigh

            A more enlightening expose would be, in whose pocket that money ended up in.
            Sure, a hell of a lot ended up in the coffers of the United Nations.
            But even that corrupt body has to pay it’s “bills”.
            And again, sure we know about the Flannerys and the Gores.
            Plus the goverments of “our” own labor partys ilk right around the world.
            Ably assisted by their own taxpayer funded propoganda arm, their ABC and like mind state funded bodys every where else.
            It’s the “silent” partners in the fraud if exposed that would really up the ante.


            Report this

            100

          • #
            the Griss

            Imagine the green fury if the Liberal government started building big hydro dams up north as the start of any northern irrigation development.

            Would be a wonderful way of meeting the RET if it can’t be got rid of. :-)


            Report this

            50

          • #
            aussie pete

            Tony,
            Do you have some kind of visual presentation that demonstrates the numbers you speak of, ideally overlaid with their relative costs per KWH or whatever. One of the problems in trying to convince my MILDLY interested circle of friends, is that of perception. By that i mean they drive along the highway and see these windmills apparently silently and harmlessly (some even call them graceful) producing all this clean energy, then they get home and on the ABC news they see the PHOTOSHOPPED steam and pictures of some rusty old power station from 1950.
            In the end this battle will be won or lost at the ballot box. Whilst i’m at it, setting you some homework, i would like to hear a brief word from you re the future of tidal power and Thorium. I’ve been googling but having difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps you could write a book “POWER GENERATION FOR DUMMIES”. lol
            Thank you for your many contributions – cheers
            Pete


            Report this

            81

      • #
        BilB

        Tony, you and I see things from completely different perspectives. If you are talking about supplying electricity into an area where there has not been a supply in the past I’m sure that I can prove that the cost of connecting the residential premesis’ to a power station will excede the cost of providing solar panels and batteries. The second issue becomes that of people having money to pay for the electricity thereforward. This is where less developed communities routinely come unstuck and power facilities become white elephants. Solar energy does not have the ongoing fuel cost and that will not vary over time.

        Even for business solar energy is a better solution particularly for a desert country similar to Niger. The question becomes one of investment, who and how.


        Report this

        116

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Solar has its own operating costs, as in the panels need frequent cleaning, their efficiency follows a standard S-curve, as do the batteries, which follow an hysteresis curve, and they also require regular maintenance or periodic replacement.

          Sand and dust are the enemies of solar panels, so it is never a good idea to have them in exposed positions in a desert environment. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Military had to put the panels inside blast enclosures, which reduced particulate damage to the glass, but also reduced the number of operating hours.

          It is not just a question of investment. The electricity is not free, and it is disingenuous to suggest that it is.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          the Griss

          Solar only works during about 1/3 of the day, and only under clearish skies

          You cannot run a fridge for 1/3 of the day.

          Solar doesn’t work at night (did you know that?)

          You cannot cook using solar electricity after dark without large battery storage.

          Batteries are a high pollution, high turn-over item.

          Sorry, but solar (or wind) are NOT a viable alternative for solid base load from coal, gas, or nuclear.


          Report this

          51

        • #

          Ah, BilB, you really are blind aren’t you. You read only what your masters shove at you, and believe that verbatim, without actually even attempting to find out if it’s true.

          Let’s look at that new power plant for Niger, keeping in mind it’s only one unit of 600MW, and supplying 4.6TWh of power to the North of that Country.

          That new one proposal is going to cost $1.475 Billion, a huge amount, and I can see all those greenies out there right now nodding their heads and saying ….. “See, just one unit and it costs an absolute fortune, just like we’ve been saying all along”

          However, that is not the cost just for the one electrical power generating plant. That cost is for the whole project, the commissioning of a completely new open pit coal mine from a green field situation, the power plant, and the power transmission construction for a power grid for the North of Niger, so the plant itself is actually quite a minor part of that whole overall cost.

          So then, here you add that solar power is a good fit for this Country, both at a residential level and also at the business level. Here’s another case where Tony muses to himself ….. Tony, never pose the question unless you actually know the answer.

          Let’s then go to Spain, home of Solar power, and poster child for CSP, or what is referred to as Solar Thermal Power, that pointed to target as the answer to replacing coal fired power and eminently capable of providing power to cover the absolute base load requirement.

          Spain has 24 of these CSP plants. They have a total Nameplate of 1780MW, in fact, almost 3 times the Nameplate of this ONE unit proposed for Niger. See, I hear you say, look at that, much better.

          However, as I have always said, never go on Nameplate. Always quote the ACTUAL power delivery.

          In this case , ALL of those 24 CSP plants deliver 4.2TWH of power to the Spanish grids.

          Say, umm, that’s less than the power delivered by this ONE unit for Niger. And anyway, it’s all but useless, because at a Capacity Factor of only 28% (slightly worse than for Wind Power) that’s an extrapolated daily average delivery of only six and a half hours, more in Summer, and less in Winter, well, a lot less really, as some of those plants close up completely for Winter, not worth delivering the power, well, not able to run up in the first place because they cannot generate enough heat to make the compound molten enough to make steam to drive the turbine which drives the generator.

          Those 24 CSP plants, if constructed from new In Niger would cost around $30 Billion, which is actually on the low side of costings for them from new, and in fact, it would be closer to $40 Billion.

          Then, after building those 24 CSP plants in Niger, you still need to construct the infrastructure to get the power to the North of Niger.

          Don’t bother with large scale PV panel power plants, as their Capacity Factor is only 13%, or around three and a bit hours a day on average.

          Individual PV panels for homes and businesses. You must be kidding. Who pays for that, and then the batteries in an attempt to provide hoped for 24 hour power, on that scale, residential maybe, but for Commerce and Industry. Then new Batteries every seven years, best case scenario, and the cost soars, well, goes off into outer space anyway. You must be out of your mind if you think this is an option.

          Wind Power. Well, for 600MW Nameplate, you’re looking in the vicinity of $2.2 to $2.6 Billion, and with that Capacity Factor (30% or 7 hours a day on average) you’ll need three plants of that size to deliver the same power, again useless at only 7 hours a day, so there’s $6.6 to $7.2 Billion, and then you still need to construct the infrastructure, a whole new grid from scratch for that.

          Then, keep in mind the coal fired plant has a projected life span of 50 years, while at the end of 20 to 25 years, you need to totally replace all those solar or wind plants, so there’s a doubling of the above quoted costs right there.

          So, this proposal for Niger is not only the absolute cheapest possible result, but is in fact, more viable than anything else.

          BilB, I’m just so glad you gave me this opportunity to show you up for the fool that you are.

          Do some bl00dy research, you cretin. You know nothing, and in fact, a little less than nothing.

          Tony.


          Report this

          81

          • #
            the Griss

            “You know nothing, and in fact, a little LOT less than nothing”

            He is a sludge of negative knowledge.

            He needs to get rid of everything he has been brain-washed with before he can even start to learn.

            Many of the alarmista apologists are the same.


            Report this

            41

          • #
            Winston

            Unfortunately, Tony, the know-nothings like BilB control the media message, they control the political decision making processes, and they are leading all of us, but especially the developing world, down a path of hideously expensive inefficient, ineffective energy, all to mitigate against an imaginary problem in an imaginary future. If that’s not bad enough, if people like BilB pulled their cranium out of their rectum for just one moment and had a look around, they would notice that their are far better alternatives in the here and now (LNG, nuclear), or in the offing in the next 10-15 yrs (e.g. thorium, LENR) which will likely make all this huge investment in dud technology entirely superfluous.

            If a new “renewable” source of energy production was to replace fossil fuels, due diligence at a MINIMUM should insist that such energy be 24/7 base load compatible (ie. not intermittent), it should be scalable to a capability to provide for the energy needs of a modern economy and a growing population, it should not contribute to instability of the grid, it should be financially responsible, it should not cause more environmental destruction than it is meant to mitigate against, and it should not require a back up fossil fuel system to ensure it delivered consistent power. It also shouldn’t require the sacrifice of large tracts of arable land that would otherwise be available for agriculture to feed humans in a world where hunger is still an ever-present and pressing issue. As such, wind and solar are not fit for purpose, and are facilitated purely for the financial benefit of carpetbaggers and unscrupulous snake-oil salesmen. No one here would object to an alternative to fossil fuels that fulfilled these criteria, but you will accept anything in the name of “progress”, no matter how false, how many demonstrable lies and distortions are shown to be involved, and at what cost to the community of your fellow tax payers.

            Considering what is at stake, especially for those most vulnerable (up to and including survival for some at the margins), I would have thought that any intelligent person would have INSISTED on a high level of transparency and a proper and thorough assessment of the risk/benefit ratios, and not blithely wave away the harm their advocacy has, and likely will cause. The onus is entirely on the part of alarmists who advocate renewables to ensure that they are capable of sustaining a modern economy, and on that basis, IMHO, you have failed completely to demonstrate that you have undertaken even a cursory assessment of this – rather you are so wedded to your philosophy that you seem to think it beneath you to contemplate the consequences of adherence to your religion. As such, you stand condemned.


            Report this

            41

          • #
            BilB

            Tony, had you bothered to look at the layout of Niger and its communities you would have seen what dumb proposal a centralised coal power station would be for that country. For starters the proposed coal power system provides for delivery only to the centres, this does not include a distribution system nor user connection.

            Then there is the affordability. The average hourly income in Niger is 37 cents per hour, and only a quarter of the population have paid work. Business will be able to afford this electricity, but not households.

            Alternatively just 2 panels in Niamey will produce 1500 kwhrs per year. To provide 2 panels and a small battery to 4 million households will cost less than 1.6 billion dollars and delivery 6TWHrs to all parts of the country, even the remotest parts. Furthermore the modular nature of the panels would allow flexibility of use particularly in the country side. The most important part is that there is no daily cost which would be $3 per week for the delivered energy. That is the money that families have available to buy some appliances such as small fridges, cell phones, led lighting, slow cookers.


            Report this

            15

            • #
              Mark D.

              Bilb, you can’t run industry on those panels. To raise the standard of living you need industry. To support industry you need fossil fuel or nuclear. It cannot be said any clearer but I doubt you will understand.


              Report this

              51

            • #
              Robert

              No daily cost? What about the battery replacement, the panel replacement? When that time comes the cost divided out over the amount of actual energy production measured in days isn’t going to look good. Just so you understand, if you can, energy production measured in days is NOT how many days the panels were in place, it is how many HOURS that they produced usable energy converted into days. Oh and I see you continually ignore the maintenance aspect, which in a dusty, sandy environment will be daily. I suppose that is done for free? If the homeowner has to do it then it is time out of their day they would not have had to take had they been given a more reliable energy source. If the government or some third party contractor has to do it you can bet it will cost someone.

              Do continue though, every time you comment on matters such as this you confirm that those such as you that believe the nonsense you write have absolutely no understanding of power generation or economics.


              Report this

              31

    • #
      Chuck Nolan

      Put what what way?
      Willis is right about quoting someones words.
      What were you right about, this time, Jo?


      Report this

      08

    • #

      BilB, you have never said anything remotely convincing in defense of AGW. You get nasty replies because you post pure propaganda.

      Those who think otherwise have failed to demonstrate any believeable alternative which does not depend upon name calling or mystical forces.

      Newton was supposed to be obnoxious and not above lying when he got into an argument, yet even he would not have considered “a/b=c ∴ you’re a knob” as proof. He did, though, prefer to keep gravity as a mystical force that was probably beyond human understanding. Can you imagine where we would be if that was not allowed?


      Report this

      31

      • #
        BilB

        VicG,

        I am sorry for you for you comprehension issues. I believe that people with your affliction can be help. You are best to start with your family physician.


        Report this

        19

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      BilB said:

      The fact is that study has been underway for many decades and the reslts are conclusive.

      Don’t tell us; tell the weather. Tell the polar bears, tell Antarctica and tell the business-as-usual seas. Tell the plateaued atmospheric temperature and find and tell the AOL Hot Spot. Tell the rain that wasn’t supposed to fall. Also remind the climate to not make a big deal about the tax’s repeal because it could, even by the guru’s figures, only make one puffteenth of bugger-all difference to the global temperature – and that’s before you consider our production merely shifting overseas to our dirtier competitors.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Typo with “guru’s figures”. Incorrect placement of apostrophe. Should be “gurus’ figures” (plural).


        Report this

        00

      • #
        BilB

        What a nincompoop, Seam M. There was a cardon price for 12 months and now there is not one, and you are still whinging. You clearly know nothing about business. Our businesses are moving overseas because people living in poverty are cheaper to employ than your children. Full stop. The cost of electricity has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact electricity is more expensive and less reliable in many of the places that businesses choose to move to. Do you pick these dumb remarks out of some handbook of stupidity?
        [One of Jo's requirements to comment here is to show respect and be polite. Calling people names, issuing direct insults, and being rude, does not comply with that requirement. This is a warning. If you persist you will be moderated -Fly]


        Report this

        010

        • #
          James Bradley

          Bilb,

          “You clearly know nothing about business. Our businesses are moving overseas because people living in poverty are cheaper to employ than your children. Full stop. The cost of electricity has absolutely nothing to do with it.”

          Q. Then why has our aluminium industry folded?

          A. Because the Carbon Tax increased electricity costs and killed the industry.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          BilB

          Fly, I insist that you take note of the barrage of abuse in the comments directed at me. It is intensely insulting and I am applying extreme restraint.


          Report this

          25

          • #
            Robert

            You are whining about the abuse you receive when every comment you make towards anyone here begins with insulting them? [SNIP]

            41

          • #
            James Bradley

            The last refuge of the abuser – hide behind the very rules you abuse.

            Oh look, I think you just dropped something behind you there Bilb…. your spine.


            Report this

            30

          • #

            I am applying extreme restraint.

            You might consider a ball gag in addition. [SNIP]

            31

    • #
      John M

      The ‘Climate Change’ debate should be a discussion based entirely on science, but it’s clearly morphed into an ideological war for those on the left. For example, if you are ‘Green’ then by default you are a climate change alarmist.

      What I find most interesting, is that blogs which take a sceptical view are mainly run by people with science and engineering backgrounds such as Jo Nova, Dr Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, Anthony Watts, etc. On these blogs the discussion is all about questioning the science and not about ideology. But, on the other side of the debate, the alarmists maintain their rage on ideologically aligned blogs hosted by the ABC, BBC, The Conversation, etc, and along ideological lines. If you don’t agree with the alarmist view then you must be “a denier”, and you must be shut down, silenced or worse….!.

      So, ultimately we end up with a meeting of scientifically and logically minded people versus ideologically and fear driven people. It is not possible to discuss the scientific facts and figures with a group who are already locked in by ideology, because you will be challenging their core ‘Green’ beliefs. All you will ever get in response is same lame name calling (eg: denier, flat earther, etc) followed by something along the lines of ‘the science is settled’.


      Report this

      112

  • #
    Ceetee

    Like dogs barking at the moon it seems. Do they live in a parallel universe? Are they so hubristic that they can’t see that no one but their own rowdy acolytes actually believe their chicken little worldview?
    I’ve just watched your prime minister speaking on the MH17 debacle and I must say he is coming across as strong and decisive. The Americans must be envious. Your spirit is alive and well. No mealy mouth dark corner seeking sentiments for you lot.


    Report this

    303

  • #
    Ceetee

    Like dogs barking at the moon it seems. Do they live in a parallel universe? Are they so hubristic that they can’t see that no one but their own rowdy acolytes actually believe their chicken little worldview?
    I’ve just watched your prime minister speaking on the MH17 debacle and I must say he is coming across as strong and decisive. The Americans must be so envious. Your spirit is alive and well. No mealy mouth dark corner seeking sentiments for you lot.


    Report this

    61

  • #
    TdeF

    Adam Bandt? His PhD is on communism. I asked him once if he believed all the usual communist rote he used in his talk and his response was “I tell them what they want to hear and when we get power, we do what we want”. That about sums up the Greens, who care more about Jews and Israel than Trees.
    Richard Denniss. A career economist who debated Lord Monckton, a professional expert and one of the huge body of economists who did not predict the GFC but prepared to tell everyone he knows how the planet works and that we should live in fear and pay for the privilege.
    Bill Shorten, a man without a mind or opinion of his own, at best a beer coaster for Albanese or Plibersek. Labor always replace the leader when an election is called, thrown away like a disposable filter or a sacrificial metal strip on an outboard motor. Even the very successful Bob Hawke was fired and in the last two elections two more incumbent PMs were dumped. What chance does Shorten have? None.
    As for pseudo scientist Flannery with his undergraduate degree in English at LaTrobe, Tim is at best a science fiction writer. How he can make himself out as a physical scientist who understands stuff like equations, graphs, chemistry, equilibrium, regression analysis and multivariate real time computer modelling is beyond anyone. Climate Commission. Yes, they should all be committed.


    Report this

    380

    • #
      tonyM

      Whilst I’m no fan of a “consensus” scientist or his other nonsense, we need to be careful when piling on ridicule particularly if based on erroneous facts.

      According to Wiki:

      “In 1984, Flannery earned a doctorate at the University of New South Wales in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of macropods (kangaroos).

      …the Greater Monkey-faced Bat (Pteralopex flanneryi), only described in 2005, honours Flannery,” hopefully not because there is any resemblance.

      He has published over 90 papers.


      Report this

      01

      • #
        TdeF

        Erroneous? Yes, Tim has a PhD and nominally in the Science faculty. Paleoentology is not a physical science. Like a US Science degree in Business.
        His undergraduate degree involved no science subjects. Presumably he could not get into a science degree.
        Then Earth Sciences at Monash. Then Paleoentology at Sydney. Really dead uniquely Australian megafauna.
        Sure, this is in the Science department, so nominally a science degree.
        What is wrong is a person who is not a physical scientist striding the stage as if he is a physical scientist. While Ian Plimer, geologist is ridiculed for not being a ‘climate scientist’, Tim gets away with it. He has no qualifications in physical science as you would expect, no tertiary qualifications in mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology but he manages to scorn real scientists as not being climate scientists, which he is not. When he recommends shares in the hot rocks business, as being “straightforward technology” he has no qualifications to say so.


        Report this

        140

      • #
        TdeF

        I had also not seen my comments as ridicule? Tim has a PhD and that is commendable. Adam Bandt also can qualify. Richard Denniss too. The core problem is that these people push themselves as experts in a subject when they are not. If there is an element of ridicule, it is that their qualifications are utterly inappropriate for their aggressive posturing and absolutism on Global Warming. Collectively they could not fix your dishwasher.


        Report this

        130

  • #
    BilB

    Elsewhere in the world people are just getting on with dumping coal for a lot of very good reasons

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/07/18/no-coal-in-minnesota/

    Why your power really costs twice what it 5 years ago

    https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/july/1404136800/jess-hill/power-corrupts

    Never mind what the locals say, this is what the whole thinks of us

    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/07/07/4038488.htm


    Report this

    244

    • #
      the Griss

      Greg Laden!.. roflmao

      and 2 far left propaganda institutions…

      NO WONDER you have no understanding of reality !!!


      Report this

      342

      • #
        Dave

        The Griss,

        BilB has used as you say the worst of scientific links possible

        1. Greg Laden Blogger & biological anthropologist
        2. Jess Hill Correspondent on Middle East/North Africa & Australia
        3. Stephen Long ABC reporter

        Unbelievable that he said earlier:

        The fact is that study has been underway for many decades and the reslts are conclusive.

        He can’t spell “results”, but even his sources of proof are very questionable, and indicates the whole Global Warming Scam is dominated by these sorts of people with NO qualifications in any sort of Climate Science.

        Good luck BilB, hope you take up MattyB’s offer to purchase blankets
        Because you’ll need them soon.


        Report this

        232

    • #
      Ian

      BilB I had a look at the third of your items, that from the ABC in which the RET was discussed. It was fascinating to read that renewables are the future looking at what is happening around the world. For example why is Germany moving back to coal? Why is fracking in the USA putting that country in a position where it is a lot less reliant on oil from other countries? And of course the article does not discuss the use of nuclear energy. I wonder why not. Unfortunately you are rather a blinkered communicator which doesn’t really advance your cause.


      Report this

      330

    • #
      the Griss

      “Elsewhere in the world people are just getting on with dumping coal “

      One small US green agenda state.. so ****** what !! California is doing so well, isn’t it ;-)

      And of course you need to explain why Germany is building MANY new COAL-FIRED power stations,

      and China and India are building them at a rate that far exceeds even Germany,

      Heck, even Niger is about to get in on the coal-fired power thing.!


      Report this

      272

      • #
        Mark D.

        Griss, Minnesota is a Green agenda state no doubt but Bilb and the loony Left governor are in denial about the practicality of eliminating coal. http://casenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CASEnergy_FactSheet_MN_020314_d2.pdf Over half of the power used in Minnesota is from coal.
        Additionally, it’s shipped across Minnesota to nearby Wisconsin through this facility: http://midwestenergy.com/about.php

        Where all that lovely black stuff is transshipped and disseminated to wonderful power plants around the US.

        Truly though, Bilb could easily be confused about what’s happening and wrong as to the cause: http://www.startribune.com/business/267382781.html It’s pressure from the EPA that tries to force coal out (unless we can fix the EPA).

        Minnesota Power, the Duluth-based utility that has long relied on coal-fired generating plants to power the Iron Range, agreed Wednesday to pay a $1.4 million penalty and to invest in cleaner technologies to settle allegations that it violated the U.S. Clean Air Act.

        In the settlement they did not admit to wrongdoing. The EPA is just harassing generation plant owners. Minnesota Power has already “invested” heavily in wind other “renewables” but the EPA wants more. The solution? buy more hydro power from Canada to increase their percentage of “renewable”. http://www.utilitydive.com/news/minnesota-power-plans-power-line-to-import-canadian-hydro/253474/

        Crazy and Bilb supports and endorses crazy.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      Kenneth Richard

      Americans are usually about a decade behind the European trend. Ten years ago, the popular trend in Europe was carbon taxes, cap and trade, renewables targets, phasing out fossil fuels. Nowadays? Not so much…..
      ——————————————–
      Only 35% of Australians supported taxing carbon dioxide. So the tax was scrapped by the Australian government.
      ——————————————–
      A poll of Britons revealed that only 26% agree that humans are primarily responsible for climate change…
      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25climate.html?_r=0
      A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.
      ——————————————–
      The European Union is seriously considering scrapping their commitments to switching to renewables…
      http://www.cnbc.com/id/101331201#.
      ——————————————–
      Germany, and other European nations, have returned to burning coal and building new coal plants…
      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-14/coal-rises-vampire-like-as-german-utilities-seek-survival.html
      Utilities all over Germany have ramped up coal use as the nation has watched the mix of coal-generated electricity rise to 45 percent last year, the highest level since 2007. [C]oal — thought to be doomed as the continent attempts a shift toward a fossil-fuel free future — is rising in Germany and across Europe as countries seek to re-balance their green ambitions with economic reality.
      ——————————————–
      http://www.thegwpf.org/germany-open-10-coal-fired-power-stations/
      “Coal prices recently fell to their lowest price for over four years in October and carbon prices are half what they were two years ago, making coal-burn extremely attractive to generators in terms of profitability…”
      ———————————————-
      Japan is turning to coal to power their grid. Just a few years after they said they’d substantially reduce their reliance on fossil fuels….

      http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels-rise-in-japan-as-nuclear-power-plants-remain-of
      In 2010, Japan had big plans to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation. Under the Basic Energy Plan, the world’s third-largest economy (second until 2010, when it was surpassed by China) intended to reduce coal and liquid natural gas’ share of total electricity production by the year 2030 from nearly 60 percent to just 10 percent. And now: “14 new gas- and coal-fired power plants are set to start up by the end of 2014.”


      Report this

      190

    • #

      From the previous Greg Laden post The top of the Earth burns, makes Global Warming Worse

      The great cycle of climate change. Anthropogenic Global Warming has resulted in a relatively increased warming of the poles, which changes the dynamic of jet streams forming thus causing quasi-ressonant (stuck in place) Rossby Waves (curvy slow moving jet streams) which then fuels Weather Whiplash (or Weather Weirding if you prefer) which at the moment is causing unprecedented wild fires especially in Western Canada and Siberia, which causes a darkening of glacial surfaces in Greenland (Dark Snow) which decreases albedo which then contributes to both Arctic Amplification and Global Warming.

      Apparently, the same thing would happen because of global cooling. (from Steve Goddard).


      Report this

      70

      • #
        the Griss

        “Anthropogenic Global Warming has resulted in a relatively increased warming of the poles”

        Again, this is TOTAL BS !!!

        Antarctica sure isn’t getting any warmer, and the Arctic is having its second year in a row, suck below the summer average.


        Report this

        31

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      BilB: Oh, Lord. You refer to Greg Laden for evidence? He is as airy-fairy as they come, and you read his posts!? Try a little experiment – write a few disagreeing comments, and see how quickly you get banned.

      Then you try to tell us that rising prices are all the fault of network companies, ignoring the fact that, being shielded from market forces by the government, they can hike away to their heart’s content, with no redress from the customers going elsewhere. This is what happens when the “free” market is not free – the UK railway system is another good example of that.

      Finally, you send us to a good example of propaganda press, trying to tell us that wind and solar are Good Things, and getting so-o-o-o much cheaper… the reality is that the cheapest of these alternatives is still more than twice the price of more conventional methods. Of course, the damage being done“saving the planet” is also conveniently overlooked.


      Report this

      81

    • #
      Raven

      Elsewhere in the world people are just getting on with dumping coal for a lot of very good reasons

      Well, Australia are dumping coal as fast as possible . . . . dumping it into big ships and sending it to China, that is.
      And it’s not like China is short of coal. In fact they have larger coal reserves that Australia.
      It’s just that they can’t dig it up fast enough.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Cameron

    It was exactly these personal and emotional outbursts from the Greens and Labor compared to the logical and rational skeptical scientists that made me wake to myself, and change from being an alarmist scientist to a realist scientist.

    Now I’m using social media to spread the word of this deception and I chose the Antarctic and The Arctic non record breaking melting as my starting point.


    Report this

    391

  • #
    Ceetee

    Sorry for the double post all, my computer and I are learning to get along. Computers don’t have a mind of their own, it just seems that way sometimes.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    BILL SHORTEN: Direct Action is a Clayton’s climate policy, designed for the audience of internet trolls and shock-jock radio announcers and climate sceptics.

    No, Bill. A climate policy designed for sceptics would involve doing NOTHING AT ALL.

    Direct action is a Clayton’s climate policy designed to for credulous believers like you who fail to acknowledge that if you are going to throw away money on a pointless solution that will do nothing to address a non-existent problem, then the least you can do is throw away less.


    Report this

    300

    • #
      the Griss

      Hopefully Mr Abbott and Mr Palmer will now band together to make sure that the DAP never happens.

      Certainly looks like that might be the final outcome. :-)

      I think the Libs have well and truly got the message, “NO ETS”, so if Palmer insists, then no DAP either.

      Unless of course the Green support it in the Senate.. roflmao !!! Pop-corn all round !!!


      Report this

      151

      • #
        bobl

        Nup, can’t afford popcorn, price of corn went through the roof watching watermelons head explode all over Australia. Popcorn futures are still rising – Someone should do a documentary.


        Report this

        190

    • #
      scaper...

      The money for DA has been sourced (Appropriation Bills) already.

      The Green Army Bill also. The scheme commences in a month.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    At least Flannery is asking for money this time, rather than using state-mandated coercion to take the money from the general population – a sizable portion of which are the people he is fighting against.

    Is denialism growing, Tim, or is your cause shrinking? Or is cause and effect too difficult a concept for you? You are up against the data, not a cause.


    Report this

    260

    • #
      bobl

      Surely there is a good case for fraud? Flannery is clearly deceiving the donors? Surely that’s illegal?


      Report this

      190

      • #
        Bones

        bobl,fraud is what flim flam was into when he was employed by the labor/gangreens.Now he ASKS for donations from the gullible,if they are dopey enough to send,he’ll be laughing!


        Report this

        50

    • #
      the Griss

      Perhaps Timmy should have put some aside for a rainy day ! :-)


      Report this

      161

      • #
        Raven

        Perhaps Timmy should have put some aside for a rainy day ! :-)

        Hahaha . . very good.
        I had to reply because it deserve more than a single green thumb. :-)


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Dave

      The donor kebabs to the Climate Council & Tim Flannery are:

      Greens
      CAGW alarmists
      ALP Global Warmers
      Parasites in the Green Gravy train
      .

      There is nothing left of the scam
      They are donating money to each other now
      AND it’s running out fast
      the pyramid scheme is ending fast
      .

      Not even enough left for expensive Latte machines in the offices
      .

      They are SCREAMING their heads off, because Taxpayers money is being CUT OFF


      Report this

      180

  • #
    LeighP

    Flannery’s new promotional video is titled HELP US KEEP SCIENCE IN THE HEADLINES- says it all.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7ioiiI3eBw


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Ceetee

    I’ve just read the article on Flannery at WUWT. We all live our lives knowing there are consequences to the decisions we make. It seems this doesn’t apply to those sucking on public money. What we don’t do enough is demand accountability from them, especially from the likes of Flannery et al.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      In a recent poll by Roy Morgan Research, Australians were asked “Is having an open and honest government an Issue of Importance?” and the highest affirmative response rate received anywhere in the country was just 25%.
      If you wonder why there was little to no resistance to government shepherding towards CO2 emissions pricing, by either climate scientists or the general public, I’d look to issues much more fundamental to democracy than Labor’s carbon tax. The Australian economy still rides the sheep’s back, nudge nudge.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    realist

    In some sectors of society, those who supply chemicals (e.g agricultural, pharmaceutical, chemotherapy) are, occasionally, colloquially referred to as “purveyors of poison”. This has some validity when a treatment is innapropriately applied as the outcome can be most definitely be, poisonous, and not just to the recipient.

    Perhaps this is an apt descriptor of those who promote a point of view with blind religious zeal, as they equally convey a different form of insidious poison: that of the mind. The mind poison is devoid of sensible, rational, evidence based discourse, rather it resembles the incessant message of propaganda and personal attack, while assiduously avoiding a lack of clear evidence that supports the argument. The outcome of this is similar to any poison: it compromises the organism at some level, or completely. Perhaps this is true of a particular generation succumbing to the Green disease of CAGW (amongst numerous other Green diseases), with a prescribed treatment of an energy and other taxes, and most important, deprivation of liberty.

    A source of the contagion is clearly evidenced in Hansard, recording in perpetuity irrational ravings of “Dear Leader” of the Greens, and others with a similar variant of foot and mouth disease, when the Carbon (sic) Tax was repealed. It must be very difficult for someone to step away from the pulpit of Gaia and stand up on clear principles of integrity, honesty and honourable discourse when both feet are firmly lodged between gnashing teeth in a foaming mouth. I was suitably impressed: she preaches the Gaia religion so well I reckon she could even talk while submerged in water with a mouthful of marbles.

    It might well require the emergence of a different generation of clear thinkers, in contrast to irrational followers of a political, quasi-religious doctrine, before sensibility overwhelms the Green pandemic. That, turning off the Grant tap funding wasteful forays looking for mythical climate rabbits and/or a continuing divergence of CO2 and temperature where sales of summer clothes are overwhelmed by a demand for overcoats, doonas and cheap coal fired energy to keep the home warm.

    As in all wars, including the climate war, the first casuality is always the truth. It’s Jo and others who keep shining the light of truth on the Green darkness, unlike the ABC et al who have yet to realise they are only one move away from checkmate, game over, and there is no place to hide from the change. Perhaps they can join the new Flammery Flipping Burgers Commission, or be relocated to street corners selling matches to light the briquette fires at home. Seems like the right pay scale for “journalists”.


    Report this

    122

  • #

    I’ll buy Flannery’s story the day after I buy a portfolio of Geodynamics shares. They’re certainly cheap enough.

    And the day after that I’ll take Christian Turney’s advice and get into biochar.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      bobl

      Yes, and Geodynamics shares are one of the few things In life that are destined to get even cheaper. I stay completely away from green companies when investing. Oil, gas and uranium! That’s me…

      Mind you uranium prices are pretty soft after Japan’s earthquake. I reckon rare earth miners are probably still ok, if only for the fact that they have huge stockpiles of Thorium in their tailings stockpiles.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    BILL SHORTEN: Direct Action is a Clayton’s climate policy, designed for the audience of internet trolls and shock-jock radio announcers and climate sceptics.

    So we had an influence on policy? I wish….


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      I am increasingly concerned that we may have lost the carbon tax battle but are yet far from winning the war.
      While the current administration deserves credit for getting rid of the OBVIOUS tax on the air, it certainly has not acknowledged that the ‘climate change’ meme is a destructive fake.

      In other words, we’ve been sold a pig in a poke. The Coalition have every intention of continuation of the spending of billions to to foolishly try to change the weather.

      “Overall, Tony Abbott’s plan is as follows: create and maintain a government bureaucracy to use Australian tax dollars for greenhouse gas emission reductions. That is “carbon pricing”. That is carbon taxation. Both live on down under.”


      Report this

      11

  • #
    Richo

    It obvious from the tone of the debate that the brain dead CAGW zombies haven’t got the intellect to read, comprehend and repeat verbatim their own flawed fifth assessment report.


    Report this

    101

  • #
    TimN

    As in any debate, both sides state “facts”. I googled “facts”, and the basic definition was “a truth”, so I googled “truth” and was amazed to find that it is still in discussion today. There doesn’t seem to be any 100% consensus, which one would expect, if quoting a fact (or truth) to defend one’s argument. I believe a fact is something that a person accepts to be true (by whatever means) and therefore a fact is actually something you believe to be true. In my life I have been interested in seeking truth and found the hardest thing to do was to question some of the “truths” that had been taught to me through my parents, teachers and life experiences. I’ve also found a freedom to explore and look into areas that were once taboo to me. When I see others who have had the guts to experience this freedom, I have utmost respect. The people who have not had the guts to question their truths and certainties are simply stuck, and at times I feel sorry for them, but what can I do about that. I tend to treat them as a child, encouraging them to grow up, but as most times the child will only grow in its own time, I can’t make him grow up any faster, so patience is really the only course left. I admire the patience of Jo and David – keep up the great work, I think you have helped many people to mature.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts from a denial of a Carbon tax and they include a decline in funds across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of drying reserves, but also a decrease in future funds. Although we’re getting say a 20 percent decrease in windmill , hot rocks and tide energy tenders in some areas of Australia, that’s translating into a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into actual windmills. That’s because the banks are warming to the idea that we will soon lose all funding and the accounts are under stress and therefore we are paying more interest and need more ready cash. So even the cash that comes isn’t actually going to fill our accounts and pay our mortgages on sea side cottages, and that’s a real worry for those of us with beach houses. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for the commission.


    Report this

    230

  • #
    Carbon500

    Just out of curiosity, I had a looked at the Skeptical Science (SkS) website, which I gave up on a long time ago.
    They don’t seem to get much in the way of traffic these days – am I surprised? No.
    It’s an Aussie website, isn’t it? Interesting, I think, given the abolition of the ‘carbon tax’. Maybe SkS unwittingly did their bit to bring this about given their attitude to site visitors whose views didn’t square with their own!


    Report this

    240

  • #
    Richard111

    If the subject comes up I remind my companions of the recent winter, 2010 I think it was, when the UK was covered in snow and lots of farm animals died because they were buried under snow and could not be found in time. I then ask them to think how it would have been if all power was provided by windmills and solar panels and all vehicles were battery powered. There would be no more than one or two days of delivery of supplies to supermarkets which would have to be in walking distance of your home because your electric car would have run out of power after 50 miles or so. Ambulances might manage one trip to the hospital assuming the roads had been cleared which would be unlikely. I tell them people would die wholesale under such conditions. A lot of people seem unable to grasp the fact that there would be NO electricity under such conditions here in the UK. Even if the sun was shining and the solar panels were swept clean of snow (really!) the sun elevation is so low in January here in the UK that the fixed panels would be generating almost nothing.


    Report this

    240

  • #
    Tim

    Just been reading ‘The Mystery of Things”, by A.C.Grayling. This bit seems worth mentioning here:

    “The first kind of mystery is the mystery of ignorance, which breeds fear and anxiety, hampers progress, generates superstition and nonsense, and in one or all of these ways is the source of much human suffering.”


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Paul

    They have the wisdom of people like Tim Flannery on their side.

    Flannery said in 2007;

    The Arctic will be ice free of ice by 2013
    Australia will lose all its northern rainfall.
    Perth will be the first 21st century Ghost town.
    Adelaide Sydney and Brisbane will run out of water by 2009.
    When Brisbane got washed away he said it was due to climate change
    The nations dams will never be full again.
    Sydney airport will be under 1.1m of water, but he bought a waterfront property anyway.
    Said we needed to look for geothermal power. So Rudd invested $90 million of our money into a company Flannery had shares in. That didn’t work either, and now all the wells are capped with concrete.
    Now the $230 million wave power plant has been scrapped.

    Come to think of it; I,m just glad he’s on thier side.


    Report this

    170

  • #
    scaper...

    The end is nigh…


    Report this

    30

  • #
    bemused

    I don’t understand why so many go to great effort to respond to the likes of BilB et al. Certainly, when erudite posts by those supporting catastrophic climate change are made, reasoned debate would be justified. However, if it looks like crap and smells like crap, the logical thing would be to avoid it. Nothing would infuriate the likes of BilB et al than to be totally ignored.


    Report this

    41

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      On a number of blogs, people like BilB would be banned, which in some quarters is seen as a badge of honour.

      As far as I can make out, Jo chooses to let them comment, and then lets the rest of us critique their comments. It is another way of making the important skeptic points.

      It also enlivens the whole blog, since we can all poke the likes of BilB, with a metaphorical sharp stick, if we so choose, and that makes for good theatre.

      We have had some real ding-dong battles in the past, and we always know when we have won, because the “crap” purveyors simply change the subject.

      If you don’t like the sort of material that BilB produces (I call it BilB Bilge), you can always ignore any comments he/she makes, and the subsequent conversation.


      Report this

      131

      • #
        bemused

        I understand that, but you know that they will always be beaten because they don’t have any solid foundation for their arguments. Stirring the nest is all that they are capable of doing. By ignoring their vapid posts, it may in fact compel a few of the smarter ones to try and put together some coherent arguments that are worthy of challenge. These guys don’t impose any challenge whatsoever, so the so-called victories are pretty lame.


        Report this

        11

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … you know that they will always be beaten because they don’t have any solid foundation for their arguments

          That is true. But, their arguments still create an impression with those who are “impressionable”, and those who do not have the time nor the wit to check facts for themselves. There are sufficient of those people to create a “groundswell” of opinion, and it is that public opinion that the politicians will see, and seek to manipulate for their own ends. It is a battle we will win, but it is a battle we do not need, and diverts time, effort and resources from things that are more important.

          By ignoring their vapid posts, it may in fact compel a few of the smarter ones to try and put together some coherent arguments that are worthy of challenge.

          The smarter ones have already done that, and have been seriously mauled in the process. Facts are facts, and evidence is evidence, and the science will stand or fall on its own merits. It is the propaganda war that continues, and the climate is really irrelevant to that war, apart from being a proxy for a whole lot of other agendas.

          These guys don’t impose any challenge whatsoever, so the so-called victories are pretty lame.

          That is also true. We do tend to get the, “could try harder”, pompous twits. But it is still amusing, in a childish sort of way, to find ways of putting them down disgracefully.


          Report this

          31

          • #
            bemused

            Perhaps it could be turned into a bit of a match, whereby one respondent is selected or volunteers to disassemble the antagonist, sort of like a boxing match. This way, the antagonist doesn’t have the pleasure of drawing in numerous respondents, giving the impression that they have the upper hand, with one causing consternation amongst many. Remember, the impressionable may also see it another way, where if it requires a dozen respondents to try and defeat the one, maybe the one has greater validity. :)


            Report this

            10

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              To turn it into a match would require some organising, and hence an organiser, who would need to schedule such contests, thus losing the spontaneity of the site.

              I must check my diary … yes, I have an appointment scheduled, next wednesday afternoon, for thirty minutes of free-form spontaneity. Would you like to reschedule this conversation until then?


              Report this

              30

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              On a more serious note. The impressionable read each comment, and each response one by one, and thus form their own impressions. The branching nature of comments on this site does not encourage “decision by vote count”, which is what you are implying.


              Report this

              31

              • #
                bemused

                It was a bit of a tongue in cheek statement about the match, but I’m not sure that the ‘impressionable’ read all the comments. The comments can become somewhat laborious and dry after a while, unless you’re totally into the subject; even I don’t read many of them. I certainly try to absorb as much new information that comes out, like the recent ‘notch theory’ and new evidence on solar activity, but covering old ground in debates with the warmongerers becomes tiring after a while. Most people’s attention/interest spans are quite short, which is why TAC ads and the like begin to fail in their mission quite quickly. I was just thinking of potential new ways to have fun with the warmongerers, while whittling away their false façades.


                Report this

                00

  • #

    JoNova,

    I don’t take time to stop and say thanks for all you do and for this blog, and I would like to rectify that now. This blog is a great resource and one that I visit often. Thanks for all you do.


    Report this

    260

  • #
    RB

    It had the stock phrases as usual.

    “…for our children”;
    “…as a father”.

    I can’t stand the way they always do this.

    As if skeptics hate their children.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Earl

    I am, unfortunately, going to become personal, something I have resisted for some time. I do hope other contributors to this site will for give me as I descend to the level of the alarmists.
    But, why on earth do Greens, their supporters, the Labor Left, and their supporters, always look so damded miserable. Surely life cannot be as bad as all that. Any reasonable person would be glad that it quite possible that the world is not going to end at 11.15 on the 16th.
    Perhaps they are actually trying to suppress laughter, as they deliver another outrageous statement of doom, that they are well aware verges on the comedic. Witness poor old Timmy’s plee to fill his bowl with gruel.
    Having said that, I do hope that that any believers in AGW, do accept the spirit of my comment,and indeed, take it personally.


    Report this

    141

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      On the subject of miserable alarmists, and to misquote Michael Flanders:

      It is not that they’re feeling inherently bad. It’s just knowing they’re wrong, that makes them so sad.


      Report this

      151

    • #
      JLC

      Doomsday cults like CAGW seem to attract people who are full of self-loathing. The cult enables them to project their self-loathing on to the enemy nominated by their cult, which in the case of CAAGW is the entire human race. Perhaps this makes them feel a little better about themselves, or perhaps it allows them to enjoy pulling the entire human race down into wallowing in self-loathing and misery with them.

      Why do they look so unhappy? I think it is part of their character — they’ll find something to be miserable about. Why are they not pleased that CAGW seems to not be happening? It’s not just a contradiction of their opinion but a massive attack on their coping mechanisms and their world view.


      Report this

      100

    • #

      I think it is Mencken on Puritans that I am paraphrasing when I say that Warmists as a collective are terrified that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    “…an unprecedented rise in climate denialism.”

    What is it with these people that with everything that happens they describe it as unprecedented?
    When global cooling was the talk of the popular media, ranging from the Canberra Times to Time Magazine and the NYT, in the mid 1970s I’d guess “climate denialism” in the modern parlance would have been pretty darn high.

    Maybe he means the rate of increase in “climate denialism” in recent months is unprecedented, but where are the poll figures? When I search for Australian poll results on climate change I don’t find any time series for the last 6 months, just some spot results from Roy Morgan, so what is he on about? And what do respondents give as their reason for “climate denialism”? Presumably documented cases of IPCC bias, misleading edits, conflicts of interest, heavy influence given to dodgy scientists, UHI contamination, failed climate predictions, failed humidity predictions, unexplained thermometer adjustments, the MWP going MIA, Solar magnetic denialism, negative clouds spun as positive, and dismissal of biological adaptability would all have to rate fairly highly.

    Climate sceptics are by and large not manufacturers of doubt, we discovered the plausible alternatives and the unsettled status of climate science by taking off the blinkers and reading more widely.

    Shouldn’t successful predictions be a measure of a theory’s credibility?

    In 2007 the IPCC was still telling us that solar effects could not explain the 20th century rise in temperature, and they were predicting a continuing rise in temperature even though the now famous Halt in warming had been underway for over 5 years.

    NASA tells us “Predicting the behavior of a sunspot cycle is fairly reliable once the cycle is well underway (about 3 years after the minimum in sunspot number occurs)”. The last minimum in sunspots, at the beginning of the current Cycle 24, was in 2009. Habibullo Abdusamatov published a prediction in 2007, two years before Cycle 24 had even begun, that the smoothed SSN peak of Cycle 24 would be 70±10. Only now in hidsight, 7 years later, do we see the centre of his prediction was very close, as the real figure was 75.

    Dr Abdusamatov, being an astrophysicist, also predicts global cooling for the next 40 years, due to a TSI drop if nothing else.

    Now who is the public going to believe, the crowd whose models are proudly claimed to be totally independent of paleoclimatology and whose predictions have already failed, or the crowd whose models are based on known correlations of solar activity and paleoclimatology, and lab experiments, and who have made predictions that have already come true? The hard measurements have been around for well over 3 years now, the “rise in climate denialism” is overdue.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Tim

      “…an unprecedented rise in climate denialism.”

      To keep it short: people are waking up.


      Report this

      41

    • #
      The Backslider

      “…an unprecedented rise in climate denialism.

      Well, temperatures are not rising, so they must raise the alarm about something, somehow.


      Report this

      10

      • #

        Well, temperatures are not rising

        It is worse than that. Temperatures have been declining ever so slightly the last 6 years.

        I ran a straight line back from the latest “global” temperature back to when the “global” temperature was exactly the same and got 14+ years of zero warming. What did the alarmist I was “discussing” the subject tell me? I had cherry picked my end points. Too funny.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    ren

    “The results of this study showed that the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortex plays an important part in the mechanism of solar-climatic links. The vortex strength reveals a roughly 60-year periodicity influencing the large-scale atmospheric circulation and the sign of SA/GCR effects on the development of baric systems at middle and high latitudes. The vortex location is favorable for the mechanisms of solar activity influence on the troposphere circulation involving variations of different agents (GCR intensity, UV fluxes). In the periods of a strong vortex changes of the vortex intensity associated with solar activity phenomena seem to affect temperature contrasts in tropospheric frontal zones and the development of extratropical cyclogenesis.”
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=06&startyear=1965&starttime=00%3A00&endday=19&endmonth=07&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
    http://www.temis.nl/protocols/o3col/data/omi/o3doas_yesterday.gif
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-226.00,-57.93,366
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Xray.gif


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Here in the Midwest USA we had a vortex incident for about the last two weeks just ending. It was cool, cloudy, and rainy. Evidently Russia had something similar at about the same time.

      If I was to hazard a guess I’d say the vortex was moving towards the equator to balance the lower incoming energy. And that movement itself lowers the incoming energy.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Kenneth Mikaelsson

    Can´t we start a fund to send as many greens that’s possible to inspect the ice at the poles…
    well up north we can get them to count the polar bears.. :-) have heard that they are starving as a result that the new ice is too thick.. maybe a snack they need… :-)

    [added an 'o' to make the more acceptable 'count'. Otherwise the polar bears' reactions may have been totally different! - Mod]


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Raven

    To most warmists, the IPCC and it’s related dogma is like a software license.
    Nobody actually thinks about it or reads it.
    They just scroll down to the bottom and click “I agree”


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Actually, that is a very profound observation. Thank you Raven


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      After you’ve read one software license you’ve read them all. They get longer and are more boring than ever, with never anything new. They just use more words to say the same thing, “Don’t steal our software or we’ll come after you.” So of course no one reads them.

      Wading through IPCC stuff is the same way but unlike what happens if you don’t read the software license (nothing) the IPCC can hurt you.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        I’ve sometimes read through the TOUs and Privacy Policies of web sites, such as Google, before joining them. Despite the alarming disregard for the value of privacy and the occasional intellectual property grab that these policies contain, in the end they still boil down to the same practical proposition as installed software licenses: “Do you want to use this software?” ==> [_Yes_]

        With the IPCC I’m not sure what the analogous question would be.
        “Do you love the Blue Mussel more than humans?”
        “Do you want to help the richest banks in the world make even more money?”
        “Do you want to stop the developing world from developing?”
        “Do you want to stamp your boot on the face of humanity?”


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Do you want to use this software?

          That’s the only question, isn’t it? If I’ve bought the program I do want to use it. But I didn’t go out and pick up the IPCC’s models off the shelf at Fry’s Electronics or Office Depot. They get shoved down my throat. The answer to all 4 questions is a resounding, “No!” to which our fearless leaders are completely deaf — except finally Australia heard the message.

          I have wondered whether Tony Abbott believes the climate nonsense but just saw great political advantage in doing what he’s done or if he’s actually convinced that it’s nonsense.

          I suppose that either way the thing to do is, “Take the money and run.”


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Now that I’ve recovered from a hung computer and a malfunctioning browser I want to continue by saying that your getting rid of the carbon tax demonstrates my theory in action. When the pain level reaches a certain threshold people will wake up in large numbers and take action.

            At the rate we’re going here in the U.S. the unrest is growing over so many issues I’d have a hard time making a complete list and you no doubt get the news about things here anyway.

            I hope we follow your example and start to clean up our messes. And I hope we do it before it’s too late to avoid violence.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          By the way, does the Blue Mussel make good chowder? If so I might be moved to want to protect it to some extent. But not at the expense of human suffering that could have been avoided.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Robert

      I second Rereke’s comment. Never thought of it that way but now that it has been stated one cannot help but see how highly perceptive an observation it is.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Raven

    In response to Australia removing the Carbon Tax . . .

    I know . . . let’s ask GetUp to organise a new WEB SITE demanding ‘climate action’.
    All the usual suspects will turn up and we might be able to find a little ‘green gift’ funding from Friends of the Earth.

    I tell ya . . it’s a racket.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Bones

      Raven,how long before we get a protest rally,complete with nicely printed placards,paid for by govt funded uni and union watermelons.With all the other protests I’m wondering when the gangreens can slot in anymore.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Raven

        Yes, it’s interesting. There seems to be a growing protest movement existing entirely independent of any particular cause. “March in March” comes to mind.

        And seeing Bill Shorten geeing-up the crowd at an ALP meeting recently was much more reminiscent of his former role as a union leader rather than an opposition leader.

        In terms of The Greens, I reckon they’ve always been more of a protest movement than a well rounded political party and they usually manage to have at least a few of their triangular green placards at any particular rally.
        But yeah, it’s curious and a lot of these rallies seem to be very rag-tag and not well focused as well.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    In response to Australia removing the Carbon Tax the ABC News report broadcast the best arguments of believers in man-made global warming . They tell us we should spend billions to manage a ubiquitous natural molecule with a fake market, in the hope we’ll get nicer weather. If you question that you are a bad, bad person. You are the kind of vile, stupid and selfish person, a troll, who doesn’t mind killing people with asbestos or tobacco, you are an international pariah, a shock-jock and an irrational, unthinking denier.

    One more time…

    Standing up for what is supported by actual evidence and opposing what isn’t is not very popular for sure.

    I’ve rowed my boat upstream against a strong current more than once. And in September I’m going to be at the county board of supervisors meeting to stand up again for what’s supported by evidence — this time, my personal experience against a wrong assertion by a member of the board.

    Some don’t like my positions but in the end, if I’m labeled a bad person one more time to stand up for what’s supported by actual evidence, then so be it, I’m a bad, bad person. And I’ll wear that label as I do the label, denier, gladly as a badge of honor.

    Keep on going, Australia. Keep on going.

    Nuts to the liars, cheaters and fools.


    Report this

    81

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      You are now obviously at the front line in the battle against climate change alarmism. I wish I could use something more than words to help you win the war. It would help the rest of us if you can win through to the final victory there in Australia.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    A Flannery is a unit of nonsense. All broadcasts on the subject of “climate change” / “global warming” or whatever other nom du jour of the same subject are generally of a rating of about 10 Flanneries, colloquially known as “utter nonsense”. Tim Flannery is of course a black hole when it comes to rational thought and his personal rating is quite indeterminate all though his utterances can be quite entertaining. It is believed his entertainment rating and his nonsense rating are somehow linked but the process is not even remotely understood remaining one of the mysteries of the universe.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I don’t think he is a black hole. I would say he is more of a Tim Warp. He exists in a different space-time continuum, therefore providing evidence for the “Multiverse” Theory, as opposed to the Theory of Supersymmetry.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Ursus Augustus

        Who knows what actually happens inside a Black Hole? All of your propositions make far more sense than anything he says and whilenot 97% convinced, I could not possibly deny their scientific robustness.

        Now the idea of a Tim Warp I like. While a Flannery is undoubtably a unit of nonsense etc, a large numeber of Flanneries in a single location, such as inside the mobius mind of Tim himself, would undoubtably create the possibility if not a very high probablity, certainly above 97%, of a Tim Warp


        Report this

        10

    • #
      the Griss

      I wonder when he will get an invite to the comedy festival.

      He’s funnier than many of the so-called comedians. :-)

      (in a sick kind of way)


      Report this

      31

    • #
      Wayne Job

      A Flannery as a unit of nonsense is an excellent measure, the problem is that the Flannery is already in the vernacular after the Brisbane floods as a new convenient measure of rain, replacing the old imperial measure of one inch of rain. The Macquary dictionary would need to be consulted as to the most appropriate use.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jaymez

    There is still a lot of work to make sure any form of ETS is not introduced and we need to get rid of the Renewable Energy Target and the Climate Change Authority and claw back money being spent on the useless carbon capture and storage programme Kevin Rudd pledged $100B to fund.

    We need the likes of Jo Nova and David Evans to continue fighting the battle and the way to do that is slip them some financial support: see donation page here.


    Report this

    81

    • #
      scaper...

      I believe the government will sort it out. I’m pretty sure the carbon capture has been abandoned.

      Would donate but I’m broke at the moment.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Bite Back

    Always they appeal to sympathy by bringing in the children. It’s a standard technique of those who would subvert you from within. I know you will ignore that. It doesn’t matter if they are complete con artists or if they believe their line of garbage. You have managed to strike a blow that has them reeling and off balance. Now keep it going!

    BB


    Report this

    20

  • #

    These quotes from the ABC broadcast speak to me of less-than-admirable people. But where oh where are admirable climate alarmists to be found? You would suppose that if truth and goodness and integrity were on their side, then someone with such features in their character would appear as leaders to promote the cause. But where are they? Are they being drowned out by buffoons, eco-zealots, and cynical self-serving political/financial opportunists?


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Matty

      The admirable are eventually compromised by the company they keep.
      It can be difficult to retain a sense of self among that lot.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That is the whole point of the activist hive-mind. They are predominantly either worker-units or drones.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Tim

          I once attended a regional meeting of green-leaning activists. The word ‘worker’ did not apply to them. I doubt any had real jobs except for planning their next demo.


          Report this

          40

  • #
    • #

      It’s sadly true that Australia’s PM says we need action on the climate. We also currently still have the $10b clean energy fund, an a 20% Renewable Energy Target, as well as many other programs, agencies and grants, some of which Abbott wants to remove but the Senate won’t let him. The PM has proposed “direct action” which will cost billions, but arguably is the kind of action someone would take if they are not completely convinced CO2 is changing the weather. Direct Action means planting trees and improving our soils, things which are likely to be good for the nation even if CO2 is irrelevant. Is it money well spent? Probably not. As to whether Abbott fully believes the climate change meme, the thought-police in Australian media ensure that most people can’t express their thoughts freely without punishment. – Jo


      Report this

      101

      • #
        the Griss

        Direct Action could also mean building hydro dams in the north of Australia.

        Enough regular monsoon rainfall to provide both irrigation and hydro for a northern expansion of agriculture and population.

        A largish proportion of the world’s population lives in the tropics, why should Australia be any different.


        Report this

        41

  • #
    Mike of NQ

    My Question for Bill Shorton. Is the $10 billion dollar climate fund ‘direct action’ or is it a market based mechanism. In 2012, I was part of an entity knocked back for a $10.6 million government grant to build a small solar grid in North Queensland. This money, plus plenty more ($130 million) was awarded to a billion dollar company (AGL). Just so you know, AGL posted a profit of $558 million in 2011 alone. Their successful grant was to build exactly the same thing as us but on a larger scale near Broken Hill. I guess this company had more “friends” where it counted. OK, I admit it – it still annoys me.


    Report this

    22

  • #
    pat

    19 July: Billings Gazette: Mike Ferguson: Former Chevron scientist talks climate change solutions
    Linda Dismore “Diz” Swift, a former Chevron scientist and executive, told the League of Women Voters of Billings on Friday that they can lend a hand to help limit the effects of climate change.
    But it’s bound to be expensive and it might not be too popular politically, she said.
    After building her case for the human role in climate change — a proposition that some in the room of about 40 people, judging by their questions afterward, clearly weren’t buying*** — Swift said she favors enacting a carbon tax over such schemes as cap and trade, which the state she now lives in, California, is trying…
    She said there’s a growing consensus among economists that a carbon tax is the least expensive as well as one of the most effective ways to address global warming.
    ***“The opportunity is huge,” she said, but will require a $45 trillion investment over the next 40 or so years to “decarbonize” the U.S. energy sector by 50 percent. That investment would add millions of clean-energy jobs, she said…
    Swift has allies in unlikely places, including Hank Paulson, the former Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration. Paulson is co-chair of the Risky Business initiative, which explores the economic risks of climate change in the United States.
    Paulson is part of a political process that Swift would like to see others join…
    http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/former-chevron-scientist-talks-climate-change-solutions/article_f4cadbc1-343e-5aff-889c-91c8f6fff53b.html

    pity the writer didn’t include this in the article:

    2 July: Billings Gazette: Former Chevron scientist to speak on climate change
    For the past four years, she has been a guest lecturer on climate change and business at the New York University (Leonard N.) Stern Business School…
    http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/former-chevron-scientist-to-speak-on-climate-change/article_dd7867c2-aa33-50b5-aee7-0950b3c7e12c.html

    The Top Business Schools for Eco-Entrepreneurs
    We’ve outlined the hottest areas of opportunity in green business. Here’s where to go to get educated in how to do it.
    New York University Leonard N. Stern School of Business
    New York, N.Y.
    Tuition: $43,100
    Green Curriculum: Stern offers a specialization in Social Innovation and Impact and features classes like Corporate Branding and Corporate Social Responsibility, Introduction to Environmental and Social Sustainability and Foundations of Social Entrepreneurship…
    http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/219236


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      One cannot help but stand bag in awe at the intelligence (of lack thereof) of the American voter. (And I am quite certain that interviews like this one if done in Sydney or Brisbane the results would be quite similar).


      Report this

      21

  • #
    handjive

    Say What?

    Tuesday, July 15, 2014
    PENNY WONG: “Well, look, how do you think a normal voter might hear, you know, phrases like ‘a wrecking ball through the economy’ which was one of the exaggerated slogans that Tony Abbott has been running around the country?

    I mean, this is a bloke who said Whyalla would be wiped off the map.

    So I mean, let’s… If we want to talk about words in politics, I think Tony Abbott has demonstrated that you can certainly go over the top when you run a scare campaign.”

    Say What?

    OCTOBER 27, 2009

    “CLIMATE Change Minister Penny Wong has conceded an emissions trading scheme won’t stop sea levels rising in Australia without global action.

    Senator Wong was responding today to a parliamentary report that warns thousands of kilometres of the nation’s coastline are at risk from a rise in sea levels and extreme weather.

    The report suggests improving evacuation routes for coastal families and flags new powers that would allow Canberra to block what it sees as inappropriate beachfront developments.”
    . . .
    Did someone mention ‘scare campaign’?


    Report this

    41

  • #
    pat

    NZ carbon prices fall further as emitters stay away
    by Stian Reklev in BEIJING
    July 18 (Reuters) – Spot permits in New Zealand’s carbon market fell for the third consecutive week, dropping to NZ$4 ($3.47) on Friday, as traders remained hesitant to take significant positions ahead of the September general election…
    “Emitters, in particular, are not keen to step up until they get more direction from the political parties,” one broker told Reuters…
    ***Traders said Australia’s move on Wednesday to scrap its planned emissions trading scheme had no impact on the New Zealand market, as no link between the two had been planned.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/new-zealand-carbontrading-idUKL4N0PT1DS20140718

    ***i’m not sure it had “no impact”!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    20 July: Scotsman: Gareth Mackie: Jobs fears as hydro energy projects face subsidy cuts
    THE UK government is expected to announce a cut in subsidies for small-scale hydro power schemes this week in a move that industry leaders said could kill off further investment in the sector and put Scottish jobs at risk.
    Trade body Scottish Renewables fears that feed-in tariffs (FiTs), which pay a guaranteed price for each unit of renewable power, could be slashed by as much as 10 per cent following a recent rush for schemes to get the green light.
    Energy minister Fergus Ewing warned that the changes, due to be unveiled by the Department of Energy & Climate Change (Decc) on Wednesday, would be “particularly damaging” in Scotland, which is home to 73 per cent of the UK’s total small-scale hydro capacity…
    Scottish Renewables has been lobbying, with support from the Scottish Government and British Hydro Association, to see the level of subsidy cutbacks based on projects that are operational, and not just approved.
    Blamire said: “The problem with the current system is you’re locked into that tariff for two years, and if you don’t build the scheme within that time you have to go through the whole process again.”…
    http://www.scotsman.com/business/energy/jobs-fears-as-hydro-energy-projects-face-subsidy-cuts-1-3482177

    July 2014: .pdf: (86 pages) DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY: Lessons learned from Germany
    Report by FAA Financial Advisory AG (Finadvice)
    This work was prepared by FAA Financial Advisory AG (Finadvice) for the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Finadvice’s European clients…
    1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    Over the last decade, well-intentioned policymakers in Germany and other European countriescreated renewable energy policies with generous subsidies that have slowly revealed themselves to be unsustainable, resulting in profound, unintended consequences for all industry stakeholders.
    While these policies have created an impressive roll-out of renewable energy resources, they have also clearly generated disequilibrium in the power markets, resulting in significant increases in energy prices to most users, as well as value destruction for all stakeholders: consumers, renewable companies, electric utilities, financial institutions, and investors…
    http://www.finadvice.ch/files/germany_lessonslearned_final_071014.pdf


    Report this

    10

  • #
    handjive

    Bureau of Meteorology- 2014 Hottest Year Ever!

    UPDATE:
    National temperature outlook for July to September 2014 (Issued 25 June 2014)

    OUTLOOK: A warmer season likely for Australia
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/temps_ahead.shtml?link=1
    ~ ~ ~ ~
    Hottest Year Ever Brings Five Feet Of Snow To Victoria
    . . .

    And the forecast had a preposterous 80% of a warm winter.
    Doomsday Global Warming Alarmism continues unabated at this pathetic agenda driven organisation.


    Report this

    41

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    “Jo wonders which dictionary defines two-thirds of the population as “fringe”? It must be another Flannery “fact”.”

    Consensus is apparently beyond any question when it is a consensus of people that support Tim’s fringe views, but the consensus known as “an election” can be ignored and ridiculed at will.

    Tim is a joke, just a sad bed wetting joke.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Andrew

    It’s not a theory – it barely makes it to the status of hypothesis.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Robert

      ^^^ This. ^^^

      I’ve given up on explaining to people that it is not a theory, never has been a theory, and has never properly advanced through the stages a hypothesis is put through. Every time I try I either get a deer in the headlights look or someone tries to convince me that because there are theories involved in discussing the hypothesis that make it a theory as well.

      Quite frustrating really. Learned the difference between the two in grade school, can’t understand why it confuses so many.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    davey street

    Adam Bandt, Bil Shorten, Tim Flannery, and that awful revolting woman Christine Milne, honestly who are these people ? Who gives a stuff what they say ? They and their ilk and Fairfax and the ABC who all stand to pocket money personally out of another devastating Labor Green government, that’s who they are. The biggest problem with the naysayers is their total inability to date to ratchet up the rhetoric against these crooked money grabbing scum who have invented so-called climate change as a means of lining their own pockets with taxpayers money, nothing more, nothing less. The worst aspect of this group of total and unutterable frauds is their outright refusal to practice what they preach. Think personal carbon footprints. One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Thank the good Lord we live in a democracy.


    Report this

    22

  • #

    Milne, Flannery and Bandt et al are clear evidence that we do indeed need a tax: a carbon obnoxide tax.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    thingadonta

    They are confusing morality with reality, same old problem that occurs in religion.


    Report this

    11