JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

IPCC recycles global doom and wants a small part of everything you own

Gullible journalists are swooning today with more and glorious prophesies of disaster.

This from the team that relies on simulations that not only fail on global scales1, but they can’t predict regional2, local3, short term, continental, or polar effects4 either. They are also wrong about humidity5, rainfall6a,6b,6c, drought7 and clouds8, as well as the all-important upper tropospheric patterns too.9, 10

Speaking to the BBC earlier, Dr Pachaudri said today’s announcement was, categorically, the “strongest, most robust and most comprehensive” document that the IPCC has produced.  — BBC

They are robustly, comprehensively, and consistently wrong.  But it’s OK, they only want 0.06% of GDP (for now).

The IPCC says that the cost of taking action to keep the rise in temperature under 2 degrees C over the next 76 years will cost about 0.06% of GDP every year. Over the same period, world GDP is expected to grow at least 300%.  –  BBC

The religious leader has returned from the mount, for he hath heard the word of the God:

“BAN KI-MOON: Science has spoken.” – ABC

Who knew the name of God was “science”?

What do we call the people who get nearly every prediction wrong? What else  –  “the world’s top scientists”  (Jake Sturmer, ABC) The only rule when reporting IPCC predictions is to never ask a hard question.

It’s all about power in Paris in 2015. How much of the world’s GDP will they grab?   — As much as we let them.

Can’t wait to get your hands on the “new” IPCC Synthesis Report? Download a copy here.  It has all the same politically picked factoids and projections of storms, plagues, pestilence and doom you’ve come to expect.

What you won’t find is an verified explanation for The Pause (or what might really be The Plateau), or the reason the world warmed up for the Medieval Warm Period or cooled down for the Little Ice Age.  (CO2 levels were constant for the 2,000 years before 1750, yet the climate changed!). You won’t find out why Antarctic Sea Ice hit record highs, or where the missing heat has gone. Nor will you see an upfront admission that the models expected (depended on) humidity levels rising at 10km above the equator but that 28 million radiosondes found humidity decreased instead. This detail — like all the inconvenient ones that matter — will be disguised somewhere deep in a subclause. It may contain the best observations about the most important feedback there is, but don’t expect the IPCC to say so in the “summary for policy makers”.

Don’t expect the IPCC to mention that their models don’t include solar magnetic effects, lunar atmospheric tides, or that humans poured out 30% of their total emissions during a time when the Earth did not warm as expected.

Help warn the ABC about the IPCC’s scientific ability. Vote here.


REFERENCES

1 Hans von Storch, Armineh Barkhordarian, Klaus Hasselmann and Eduardo Zorita (2013)  Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? Academia

2 Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]

3 Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A.(2008) On the credibility of  climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J. 53(4), 671–684. changes [PDF]

4 Previdi, M. and Polvani, L. M. (2014), Climate system response to stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc.. doi: 10.1002/qj.2330

5 Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]

6a Christopher M. Taylor, Richard A. M. de Jeu, Françoise Guichard, Phil P. Harris & Wouter A. Dorigo ‘Afternoon rain more likely over drier soils’ will be published in Nature on 12 September 2012. www.nature.com DOI 10.1038/nature11377

6b Makarieva, A. M., Gorshkov, V. G., Sheil, D., Nobre, A. D., and Li, B.-L.: Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1039-1056, doi:10.5194/acp-13-1039-2013, 2013. [Abstract] [Final Revised Paper PDF]

6c  R.K. Tiwari1,* and Rekapalli Rajesh2 (2014)  Imprint of long-term solar signal in groundwater recharge fluctuation rates from North West China. Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060204

7 Sheffield, Wood & Roderick (2012) Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, Letter Nature, vol 491, 437

8 Miller, M., Ghate, V., Zahn, R., (2012) The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel 1 and its Controls: A Perspective from 2 Observations and Global Climate Models. in press Journal of Climate [abstract] [PDF]

9 Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]

10 Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 [PDF] [Discussion]

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (150 votes cast)
IPCC recycles global doom and wants a small part of everything you own, 9.3 out of 10 based on 150 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kxdg72x

285 comments to IPCC recycles global doom and wants a small part of everything you own

  • #
    TdeF

    Absolutely unbelievable chutzpah! The fundamental prediction of Man made global warming has been shown at incredible expense to be utterly wrong. The world has not warmed in 18 years but it is as if nothing has changed. It even took Pauchuri 16 of those years to admit that there was no warming and now you would think everything was going to plan. We have passed logic, science into religion and the high priests of the UN have spoken.

    ” The moving hand once having writ moves on. Nor all thy piety nor wit can lure it back to cancel half a line.”

    As in the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

    632

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Clearly Man Made Global Warming is an example of an “All Cats are Black Hypothesis”

      If it’s not black, it’s not a cat.

      If the alarmists never admit to the existence of refuting evidence – their hypothesis will never be challenged, and they can continue the blissful dream of devotion to the MMGW cult.

      541

      • #
        ilma630

        This is why it’s so important for the Prof Michael Mann’s defamation/libel suite against Mark Steyn to come to court, as Steyn wants it to, so that Mann can be properly cross-examined under oath. Mann is stalling and trying to avoid this as much as possible as he knows he’ll be comprehensively panned, and his work and reputation will be in absolute shreds.

        There has to be a high-profile case come to court to finally bust wide open this fakery that masquerades as science, and Pachauri needs to be on the stand (amongst many others). These charlatans have [snip "cost"] the world hundreds of billions of dollars/pounds/euros/etc. and have caused countless deaths and untold of misery. And the greens talk of environmental crimes!!

        330

    • #
      TdeF

      My point is that despite the overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, were wrong, the IPCC have just restated their original scare as if nothing has changed and nothing learned since 1988. They are standing behind every word of their original prediction of armageddon. It is the word of God according to the IPCC. Balshazzar’s feast before the fall of Babylon, is now Pachauri’s last feast in Paris.

      410

      • #
        Winston

        I would think that “Last Tango in Paris” was more like it, where the IPCC are Marlon Brando, and the rest of us are Maria Schneider.

        Pass the butter, comrades!

        190

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        The 97% has grown to 98%. No hide no Christmas box.

        As I watch Lesley Hughes on the 7:30 Report I find it hard to believe that she doesn’t believe what she is saying. So why does she believe it? Surely she couldn’t fail to see that the 98% is a fudge, 33.3% further fudge at that. Even if they are Qantas engineers. Qantas engineers are like bus drivers. The only percentage they operate on is 100.

        Do not imagine for one instant that the science is winning this argument. The warmist publicity machine has been in overdrive since the election a year ago. If Tony Abbott doesn’t soon bring out the big guns and tackle them head on they will win the next election. Even if the ABC poll is showing a good result at present, that can change.

        140

        • #
          edwina

          You could reverse her argument. If 98 pilots said your plane is safe but 2 said it was not, would you still get on board? Not me.

          161

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            A plane is a sudden death machine (though many pilots successfuly bring them down safely too), but if the globe does warm over the next hundred years, we are not convinced that anything much will come of it. Perhaps Africa will be worse off, or they could bore for water, use hydroponics, or something else not yet considered.

            The case for global catastrophic warming is nowhere near as certain as in that of an aeroplane. And with 85 years of consideration, we have plenty of time to invent solutions if it was becomming worse in some way.

            120

        • #
          Allen Ford

          I couldn’t believe an intelligent person could possibly drop so many clangers, one after the other, as Hughes did on 730, last night. There are too many to list here, but go to the transcript, here.

          Given she is a professor at Macquarie U, it is no wonder that Murry Salby got such a raw deal.

          This woman is an embarrassment

          81

          • #
            Bulldust

            I can’t believe she trotted out the “98% of climate scientists believe…” stat. That has got to be the low point of the interview, albeit only distinguished by dead cat bounces. Just got to love how Leigh sales has a reputation as a tough interviewer but when it comes to an ABC luvvie topic like this she is soft as… pathetic.

            21

    • #
      sillyfilly

      Science speaks:

      Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

      Even though combined land and ocean surface temperatures have not warmed since 1997 or whatever, they certainly haven’t cooled. Thus you merely illustrate the scientific and statistical incompetence underpinnning the majority of these so called “sceptic” arguments.

      04

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        No, no, no, no, no! We didn’t say it hasn’t warmed. We just said 1. Any effect of increasing CO2 is not visible in the recent temperature record, and 2. Stop panicking. There is no need. The things you fear are not in evidence.

        20

      • #
        Robert Herron

        Science speaks? What specific observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia? The “warming” over the past 150 years is 0.7C according to the IPCC, and that is a computation based on proxies, “adjusted” thermometer records and no thermometer records at all over most of the eartha and for almost the whole period. World sea level rise over the past 150 years? How much and who says so?
        The IPCC is a political body whose final report summary is written by the controlling members and the actual report body then “word smithed” to agree with their summary.

        40

      • #
        ExWarmist

        And your quote argument from authority comes from where?

        no link?

        00

      • #
        the Griss

        “Science speaks:’

        Well take the darn ear plugs out of your ears so you can hear, you dopey asinine ass !!!

        00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Jo notes…

    It’s all about power in Paris in 2015. How much of the world’s GDP will they grab? — As much as we let them.

    If there was anyone with any brains in the UN, they would be terrified of the prospect of a collapse in their funding.

    Will the UN survive GFC Mk II?

    350

    • #
      Winston

      More to the point, will the UN survive Nuremberg MkII?

      To continue to perpetuate this utterly [snip] misrepresentation, thereby obtaining money from innocent members of the public across the globe by gross and systematic deception, they and their followers need to by tried and [snip "and let justice take it's course etc"]. No ifs, buts, or maybes.

      90

      • #
        stan stendera

        Let the snips through Jo. They can’t be any worse then the reality of the IPCC. aND I KNOW YOU WISH TO KEEP THIS BLOG POLITE AND PRISTINE.\\\\\\\\\\\\

        Why snip this comment. Can any profanity be worse then the death cult of the IPCC.

        30

    • #
      Raven

      If there was anyone with any brains in the UN, they would be terrified of the prospect of a collapse in their funding.

      Well, yes . . which is why they say we have very little time to act, yet they’re happy enough to stick around for the next 86 years . . while getting paid to monitor and harangue us.

      Troughing is a delicate balance, doncha know.

      130

  • #
    FIN

    Relax Jo, you’ve already won the political debate which is ultimately what counts. You most certainly haven’t won the scientific debate. Well really how could you if you’ve never done any science? Or have I missed your long list of published work? If so please link to it.

    2127

    • #
      TdeF

      How wrong could you be?

      What scientific debate? There has been no science debate. When have two real scientists ever publicly debated this? You cannot win a science debate which has never happened and is not allowed to happen.

      This political statement from the UN is pure Papal Bull, the stuff against which Galileo fought. Our own Ross Garnaut even tried to make out he was the Galileo of the story. Tens of thousand of real scientists have protested and no one takes notice. They are overruled by their own very political associations and many real scientists are not able to speak out for fear of their jobs.

      No the political debate is far from won. Man made Global Warming is all extreme left politics, nothing more. There is no science. There never was.

      What matters though is that India and China, with over 50% of all world Carbon Dioxide emissions and 40% of the world’s population and plenty of scientists, simply ignore this nonsense, unless they can make some money out of it. We would do well to follow their lead.

      992

      • #
        J Cuttance

        FIN, you suggest Jo’s won the political debate!!

        You year-zero zealots have won it, and you know it.

        Which side has the right to screw billions out of the other, with uniformed back-up should anyone have the temerity to refuse to pay up.

        I congratulate you on a revolution well played out.

        120

      • #
        King Geo

        So so right TdeF. India & China become the new Economic Powerhouses after being 3rd World entities not that long ago. But where there is gain there is loss and there is no better example of this than the once powerful EU which now is sinking inexorably down the abyss towards 3rd World status as it’s idealistic devotion to CAGW and associated “decarbonisation” brings it undone.

        171

      • #
        FIN

        There’s only one scientific debate and that’s the one between scientists, based on peer review, which is of course between people who actually know what they’re talking about. The rest is just hearsay.

        It’s interesting that you seem to accept medical research findings fairly readily but for some reason not those of a subject you are politically opposed to. Speaks volumes.

        122

        • #
          Raven

          [...] It’s interesting that you seem to accept medical research findings fairly readily but for some reason not those of a subject you are politically opposed to. Speaks volumes.

          FIN, you answered your own question – medical research findings.
          Medical research is able to produce findings because the researchers have conducted clinical trials.
          It is the findings together with the repeatability that give weight and credibility to the research.

          Given that Climate Science™ has never conducted a single clinical trial of Earth’s climate system, there are no findings and the notion that they know what they are talking about is as speculative as their research.

          Your analogy is, of course, fallacious and absurd . . . but you knew that.

          270

        • #
          Winston

          FIN,

          Climate science, and therefore the scientists who practice it, has lost credibility by not holding itself to scientific principles. Those who form its core, are scientists of low intellectual stature (compared to hard physical scientists), are activists by inclination (rather than empiricists), and are prepared to egregiously alter data to fit a failed hypothesis to save face. They explain away their failed projections and predictions with confabulations and speculation rather than revisit the basic assumptions they have made, and whether these assumptions are actually valid or not.

          As such they have zero credibility, “peer reviewed” and “published” or not. They clearly DO NOT “know” what they are talking about, rather they are guessing and prognosticating without regard to whether their contentions are borne out by real world observations or not.

          Perhaps you are satisfied to take the word of a nascent branch of science that is not prepared to be scientific, but most of the rest of us are not. We hold people to higher standards than that.

          200

        • #
          TdeF

          As Robert says, peer review does not make things correct. At the very least, matching predictions accurately to facts is required for theory to have a chance of being fact.

          So please link to a climate scientist peer reviewed papers pre 1997 which predicted the planet would not warm at all for 18 years despite rapidly rising CO2 levels. Restrict it of course to those who knew what they were talking about.

          Then you might also link to current climate scientist peer reviewed papers which explain in hindsight why the predictions were completely wrong. Again, please restrict them to people who are expert in this field.

          120

        • #
          Robert

          There’s only one scientific debate and that’s the one between scientists, based on peer review,

          Wrong again.

          Two individuals sitting in a pub can come up with a hypothesis, flesh it out on the back of a napkins, start tearing it apart based on their experiences and observations related to central elements of the hypothesis, and decide whether or not it is worth pursuing or not. The only “debate” is done via available evidence and whether or not it supports said hypothesis. No peer review is needed, it doesn’t need to be published unless they think it is worth the time and effort of doing so, if they do choose to a blog or a journal can be equally valid. As long as they are following the steps of the scientific method they are “doing” science. Not that anyone “does” science. They do things scientifically, which goes back to that pesky thing called the scientific method which climate “scientists” apparently never learned. They must not have because they completely missed the part of “if observations do not support the hypothesis then the hypothesis is wrong.”

          No amount of publication or peer review will turn an incorrect hypothesis into a correct one without first changing the hypothesis. Since climate “scientists” are still using the same old failed hypothesis, it is fairly obvious to anyone who does understand science that climate “scientists” are not in fact engaged in pursuing science.

          30

    • #
      Robert

      Amazing, being published makes something science does it? So even if it is wrong as long as it is published you’re okay with it? Good to know. Considering those you obviously support haven’t won the scientific debate either since there never was one. They came out of the gate claiming the debate was over. Apparently that is how “science” is done by your sort.

      Now since you are already on a losing streak shall we bet that Jo has done more science than you?

      661

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I would bet that there are more published Scientists coming to this blog (often under pseudonyms), than the likes of FIN could imagine.

        Of course, in FIN’s two dimensional world, you have to have been a “published climate scientist” to be considered a real scientist. Physicists, Chemists, Geologists, Climatologists, Hydrologists, Oceanographers, Biologists, and Mathematicians, don’t seem to count, in the world of FIN.

        But I don’t care. To me, any jobbing artisan who feels the need to append the word “scientist” on the end of what they do, isn’t a real scientist at all.

        540

        • #
          TdeF

          There are plenty of scientists, tens of millions who are scientists even if they do not publish or work as scientists currently.
          This mantra of having to be in the precise field of meteorology, having to have the right training, having to have published in this field and peer reviewed in this field, is rubbish. If you cannot get the core prediction of the theory right in nearly twenty years, it is wrong.

          Look at our former salaried ‘Climate commissioners’. None was a meteorologist. Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery was a paleontologist with no physical science qualifications at all. Will Steffen a chemist. None were ‘climate scientists’. In fact Tim’s undergraduate degree in English and he would be better classed as a science writer, even science fiction writer. Al Gore like Tim had real problems with mathematics, so he avoided it. Seriously, should we listen to these people when every prediction has been wrong? Who invested in Tim’s hot rocks?

          120

        • #
          stan stendera

          You go Reneke!!!!!!!!!

          20

    • #
      ExWarmist

      See Black Cat Hypothesis above – while you are unable to admit to the existence of the refuting evidence of the 1350 scientific papers listed here.

      Your quaint pseudo-religeous belief in the centrality of humanity on this planet will be allowed to continue in your mind.

      Just be sure – don’t challenge your beliefs – it’s the neo-fascist dogma method that you live by.

      313

      • #
        ExWarmist

        BTW FIN: Just in case you don’t get it.

        MMGW posits Human Action as central to direction of the biosphere on this planet.

        You have everything in common with the Catholic Church (Human centrality in the Cosmos) in the 16th century. Same Authoritarian Methods – and if allowed – the same murderous results.

        (10:10 No Pressure Video anyone?)

        373

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Three down thumbs and no comments.

          It is so easy to hate – much harder to demonstrate that you can think for your self.

          Your Slave Mind is entirely visible.

          00

    • #
      the Griss

      “you’ve never done any science?”

      Its the IPCC that has never done any science.

      How long will it take you to wake up to the fact that they are POLITICAL organisation put together to try to gain power and control for the UN. !!

      602

    • #
      TedM

      Something is science because it conforms to the laws of physics not because it has been published. I’m surprised that you don’t understand that. there again if I knew you, maybe I wouldn’t be surprised.

      443

      • #
        llew Jones

        Fin is probably like the ignoramuses on the Drum a few minutes ago. One likened the danger of human emissions of CO2 to the danger of cigarette smoke. One can only wonder if the “world’s leading climate scientists” know anything about photosynthesis and how vital to organic life on Earth CO2 is. Their disciples obviously don’t.

        Another expert from the CO2 alarmist sect interviewed during the program told us the Chinese are suffering health problems from coal fired power plants. Perhaps he also doesn’t know that the invisible, odourless GHG emitted is a vital component of photosynthesis and its now greater atmospheric abundance is most probably the prime reason the world is now producing record yields of food crops.

        The idiots at the UN and the half baked scientists who give their name to this IPCC folly seem totally unaware of the very positive side effects of extra CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.

        Not only that but also their vital basic science re positive water vapour feedbacks is seriously lacking in evidential proof. Until that evidence is available there is no science that indicates extra human produced CO2 can have any significant effect on the climate via rising global temperatures.

        320

      • #
        TedM

        Not sure how my comment appeared here it was supposed to be under FIN. @ 4.14 pm

        30

    • #
      Ceetee

      FIN 4.14 Congratulations for making the most fatuous comment I have yet to see on this forum in all my years of posting here. In all honesty, what scientific debate are you referring to. Given that all manner of people have tried and succeeded largely in suppressing any real, rational discussion and analyses of the science how can you honestly make such an arrogant and sweeping assertion. People like you have existed in the past. They were the architects of the dark ages.
      “You most certainly haven’t won the scientific debate.” (your words) Really??. Have you been here before?. Are you aware just how ridiculous your statement is?. Must try harder.

      390

      • #
        the Griss

        To tell the truth, I don’t think Fin is actually aware of very much at all.

        His mind seems to exist in a sort of limbo la-la land. !

        181

    • #
      Iconoclast

      So tell me FIN, when Einstein stated that no luminiferous aether existed nor was needed to allow electromagnetic radiation to travel through space and then slammed his Special Theory Of Relativity on the table, just how much published work had he done???

      210

      • #
        edwina

        I’m reminded of Einstein’s remark when told 50 books refuting his theories had been published. He said,”That many? Only 1 would have been enough.” His point was that only 1 counter proof to a science concept was needed to disprove it. Climate ‘science’ has so many holes in it and it is hard to know where to begin.

        230

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      FIN.

      The links to much of Jo’s published work are at the left margin of this page.

      90

    • #
      David Smith

      How many papers have you published Fin?
      If you have published any, I hope they are in the field of climate science. Otherwise, according to your logic, you are not allowed to form any opinions about CAGW. Am I right?

      150

      • #
        FIN

        You and I and everyone else is entitled to their own opinions. They are not of course entitled to their own facts, a point seemingly lost in the contrarian world.

        My objection is that there is a lot of squealing from the fringes but no-one here seems faintly able to take the established theories apart. The field is wide open for someone to come along and knock it all over but no one has, self evidently.

        011

        • #
          the Griss

          The warmist meme and the non-science behind it has been thoroughly trash many time.

          Its nonce’s like you that can’t accept that basic fact.

          60

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Where have you been FIN? The established theories have been ripped apart repeatedly. :-(

          10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Relax Jo, you’ve already won the political debate which is ultimately what counts. You most certainly haven’t won the scientific debate. Well really how could you if you’ve never done any science? Or have I missed your long list of published work? If so please link to it.

      It doesn’t take published work to point out that the emperor has no clothes on. A three year old could do it. And since you appear to be wearing no clothes yourself, you should understand that.

      140

    • #
      stan stendera

      My comment in reply: SNIP, SNIP” SNIP.

      10

    • #
      Manfred

      FIN @ #3….here’s a snippet you may find sobering that encapsulates the work of the UN IPCC.

      Your comment about the ‘ready acceptance of medical research findings’ in contrast to the faintly oxymoronic phrase ‘climate science’, because of a disposition of political opposition, appears to betray your ignorance of the composition, development and formation of a medical ‘consensus’, No similarity exists or may any parallel be drawn with the political flatus of the UN emitted through the IPCC and medical science (most of the time). Reassuringly, you remain in the climate-authoritative company of Sir Paul Nurse (Royal Society, London) who made the same error in his interview with Delingpole.

      I feel confident that you will agree that the track record of real crisis management by the UN has consistently been lamentable. So they turn instead to the manufacture of a faux-crisis in climate, perhaps believing that they may be better at directing the outcome if they control the stage. Unfortunately, the weather doesn’t agree, nor do the people experiencing very cold winters, power impoverishment or the endless diet of MSM fueled disaster predictions. Neither, incidentally does the inconvenient truth of the SST record. The relentlessly upward adjusted, multiple versions of global mean temperature also fail to conceal the absence of warming for more than 18 years.

      There may be great consolation to be taken in this current UN global power grab, which depends on environmental activism (see Agenda 21). On the basis of a little catastrophe is good, more is better, the UN IPCC has made the cardinal error of being seen to believe its own publicity. Whether it really does or not only Maurice Strong, Al Gore et al. know. Their actions and agenda appear to suggest otherwise.

      In projecting such certainty about the uncertain, when the empirical facts say otherwise, betrays the political motive. This was always an ideological war with little if anything to do with climate. That little battle was lost the day ‘global warming’ shifted to ‘climate change’.

      10

  • #
    Robert

    Speaking to the BBC earlier, Dr Pachaudri said today’s announcement was, categorically, the “strongest, most robust and most comprehensive” document that the IPCC has produced. — BBC

    That should be Pachauri not Pachaudri. Not that I think anything of him but we should at least spell his name correctly. Unless the BBC quote was how the BBC spelled it which would be pretty good humour seeing how often they quote him and hang on his every word…

    I’m looking forward to the day when I no longer see his name anywhere regardless of whether or not it is spelled correctly.

    320

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I appreciate the statement that the document is the “strongest, most robust and most comprehensive” …

      I take that to mean that this edition is physically larger as the last one, but they have fixed the previous problems in the way the document was bound.

      Still fact free, of course, but at least you know what you are going to get – a bit like a zombie movie, now I come to think about it.

      171

    • #
      lemiere jacques

      no, it is pachaudri, as he said it, is worst than ever.

      40

    • #
      Raven

      That should be Pachauri not Pachaudri. Not that I think anything of him but we should at least spell his name correctly.

      There must be a bug going around . . .
      This evening, Emma Alberici (ABC) thought he was head of the International Panel on Climate Change. ;-)

      70

  • #
    ExWarmist

    The UN’s report fails to answer the most fundamental question.

    Does a witch weigh as much as a duck?

    I would like to ask this board, does the UN IPCC most excel at…

    (a) Unintentional Parody of 16th Century Witch Finders?

    (b) Comic Farce done in a straight style?

    (c) Self Satirical Clever Plans?

    (d) Nonsense Verse Masquerading as Science?

    (e) All of the above?

    220

    • #
      TdeF

      The jig is up. Nothing to lose. May as well go in with your worst prediction and see who falls for it. It is high farce and possibly the last hurrah for Pauchari and his minions. What is surprising is that they are not pretending any more, just calling on the faithful to gather for the quickening, one last big party in Paris.

      370

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Awww, I think that’ll get a few more parties.

        But the global trend for MMGW interest is down, now that the majore political agreement is that each country should do their own thing (mostly nothing) the MMGW cult is dying a slow, but accelerating, death.

        The question is – what will these totally useless parasites choose to burden us with next?

        260

      • #
        JoKaH

        It appears that next year the parasites will join the Paris-ites.

        220

        • #
          James Murphy

          Hey! I live in Paris (I do, really), I’m planning a nice holiday at the same time as these fools clutter up the joint. I don’t think I could bring myself to be in the same country at the same time…

          60

    • #
      ilma630

      There were more facts in the Monty Python’s parodies than in this IPCC report.

      140

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Does a witch weigh as much as a duck?

      It depends on whether you burn the duck with the witch. But then it doesn’t matter anymore. So why worry about it? ;-)

      40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I doubt that the UN could find a duck to weigh, even if it was sitting on the Secretary General’s desk in New York City.

        40

    • #
      stan stendera

      Oh, my every loving God. 1000 thumbs up.

      20

  • #
    the Griss

    “Days of Our Lives” had nothing on this drama…..

    Truly remarkably third rate stuff !! :-)

    163

    • #
      NielsZoo

      Come on, that’s not a fair comparison. There are more real scientists on Days of Our Lives than there are on the IPCC staff.

      40

    • #
      the Griss

      Also looks like I’ve upset 3 (red thumbed) Days of our lives watchers. :-)

      Don’t worry children, I’m sure you will be able to find something equally as scientific to watch.

      Just switch to the ABC !

      51

  • #

    “The IPCC says that the cost of taking action to keep the rise in temperature under 2 degrees C over the next 76 years will cost about 0.06% of GDP every year. Over the same period, world GDP is expected to grow at least 300%.”

    They expect people to survive at 2 degrees hotter than now and with Sea Levels 100 metres greater than now and cyclones, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, storms and pestilence, drowned fish, skinny polar bears and we have to increase GDP by 300%?

    “Tell ‘im he’s dreamin’”

    280

    • #
      Hat Rack

      Like it. Thanks for the laugh.

      70

    • #

      The BBC (or a press officer) misquotes the Synthesis Report. It will not cost 0.06% of GDP per year, but reduce growth rates by 0.06% per year. If they had read on pages 116-117 they would have found this. Global output this year will be about $75 trillion. With 2% growth, to 2090, 0.06% of GDP would be cumulatively £8trn. With 3% growth the figure is $13trn. But the cumulative impact of a reduction in growth rates from 2% to 1.94% is $370trn, and from 3% to 2.94% is $644trn. The BBC understates the cost of climate policy by 45 to 50 times as a consequence.
      Another way of putting this. Australia’s GDP is about $2,000 billion. Can anyone come up with a policy that will eliminate Australia’s carbon emissions by 2100 for just $1,200 million a year?

      80

      • #

        “…$1,200 million a year”. Hmm, that’s about the same as the funding to their ABC.

        How about we stop funding the ABC?
        Whilst that won’t eliminate Australia’s carbon emissions, it’ll at least reduce the likelihood of us having to listen to their demands that we have to eliminate carbon emissions. Furthermore, we’ll be $1 billion per year richer.

        70

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The ABC web poll of believing IPCC predictions ATM,

    NO – 65%

    Yes – 35%

    451 votes counted, I wouldn’t had believed it unless I’d seen it!

    130

    • #
      TedM

      I suspect that the results will very quickly dissapear from the ABC site. Let’s wait and see.

      190

    • #
      Bill Burrows

      Doubt it will hold Yonniestone. The “vote early, vote often” apparatchiks will be rounded up to correct this misguided voting. Still it is noteworthy that there are clearly people off message surfacing on an ABC site. Time to call in the Daleks?

      141

    • #
      the Griss

      Just got a screen capture of it at 79% NO

      Will check back soon.. an 80% NO would be nice :-)

      80

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      OK guys, lets try for 97% …

      190

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      At 8:40 pm, No vote @ 83%

      120

      • #
        ExWarmist

        At 9:13PM, 1333 votes counted at 84% no.

        Strangely enough the yes votes are 16%.

        For the ABC I was expecting, 84% no, and 97% Yes, 23% undecided….

        150

        • #
          Bob Malloy

          @ 9:20 85% no, we better enjoy it while it lasts, they must be calling in the troops by now!!!!

          100

        • #
          James Murphy

          8:15 am sydney time (I think – it’s 10:15pm where I am) 2964 votes, 91% No… Perhaps the warmists just saw the word ‘fossil” and voted no, much like poor old Pavlovs dog…

          Mind you, the question does actually say “current fossil use”…

          80

    • #

      Ok, maybe someone can help.
      What are projectories?

      60

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        I was thinking I should disallow that one, too. The oldest trick in the crook’s book is to change the language.

        50

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        When a doctor does an endoscopic examination of the large bowel (a colonoscopy) and removes (through the anus) small growths suspected , or not, of cancer – those are projectories.
        Was this information helpful to you? Yes or No

        90

    • #
      Annie

      It was 87% to 13% when I voted a short while ago. I wonder how long it will be before ‘their’ ABC pulls it?

      60

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        At 4:23 am, 2511 votes, 90% No, 10% Yes.

        They set themselves up for this by calling such big numbers. Also claiming that extra 1% when they had been claiming 97% for a long time might cause people to smell a rat, too.

        Big numbers or whatever, this result is one for the noticeboard. Even if they round up the numbers with kindergarten kids to swamp it tomorrow.

        70

    • #
      Raven

      No 89%
      Yes 11%

      2233 votes counted

      @1:22 AM 4th Nov.

      The debate is over . . .

      70

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      About 1 hour later:
      _____________
      Is the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change right that, on current fossil use ‘projectories’, we are heading for a global warming of four or five degrees by century’s end?
      No 90%
      Yes 10%
      2359 votes counted
      _____________
      It does not seem to be taking votes any more.

      50

  • #
    Fox From Melbourne

    What everyone seems to be missing here is that this “Your all going to Die scare mongering” isn’t about Co2 its about who get to control the Globe Temperature. After all we have 600 million years of Co2 level records were the Co2 was 97.98% of that time over 1000ppm. 92% of that over 2000ppm I think but please put right if I have that number wrong. Records that are writing in stone. That record says that the surface of the Earth froze over during snowball Earth. When it start the atmospheric Co2 level was at 7400ppm it then dropped to 800ppm over that time by it finished. Twice today’s level and the world covered in ice.
    Its about someone with at the UN wanting to be the King or Queen of the Globe Temperature. The one with the POWER to how dis sides who gets what and when. Who gets the rain, the wind and sun. After all if we have all those wind turbines and solar panels you will very powerful if you finger can stop the wind or make it so cloudy that the panels stop working now won’t you. Someone at the UN or on some Green group or similar wanting to control which Country’s get enough rain to grow enough food to feed themselves. Or enough Sun and Wind to power their economy. People Love power over other people and they usually only get after they scare people into giving it to them. Or take it by force. Question for how long have they been trying to scare us into giving them this power? The world cooling give us power didn’t work so guess what its warming give us power. Its still warming even thou it isn’t for the last 18 years. They how ever they are have been at this crap for most of the last country. They want this power over ever one that badly. Do you think they will ever give this power back once they get it? If you think they will you must be dumber than a true Climate Believer.

    170

  • #
    TedM

    At 3.52 WST its now 72% no 28% yes.

    60

  • #
    Leigh

    You can’t say our BOM is not keeping up their support of the current global warming propoganda campaign being waged by the IPCC.
    Every month since their “adjustments” were exposed to public scrutiny seems to be a record.
    I thought reliable records only started after 1910?
    Or is it only when its convenient?
    “The north-western town of Wanaaring, with reliable records going back to 1884, posted eight days of 35-degree heat, eclipsing a tally of seven set in 1997.”

    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/nsw-sets-record-for-hottest-ever-october/174924

    70

    • #
      Chris in Hervey Bay.

      Weather Report !

      “Gayndah had its hottest day on record since 1958″
      Sothern Cross 10, Wide Bay.

      Need I say more ??

      40

  • #
    Paul Bamford

    Hey Yonniestone

    The ABC web poll of believing IPCC predictions ATM,

    75% Don’t believe the IPPC

    25% Do believe the IPPC

    Truly encouraging

    7.27pm

    80

  • #

    First I note that every single media channel you quote is a public sector organisation backing a public sector religion. Beyond this fringe group, there seems to have been surprisingly little attention paid to this latest “final warning”.

    Second, I’ve long known science was a religion, but I thought it was a good religion until along came the global warming nonscience and proved it was not.

    170

  • #

    “What you won’t find is an verified explanation for The Pause”

    What you will not find – and I’m so confident that it will not be there that I’ve not even looked as it’s only ever been in a footnote in one report – is the only piece of actual science in this whole scam:

    The calculated effect of CO2 for a doubling, based on the latest HITRAN data. The reason is simple. As Hermann Harde has found, the latest HITRAN database requires a 30% reduction in predicted warming so that the direct effect of CO2 changes from about 1C to 0.6C.

    So, even if you have some massive [imagined] positive feedback taking 1C up to 6C warming, the new data reduces that to 4C.

    This is why they will not mention the only science in this whole scam. They claim their scam is built on “science”, but they are so embarrassed that event his science no longer supports them, that whilst they tell everyone their scam is based on this “science” they deliberately hide what the real science says.

    130

    • #
      Ceetee

      Is that hamster dead Mike, or does it just have special powers?.

      50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Interesting that you mention HITRAN. You’re only the second person to have made mention of it since I began reading Jo Nova in 2008 as far as I can remember.

      HITRAN is at least from real measurements and they have no reason to have doctored up their data. But I doubt its applicability to the global warming question. The atmosphere is complex and data about transmissivity of various wavelengths may not tell anything useful about escape of heat from Earth. The sun is so much more an obvious suspect with its known cyclic variation in output. HITRAN was started because the military needed to find out how far away a potential enemy could detect the heat signature of a jet engine or other weapons platform. What happens when IR is dissipated with distance isn’t obvious. A lot of it may simply be deflected by molecules it passes near and I don’t know how that can be measured accurately.

      70

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo. Just another push to flim flam the gullible and guilt ridden west to hand over their power to the new world government and court.

    100

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Jo. Subbing error in the headline. Should read,

    “IPCC recycles global doom and wants a small part of everything you own.

    Fixed.

    100

  • #
    RexAlan

    8.17pm 81% No 19% Yes.

    70

  • #
    • #
      Ceetee

      Yes but its faithfully reported as fact by every news organisation you care to look at. And therein lies the problem. Most people are besotted with the idea that scientists are beyond reproach and dedicated to hard, objective factual information. Mere journalists would never stick their necks out and risk ridicule, especially when the message suits their worldview. As for the UN, I’ll stick my neck out and say it is the most corrupt and self serving international body there is. It has no mandate left other than it’s own perpetuation because it stands for nothing other than itself.

      250

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      5. Without concerted action on carbon, temperatures will increase over the coming decades and could be almost 5C above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century

      … …

      5. Is a spectacularly arrogant assertion, giving the paucity of the evidence provided so far to justify it. As for that “5 degrees C by the end of the century” claim: not one of the computer models making such extravagant predictions has had any of its doomy prognostications to date validated by real world evidence.

      And there’s the crucial question. Where is the evidence that CO2 can do what it’s being blamed for doing? I have asked that question of everyone who posts a comment saying CO2 is a problem and not one has ever come back with even trivial evidence, much less something compelling. Not even the IPCC itself has ever presented such evidence, though their various scientists and hangers on have contorted themselves no end in an attempt to show something.

      The necessary conclusion is obvious.

      140

      • #
        Cookster

        Yes Roy and as soon as I read snippets in my local news media and on the radio news bulletins of the new IPCC report go straight to how current atmospheric CO2 levels are at their highest in 800,000 years I knew it was going to be a rehash of the same snow job on a gullible western media that we have been hearing since 1988. The report – and more importantly media headlines – could not start by saying global temperatures were rising at record rates because they are clearly not. The old pea and thimble trick right there.

        For heavens sake, who cares if the CO2 is rising or is highest in 800,000 years if that is having no proven, negative, measurable effect other than to improve global crop yields? The global temps are not rising despite all that extra CO2 (and our BOM’s best efforts) and this alone suggests their computer model projections are completely wrong and the whole theory has been falsified. It seems no coincidence to me the MMGW hype peaked around 2006 after Gore’s science fiction movie and the super El Nino of 1998 which got people worried before the pause became obvious to most except a few truly independent scientists like Bob Carter or Roy Spencer.

        It should not take a climate scientist to figure out the theory is wrong. Its like the emperor with no clothes.

        My scepticism for MMGW started in 2006 when I heard Professor Matthew England of the University of NSW state on public radio that any fellow scientist who doubted the “consensus” was a “denier” or “naysayer”. Nothing has changed in 8 years. What a crock.

        80

      • #
        Robert O

        Roy, you are correct, no significant correlation between levels of CO2 and global temperature, thus any measures for carbon (dioxide) reduction totally useless. The other point I keep mentioning is that since photosynthesis is a photo-chemical reaction any increase in temperature, light, and carbon dioxide levels will boost carbohydrate synthesis (upon which we all depend) and give us some more oxygen to breathe. It is reasonable to expect that the plants, including the phytoplankton will soak up increases in levels of carbon dioxide in due course; 1000 ppm of CO2 in a glasshouse does wonders for tomatoes. The scientific ignorance of our politicians, presumably advised by the 130 odd bureaucrats that went to Copenhagen, is mind boggling.

        20

  • #
    pat

    abc poll: 84% NO; 1298 votes at 8.02pm brisbane time.

    2 Nov: RT: Total darkness: Country-wide blackout in Bangladesh as power grid collapses (PHOTOS)
    Imagine what happens when electricity is cut off nationwide in a country of 160 million people. In Bangladesh, everyday life was brought to a standstill on Saturday as factories, hospitals, and homes plunged into darkness or had to rely on generators.
    Even the prime minister’s official residence was left with no electricity, as the small but extremely densely populated South Asian country experienced one of the worst blackouts in world’s recent history…
    COMMENT: Bengladesh is in the process of buying Smart Meters to distribute and control electricity usage. Smart Meters are a billing system and do NOTHING to upgrade the existing power structure. What a complete waste of money for the people…but big bucks for the players.
    http://rt.com/news/201571-bangladesh-blackout-power-collapse/

    2 Nov: BBC: Bangladesh electricity restored after major blackout
    Officials said engineers had managed to repair plants supplying about 70% of electricity users and hoped to re-connect the rest on Sunday.
    There were loud cheers in the capital, Dhaka, as lights came back in phases…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29869272

    the black-out appears to have been caused by excessive electricity supply from India, according to the Chief Engineer, Aksad Ali who was quoted in the Dhaka Tribune.
    “India normally supplies 250 MW to 350 MW to the High Voltage DC substation. But, the country supplied 444 MW power to the substation on yesterday that triggered the technical glitch,” Ali was quoted as saying by the paper.

    nonetheless, i can imagine the CAGW crowd groaning when the lights went back on!

    80

    • #
      Chris in Hervey Bay.

      85% NO now. 8:20 Queensland.

      Obviously the ‘Getup’ crowd haven’t picked up the scent yet.

      70

      • #
        James Murphy

        They are probably frothing at the mouth about some other outrage of the week. It must be great to actually believe that a couple of mouse clicks and a small donation will prevent loony warlords from selling girls into slavery, save the barrier reef, or stop the government from doing potentially ghastly things to the university system.

        Sometimes I wish i was that simple-minded, life must be so easy being able to forget all the problems that caused such outrage a few days ago.

        However, I do wonder if Getup keep their current campaign list short, and do not advertise their past campaigns just in case they decide to campaign against something they previously supported… you know, when the donation tide is low, and the management decide they need a new car, or a holiday somewhere…

        60

    • #
      NielsZoo

      Of course they’re wasting money investing in “smart” meters. One must teach the peons that electricity is a gift that may be taken away at a moments notice if they start to get uppity and use too much power to make their lives and children’s lives better. People cannot be trusted to use that electricity in responsible ways so there must be a mechanism in place to make sure those decisions are in educated, responsible hands. We must also be sure and pass around those evil profits to all of the manufacturers that play ball… whether their product is needed or not.

      40

    • #
      The Backslider

      The poll closed on:

      No 91%
      Yes 9%

      Simply, hardly anybody believes such nonsense anymore.

      70

      • #
        James Murphy

        If big oil is funding my scepticism, I demand to know why I am yet to receive any payments from Big Oil, and the brothers Koch, as i voted ‘no’.

        I eagerly check my bank balance every day, but alas, nothing new… Perhaps they don’t have the right account number?

        10

  • #
    pat

    ***australia is “cruel” even when it sells coal to india, according to India’s Conservation Action Trust’s Debi Goenka!

    3 Nov: Reuters: James Regan: Australia coal mining marks challenge for U.N. green push
    Although coal is blamed for contributing to climate change and causing large amounts of harmful pollution, it remains by far the most important fuel for power generation at a global share of around 40 percent.
    Australian production of thermal coal is forecast to rise by 8 percent over the next two years to 270 million tonnes…
    By fiscal 2018/19, production will reach 290 million tonnes…
    As coal is a plentiful resource, spread globally, and relatively easy to use in power stations, it is cheaper than other fuels and therefore particularly attractive for emerging economies with fast rising electricity demand…
    The size of the challenge is reflected in forecasts for energy demand growth across Asia, where coal is the fuel of choice and expected to meet almost 60 percent of demand growth over the next 20 years, according to Roche.
    Already a major supplier to North Asia, Australia is emerging as a key source of thermal coal for India’s growing population of electricity users, many of whom had been relying on wood and kerosene to cook food and illuminate their homes.
    India’s Adani Enterprises has hired consulting firm Parsons Brinckerhoff to manage contract reviews for its A$7 billion ($6.11 billion) Carmichael coal mine in Australia as it looks to start production in three years…
    ***”The cruel reality is that Australian coal from Carmichael will not bring us light or power,” said Debi Goenka of India’s Conservation Action Trust, which has launched legal proceedings against Adani over development of the mine.
    “Many are not connected to the electricity grid. Those who are, cannot afford electricity from Australian coal,” he said.
    But the International Energy Agency projects electricity demand in India will more than double in the next decade and that a continued reliance on coal power will require local supplies to be heavily supplemented with imports.
    http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL4N0ST1NN20141103

    2 Nov: The Hindu: About 60% thermal plants suffer acute coal shortage: CEA
    Around 60 per cent of the total 103 thermal power projects in the country are reeling under acute coal shortage with less than a week’s stock at their disposal, according to official data.
    Of the total 61 plants, with less than seven days of stockpiles, 34 power projects have less than four days of reserve, as per latest data (October 30) of the Central Electricity Authority (CEA)…
    http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/about-60-thermal-plants-suffer-acute-coal-shortage-cea/article6557372.ece

    50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      australia is “cruel” even when it sells coal to india, according to India’s Conservation Action Trust’s Debi Goenka!

      I wonder when the world will wake up and realize that: to make an omelet you have to break some eggs; if you want to keep warm you have to burn something; if you want to cook you have to burn something; and if you want to be alive you have to crap on the landscape somewhere, every last day of your life.

      Being alive is a messy business at best and nothing is helped by not realizing that you always have to trade things off to keep going.

      120

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Tim

    “The Pause (or what might really be The Plateau…”

    With the probability of an impending Mini Ice Age, we could call it: ‘The Retreat.’

    70

  • #
    Popeye26

    11:00pm Aust EDST

    87% NO
    13% YES

    1767 votes counted – I predict it will be pulled around midnight when they think they can disappear it.

    LOSERS!!

    Cheers,

    90

    • #
      Tim

      How embarrassing for those living in the Marxist bubble. I’m sure that they even thought it would go the other way. That’s how ‘in touch’ our ABC is.

      80

  • #

    ” You won’t find out why Antarctic Sea Ice hit record highs, or where the missing heat has gone.”

    It should be obvious to anyone who has access to a decent map of the planet, and of course a globe of the Earth for comparisons.

    Any warming will melt the Arctic ice, and because gravity always states ‘what goes up, must come down’ the melted water will fall towards the South Pole, where it will freeze, because that is where all the cold has gone, because all that cold likes to keep togather for company. Simple!

    If you had only asked me earlier!!!

    150

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Just a question, as I believe most here are from representative democracies – when has a tax “just” remained at its initial rate? (except for the Australian Carbon tax that now remains gone. ;-) )

    They suck you in with the low (seeming) price, and then jack it up, until they are sucking all the world’s production in the name of failed models and voodoo science.

    110

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      … when has a tax “just” remained at its initial rate?

      I can’t think of a single time that’s happened. But there’s another question to go along with that — when has Social Security (or whatever the equivalent is where you live) remained at its initial rate? Far too often. I think the excuse is that the dog ate the cost of living increase — probably the same dog that eats the tax money.

      70

  • #
    RogueElement451

    Hoof on the Till

    Join Max Presnell and Helen Thomas for the best of the 2014 Spring Carnival. Each Sunday Max and Helen be joined by racing identities to discuss the major news and issues in horse racing, tune in from 10am AEDT or download the podcast.
    More
    Hoof on the Till

    Rosie Batty wins Victoria’s ‘Australian Of The Year’ award
    Hoof on the Till
    The Political Wrap

    Listen Again

    The Revolution is over: a new report examines Iran’s progress since 1979

    Defence advocates say ADF members feel betrayed by the 1.5 per cent pay rise offer

    Voters in the United States are about to head to the polls for crucial mid-term elections

    A coalition of environment groups launch a campaign to get climate change on the G20 Agenda.

    Government funding ‘a breakthrough’ for Fairtrade says CEO of Fairtrade Australia and New Zealand

    Coalition on track to be Victoria’s first one-term government in nearly 60 years

    Australian wheelchair racer Kurt Fearnley describes dramatic New York marathon win in ‘brutal’ conditions

    IPCC report author describes impact expected from temperature rise of 4C

    Environment Minister Greg Hunt asked how Australia will respond to IPCC report

    A Senate committee report into the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce has led to calls for a Royal Commission into abuse in the ADF

    Australia Fiji Business Council welcomes the decision to lift all sanctions in Fiji.

    RT reporter Laura Smith talks about the launch of Russia Today’s new UK TV news service.

    How serious a problem is corruption in the industrial relations system and amongst unions?

    Australian wheelchair athlete Kurt Fearnley hopes to win his fifth New York marathon title this weekend

    The Federal Government has announced new measures in a bid to encourage more doctors to work in small country towns

    Obesity is weighing down Australia’s health system at $4bn per year, research reveals

    Getting Ebola under control in the next month is absolutely critical and yet we’re not doing all we can, says Tanya Plibersek

    ZDNet’s Josh Taylor explains metadata and how it will be used for proposed data retention laws

    Daily political chat – Friday 31 October 2014 with Greg Jennett

    There are calls for a fresh inquiry into Australia’s anti-doping regime
    More Audio
    Latest Headlines

    Asylum seekers allegedly tortured, threatened with rape in secret compound

    An asylum seeker at the Manus Island detention centre alleges he and another detainee were tortured, physically assaulted, threatened with rape and forced to sign papers withdrawing their witness accounts about asylum seeker Reza Barati’s death.
    ‘IS supporters’ shot man outside Greenacre mosque

    A man who was shot outside a mosque in the south-western Sydney suburb of Greenacre was the victim of an attack by local Islamic State supporters, according to a witness.
    Terminally ill woman takes her own life after viral video promise

    Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old American woman with terminal brain cancer, takes her own life after promising to do so in a video that went viral.
    Officers charged in Brazilian student’s fatal arrest seek stay

    Four Sydney police officers accused of behaving like “schoolboys from the Lord of the Flies” over the fatal arrest of Brazilian student Roberto Laudisio Curti apply for a permanent stay on the case.
    Pakistan sweeps series with 356-run demolition of Australia

    Pakistan has completed a resounding 356-run thumping of Australia in the second Test to sweep the series 2-0.
    Daredevil completes high-wire walks between Chicago skyscrapers

    An American tightrope walker successfully completes two high-wire walks between Chicago skyscrapers, without a harness or safety net.
    Asylum seekers drown after boat capsizes off Turkey

    Fisherman and coastguards have pulled dozens of dead bodies from the sea at the mouth of Istanbul’s Bosphorus strait after a boat carrying asylum seekers sank, the Turkish Coastguard Command says.
    Family to sue after psychiatric patient killed with own guitar

    The family of a man who was killed with his own guitar in a New South Wales psychiatric hospital is planning to sue the State Government for negligence.
    ADF members to receive annual pay increase of 1.5pc

    Advocates for members of the Defence Force condemn the 1.5 per cent annual pay increase that servicemen and women will get for the next three years.
    Hospitals in Australia riddled with asbestos: union officials

    Unions say hospitals across the country are riddled with asbestos, with a woman believed to have contracted mesothelioma from a service tunnel.
    Construction boss George Alex went shooting with IS recruits

    Two of Australia’s most infamous Islamic State recruits, Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elomar, went on a shooting party with construction industry boss George Alex just weeks before they left the country to fight in Syria and Iraq.
    Whale carcass ridden by fisherman washes up on Perth beach

    A 10-metre-long humpback whale carcass washes up on a West Australian beach and authorities are investigating how to remove it.
    Greenhouse gas at highest levels in 800,000 years, UN says

    The world’s top scientists give their clearest warning yet of the severe and irreversible impacts of climate change.

    More Headlines

    More Radio Choice
    More Radio Choice
    Double J has arrived: a new radio station
    Double J has arrived: a new radio station
    Festivals of Australia
    Festivals of Australia
    ABC Emergency
    ABC Emergency
    Best of Rural
    Best of Rural

    1
    2

    Web Poll
    Is the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change right that, on current fossil use ‘projectories’, we are heading for a global warming of four or five degrees by century’s end?
    No 88%
    Yes 12%

    1 pm UK time.
    Funny!

    90

  • #
    RogueElement451

    ooops sorry about that , I just cut and pasted the poll , dunno where the rest sprang from!
    Delete!

    30

  • #
    VictorRamirez

    ABC News Radio poll as at 12:28am AESST

    89% No
    11% Yes

    2077 votes counted

    Ciao

    70

  • #

    As Curly might say ….. Nyuk nyuk nyuk!

    Phew, I’m so glad that the ABC has its finger on the pulse and gets everything correct to put before the people.

    You can’t blame the talking heads here because they have absolutely no idea what they are saying. They just read it off the autocue. They don’t need to know what they are saying, as long as they say it with a serious sounding voice.

    Evidence tonight on Lateline, and their first story, and here’s the link so you know I’m not making it up.

    Now, immediately forget that dear old Emma gets it wrong right at the very start, because after all, she also has no idea what she’s saying, other than to look good for the camera and read from her autocue as well. She says it’s the INTERNATIONAL Panel on Climate Change, not Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Now, forget Mark Butler trotting out that bogus stat that Australia is the largest per capita polluter on Earth.

    Forget Christine Milne saying coal or death.

    No, scroll forward to the 3.09 mark where talking head Tom Iggulden reads from his autocue and says ….. blah blah blah RET of 41,000KWH.

    Say what!!!!!

    41,000KWH.

    Only wrong by a factor of ten to the sixth, out by a factor of 1,000,000

    Oh, Tom, dear fellow, that should be 41,000GWH ….. you prat.

    The ABC. I think they need for their autocue writers to at least get their facts right, eh!

    You fools! Bite the damned bullet. Just shut the power plants down, you fools. Go on. Do it.

    Tony.

    300

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Journalism must be pretty tough these days.

      So how do I get a gig where I don’t have to know anything and can just read what someone else says? I could make good use of the salary that comes with being a TV personality these days.

      I’d be glad to have it that tough any day — twice if it’s Sunday. And I wouldn’t mind being overpaid either. ;-)

      Ignorance must be bliss. How else can you account for the way the world is going?

      130

      • #
        NielsZoo

        So how do I get a gig where I don’t have to know anything and can just read what someone else says?

        You run against Hillary for the 2016 Democrat Presidential nomination… and win.

        50

    • #
      James Murphy

      as I’ve said before (and i think it needs repeating, even if I may be ‘preaching to the converted’. Just when did journalists ‘fact checking’ things prior to publication become a novelty rather than a routine?

      The very existence of the “fact check” section on “our ABC” is somewhat depressing, really.

      50

    • #
      Bulldust

      Forced myself to read most of that transcript … couldn’t face the whole thing. Truly we live in the age of stupid.

      10

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    Poll result 1AM EST: 89% No 11% Yes

    At this rate the SKEPTICS will have a 97% consensus by morning tea time.

    Unless the ABC pulls it:

    Please note: ABC NewsRadio reserves the right to remove any poll, current or archived, where we reasonably believe irregular voting activity* has occurred.

    *For ‘irregular voting activity’ read ‘an undesirable result’.

    —–
    I have a screencap of that result. 90%:10% For the record.11.21pm WST – Jo

    90

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Jo, 92 to 8 at 8:00 am this morning! It won’t stay up once they all get to work, have coffee then check it at about 9:30!

      40

      • #
        Annie

        It had gone when I looked just after 0930. The new poll relates to the Melbourne Cup.

        30

        • #
          Truthseeker

          It is in the “Past Polls” page …

          Is the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change right that, on current fossil use ‘projectories’, we are heading for a global warming of four or five degrees by century’s end?

          No 91%

          Yes 9%

          3101 votes counted

          70

    • #
      stan stendera

      You go Jo. That almost rhymes.

      00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Speaking to the BBC earlier, Dr Pachaudri said today’s announcement was, categorically, the “strongest, most robust and most comprehensive” document that the IPCC has produced. — BBC

    I hate to ask embarrassing questions but… …don’t you wonder why the good doctor didn’t say it was the most accurate or most correct statement of the situation the IPCC has ever made?

    80

  • #
    John

    Hi Jo,
    A request for a link post on http://joannenova.com.au/ to this weekend CNN interview was posted on WUWT.

    Sorry for the off topic post.

    CNN Reliable Sources interview:
    Weather Channel versus one of its co-founders on climate change

    http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com/

    20

  • #
    Roger

    If the England (or Australian) rugby head coach had predicted a win before every match for the last 24 years and the side had Never Won a Game – I don’t think anyone would believe him saying they are going to win the World Cup (thermageddon) next year and they certainly wouldn’t describe the team as ‘Top Players’ (scientists).

    It really is time that Pachauri – and his media disciples – went back to reading and understanding fables – the Boy Who Cried Wolf would be a good start.

    70

  • #
    The Backslider

    Trenberth claims, yet again, to have found the missing heat.

    70

  • #
    David S

    Whilst there appears to be no correlation that can show a relationship between co2 and temperature there is a very close inverse relationship between temperature and IPPC dire predictions. The less the increase in temperature the greater the urgency on doing something or we are all doomed.
    When will a prominent politician or a influential media group point out that Emperor IPPC has nothing on ? Looking at a naked IPPC is pretty disturbing .

    100

    • #
      PeterK

      David S: “When will a prominent politician or a influential media group…”

      It’s all pure regurgitation by the IPCC. No science period. However, because there are politicians who truly do not believe in this human made global warming and in the eye of the denier (me) should avail themselves and denounce this scam of the millennial, but alas, this does not happen.

      Your Prime Minister Tony Abbott said global warming was ‘crap’. And he’s right! And my Prime Minister Stephen Harper here in Canada would probably like to make the same comment but unfortunately, there is politics concerned.

      Here in Canada we still have a fairly larger loony left and many in the population who are fed this crap, believe it hook, line and sinker. So if Stephen Harper said global warming is ‘crap’, he would most likely loose the next election which is to be held in the fall of 2015 because the leftards would use this as an attack ad and would play it for all it is worth.

      So, Harper has to say and do just enough about the fictitious global warming meme to keep the looney left and the greens and the citizen idiots placated. They can only complain that he is not doing enough.

      So if this scam of global warming suffers a severe head wound, it will only be then that a politician who does not believe in this crap can finally come out swinging with both hands. Until that happens, it is unfortunate but they have to play along. If they don’t, we may then get a leftard PM named Justin Trudeau that will set us on the path to destruction like you experienced with your previous government (and this could still happen even if Harper handles himself well).

      As far as the media goes???

      10

      • #
        The Real Syd

        Thank you for describing the situation perfectly PeterK. Not only for us in Canada, but for those in every other democracy.

        I am not one who would typically vote Conservative, but I cannot, in good conscience, vote otherwise in next years elections. Both the Liberals and NDP, if elected, have promised to both decimate our oil and gas sectors (by preventing any and all pipelines/drilling/oil sands development), AND add punitive carbon taxes (20% minimum, according to one of Trudeau’s schizophrenic ramblings).

        And the media? Well…the media loves sensationalism because it sells advertising. If real science could put out a story that was as sensational, the media would lap it up. But real science is rarely as interesting as pseudo-scientific proclamations about “TEH WORLDS IS ENDINGZ!!!1!!!”, especially to the media. Since there is no incentive to do stories that will not sell advertising, we will have to live with this state of affairs for awhile yet.

        **An aside – There is a belief among many that the media had, at some point in the past, integrity. This has never been the case (with very few and far between exceptions).

        Everyone has heard of William Randolph Hurst and his affinity for making “news” up in order to sell papers and advertising. “He was such a bad man and almost ruined journalism.”

        His polar opposite was Joseph Pulitzer (as in Pulitzer Prize for journalistic integrity).

        Well, history (helped along by media spin) has conveniently forgotten that both Hurst and Pulitzer owned newspapers in New York and continuously tried to out “news” each other so they could claim to be the best selling paper in the city. BOTH made up stories, more and more sensational to capture their readers attention. Yet Hurst is vilified and Pulitzer has an award.

        10

  • #
    pattoh

    Where is Matt B when you need him?

    50

  • #
    Carbon500

    Yes, here it all was again on the evening of Novenber 2nd. – the usual IPCC garbage trotted out on one of our national news channels in the UK last night. The IPCC say so, so it must be right. Not a contrasting comment sought by the news channel concerned (ITV) from anyone. Sigh.

    80

  • #
    James Bradley

    Current ABC Web Poll:

    With 2,618 votes

    NO…91%

    YES…9%

    Bet this Climate Consensus isn’t published…

    100

    • #
      James Bradley

      Right at the bottom in small print:

      ABC reserves the right to remove any poll whether archived or not if it believes any voting irregularity has occurred.

      20

    • #
      Yonniestone

      This web poll is being watched closer than the world’s stock markets.

      Who will win the Melbourne Cup today? I don’t know but more important is will the ABC web poll hit 97%? LOL :)

      50

  • #
    Jan-Ove Pedersen

    Just woted on the poll, NO 91% and YES 9%

    10

  • #
    tom0mason

    ,
    .
    If you have difficulty downloading the IPCC Synthesis Report here is the alternative that covers all the main topics -
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/Synthesis_report_scr.jpg

    20

  • #
    the Griss

    Steven Goddard put IPCC temperature prejoketion in graphical form.

    62

  • #
    • #
      TdeF

      Very good! The hockey stick has turned into a shuttle launch. The IPCC was formed in 1988 on the concept of man made climate change. It immediately found some. Now in its death throes, with all credibility gone, it has given up all pretence of science.

      60

    • #
      TdeF

      A mere 0.06% of the GDP of the planet over 100 years. Only $50Bn a year from $85Trillion? Talk about a smooth sales pitch more than slightly tinged with extortion.

      Would you risk the future of your children and grand children etc. and all humanity for a mere $50Bn growing to $150Bn? It sounds so mean!

      So forget food supply in 100 years, fresh water, control of disease, education, energy needs, quality of life, medicine, overpopulation, the urgent immediate problem at the UN is something which is not happening, warming.

      At what point did the UN lose the plot? So the real question is will Julia Gillard get Helen Clarke’s job after all? Both female labor leaders who brought in a very unpopular UN carbon tax at enormous political cost to the Labor party. However it could be argued that they alone saved the planet, or at least the bottom third.

      60

      • #

        TdeF
        The BBC misquoted the UNIPCC. Policies will reduce growth rates by 0.06%, not cost 0.06% of GDP. Based on 3% growth, the BBC has understated the costs nearly 50 times.
        However, even a growth reduction of 0.06 is low to entirely eliminate fossil fuels by 2100. Most Governments would sign up pretty quickly if they thought the world be just 1110% richer than today with policy, rather than 1170% richer and take the risks.

        40

  • #
  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    “Dr Pachaudri said today’s announcement was, categorically, the “strongest, most robust and most comprehensive” document that the IPCC has produced.”

    In that spirit I thought I would share with you all that I wilted some spinach from my veggie patch in preparing a meal over the weekend.

    It was some of the most decisive, ruthless and when it needed to be downright vicious wilted spinach I have ever prepared. I mean you really would not want to be hit by this stuff. Categorically, it puts warm lettuce in the shade for sure.

    40

  • #
    joseph

    Just went out to vote. Couldn’t find anywhere to cast a vote but was told my vote had been recorded. And with a thank you too . . . . . .

    30

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    8:33 am, 3033 votes, 91% No.

    30

  • #
    pat

    wow!

    4 Nov: Australian: Sid Maher: ‘Coal exports a killer for thousands’, says ANU academic Elizabeth Hanna
    Dr Hanna, whose research was included in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, predicted Australia faced days hotter than 50C within 10 or 15 years under continuing global warming and this would dramatically increase the number of heat-related deaths.
    If that happens, “we are at risk of mass-death events in Australia, similar to the death tolls due to ­extreme heat overseas’’, she said.
    “In 2003, 70,000 people died in Europe and 55,000 died in Russia in 2010 due to extreme heat.”
    Asked on Radio National about the Prime Minister’s support for coal, Dr Hanna said that Mr Abbott’s government was “captive to the vested interests” and eventually would be held to account.
    “Now if they continue to ­ignore this message they are sentencing thousands and thousands to their deaths,” she said.
    Dr Hanna, the president of the Climate and Health Alliance, in a following interview with The Australian, stood by her comments and went further:..
    Greens leader Christine Milne said the IPCC report showed that there was a choice between coal and death. “Coal is bad for humanity and Tony ­Abbott is bad for Australia,’’ she said.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/coal-exports-a-killer-for-thousands-says-anu-academic-elizabeth-hanna/story-e6frg6xf-1227111379081

    30

  • #
    pat

    ***unbelievable! first thing i heard when i woke up. at bottom, it’s nothing but PR for the wind & solar giants – the likes of GE, Siemens, etc:

    AUDIO: 4 Nov: ABC Breakfast: Renewables for the poor
    A key report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has this week rung the ***death knell for coal.
    But the argument from the mining industry, economists, and even the Abbott Government is that coal is lifting millions of people out of poverty around the world by giving them access to cheap electricity, and that technology like carbon capture and storage will eventually succeed in making dirty coal cleaner.
    It’s a powerful argument – but one which aid organisations like Oxfam say is a furphy
    Guest: Dr Simon Bradshaw
    Climate change advisor with Oxfam Australia
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/renewables-for-the-poor/5864292

    30

  • #
    Eddie

    A not untypically sceptical line from The Register, ( who are rather known for being sceptical on about everything, regardless ):-
    “The report itself is characteristically alarmist in tone. ”
    While I particularly liked this bit:-
    “In July, the UK’s Parliamentary climate change select committee endorsed the UN IPCC’s previous report on carbon and climate change.

    However, it was pooh-poohed by the two most scientifically qualified politicos on the panel. ®”

    30

  • #
    the Griss

    All this bluster and carry-on is in the lead up to Paris.

    Its all just BS, lies and propganda posturing because they know their troughs could start to run dry REALLY soon !!

    70

    • #
      NielsZoo

      … and that’s the drought they are really worried about.

      60

    • #
      LightningCamel

      The troughs will not dry up until the politicians begin to stand up. The models are broken, empirical measurements of climate sensitivity are a fraction of the IPCC fantasy(see the Hockey Schtick), the missing heat cannot be found under anyone’s bed, 99.5% of climate scientists do not claim that CO2 is responsible for most warming (Legates et al), 91% of the population consider the latest IPCC epistle to be a load of hot cocky poo (ABC poll, don’t you just love that).

      If we can’t find some overt political support for a rational sience based approach to all of this soon then the quasi religious misanthropic zealots will continue to expand their influence.

      50

  • #
  • #
    redress

    So the Abc news radio poll has closed……….the result

    Is the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change right that, on current fossil use ‘projectories’, we are heading for a global warming of four or five degrees by century’s end?
    No 91%
    Yes 9%
    3101 votes counted

    Contrasts nicely with the other poll ABC radio ran on climate change…….

    Christine Milne describes recommendations to cut back Australia’s Renewable Energy Target as ‘climate denier drivel,’ do you agree?
    Yes 84%
    No 16%
    1269 votes counted

    21

    • #
      Yonniestone

      So maybe we can theorize that more rational people are likely to respond to a poll where facts and figures are presented as opposed to less rational people responding to a poll with questions using emotive slurs?

      With public information presentation is everything, it’s a travesty in recent times the public have had almost all information presented in a certain way.

      50

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      The eventual depletion of fossil fuels provides a separate motive for supporting renewable energy development. However that doesn’t explain the poll result because not many people believe in a peak oil date any sooner than 2032, action is not yet urgent.
      It also doesn’t explain why people would want a subsidy.

      The simplest explanation is that the hordes of Jonovia descended on the IPCC poll but were never told of the Milne poll until it was closed.

      22

    • #
      Eddie

      If you think about it, sane, rational busy people aren’t going to indulge their time and attention into even responding to such emotive claptrap, because there will always more such crying for attention. The best response is just filter it out & ignore it.

      Quite remarkable that the audience is so aware of the IPCC though.

      00

  • #
    Streetcred

    That ABC web poll was disappeared real quick once the vote swung firmly against the IPCC … see screen capture:
    Visualizing How Corrupt The IPCC Has Become

    50

    • #

      None so blind as…

      http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/polls/archive/

      corrupt ABC!

      Also note that the response is about 10 times the usual. Everyone reading this blog and Bolt’s voted. I hope only once.

      50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I don’t think people from outside of Australia can vote, can they? (I haven’t tried, so that is a presumption).

        But if that is correct, it shows you the intensity of feeling overall, which makes the proportionality even more significant.

        10

        • #

          Rereke. Are you sure. Proportionality within Australia versus proportions outside?

          00

        • #
          Jan-Ove Pedersen

          I’m from Norway, my vote got registered :-)
          We’re in the same boat in Norway when it comes to Public media, which is dominated by the NRK – Norwegian Brodcast Corporation (100% owned and funded by the government).
          I believe we would get the same result in Norway if a poll like that came up in Norway, but then again the MSM is all in the Pockets of the IPCC, the same can be said of Our politicians, even the Conservative Party. And we sell oil and gas like no tomorrow :-)

          00

    • #
      the Griss

      Actually, the poll stayed up right until the normal end time of a daily poll.

      It was replaced with a Melbourne Cup poll.

      10

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Some interesting data there though. 3101 votes compares with a usual average of about 250. The Christne Milne one is an outlier too. (my spell checker tells me Christne has a only one I. What do you know!)

        The significant thing I see there is that 250 votes is a very small number for the ABC. They got 505 to save Gough’s house.

        00

  • #
    PeterS

    As I keep saying, this will continue unabated unless someone with lots of money takes them to court and proves it’s a scam and the leading perpetrators are sent to prison. Otherwise, it will continue to grow and it will take over our lives with disastrous consequences. Far too many of the public, including some of us underestimate the seriousness of the situation. It’s not a petty joke anymore that might go away after some time. Certain governments and other entities are dead set on controlling our lives through some kind of climate change regulation, not just for money but also for power and control. In fact the longer they peddle the BS the more people will believe it. As is said before, just repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it’s true. Also, even if AGW were true, the way they are going about it will not do anything to help. The facts speak for themselves. This proves those leaders peddling the AGW story are doing so under false pretenses, and if the AGW scare were true then we will be hit with a double whammy – loss of what freedoms we still have and catastrophic global warming at the same time.

    60

    • #
      TdeF

      How can you prove a religion is a scam? It is not based on facts. After all, the world is not warming at all and even the IPCC agrees, but the story continues as if it was. No the courts are not a solution. Do not look to the courts to provide the meaning of life or answers or sadly, justice.

      Being terrified by your imagination was something invented for and by religions. The burning fires of hell were imported and never part of Christianity. Heat still works to scare and Hell is always associated with extreme heat. Even today Australian alarmists talk about extreme heat and cold is never mentioned. Cold is far more dangerous. In the tropics, which should be the hottest place on earth, the heat is tolerable and the temperatures limited by the water. It is always 32C. Plants grow rapidly and profusely. No, it is the colder and drier middle latitudes which are the problem for humans. 40C in summer and -40C in winter. Not enough water or heat and cold, cold long dark winters.

      You cannot sue the IPCC. They never said it was warming, only that it might if you do not send enough money.

      41

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Court justice occurs secondary to the Initial justice usually found in the shape of War, also known as Rough Justice.

      20

    • #
      Peter Crawford

      Well don’t hold your breath. The serial hypocrite Bill McKibben was on British telly tonight expounding the virtues of walking to the shops rather than driving as he does.

      The interviewer gave Bill a free ride. There were a few jocular asides “but I know people will write to me”(snigger). Apart from that it was the Bill McKibben Show.

      This will end only in violence. And they are better at violence than we are.

      So they are right: we are all doomed.

      40

      • #
        stan stendera

        They are nor better at violence than I am.

        00

      • #
        the Griss

        “And they are better at violence than we are”

        Chuckle. ;-) Which pubs have they worked at as a bouncer?

        How many times have they gone on motorbike trips with members of the Nomads?

        Most of green/alarmista I have met, have actually been pretty weedy sorts of people.

        The point is that we usually don’t bother with violence, because we don’t need to.

        But if push comes to shove.. they might be in for a nasty surprise. !!

        Remember what happened when that occupy mod tried to interrupt the stock exchange.. many occupy bruises !!.

        10

      • #
        NielsZoo

        Those on the Left are better at unprincipled violence, thuggish and mob violence and violence which disrupts order and law. Look at events here in the US. The massive amounts of mob and thug violence surrounding the hypothetical injustice and rights violations attached to the police shooting in Ferguson. This was purposely whipped into a frenzy of violence by the Left… ’cause that’s what they do. On the other hand you have the rights violations of land owner Cliven Bundy where government agents physically attacked his family and friends, killed his livestock and destroyed his property, yet none of the hundreds of extremely well armed and well practiced “militias” ever responded with force, but had they I would have put my money on them to prevail against a few dozen lawless government minions. Our friends in the press give the mobs a pass and vilify those who act inside the law… what a surprise.

        One must always be prepared to use violence to protect one’s family, friends and way of life but must be wise enough to know that it is the absolute last resort, not the first as is endemic with the Left. One must also know that the use of violence should be swift, decisive and narrow in scope in order to limit injury to those not directly involved in the conflict. That may only be accomplished with skills honed by practice and tempered with honor and compassion. The Left uses violence regularly and without regard, we on the Conservative side, when pushed, are far better at the “mechanics” of violence and I fear its use may be necessary if things keep going the direction they are…

        00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That is interesting, because I don’t see it that way.

      91% voted “no”, with a total vote count two or three times normal.

      There is a lot of feeling out there, and in fact, that is the way that most internet memes start.

      Once people talk about the vote, at tea break, more people will realise that they are not alone in being sceptical, and so they will talk to other people, and start tweeting, and …

      The fly in the ointment was that the result came out on Melbourne Cup day, so it might have gotten itself buried. We will have to wait and see.

      00

      • #
        the Griss

        “more people will realise that they are not alone in being sceptical”

        I think/hope that you have hit the issue right on target.

        Up until now, many climate realists may have been reluctant to speak out.

        I think that is gradually changing ! :-)

        00

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Great to se so much support for Jo in response to FIN!
    Please keep up the good work gentlemen.
    And continue all your comments regarding IPCC and CAGW.
    Geoff Williams Sydney

    50

  • #
    Chris Taylor

    ABC Poll:

    Is the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change right that, on current fossil use ‘projectories’, we are heading for a global warming of four or five degrees by century’s end?
    No 91%
    Yes 9% 3101 votes

    40

  • #
    pat

    3 Nov: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: ‘Alarmist’ green groups made ‘exaggerated’ claims about global warming, UN climate change scientist says
    Prof Myles Allen criticises ‘unhelpful’ alarmism by some NGOs as UN report says science is clear that drastic action is now needed to tackle climate change
    Green groups have been unhelpfully “alarmist” in making the case for tackling global warming – but the world now needs to take urgent and radical action if it wants to prevent dangerous climate change, leading UN scientists have said.
    Some claims that non-governmental organisations have made about climate change “have undoubtedly been exaggerated”, Professor Myles Allen, one of the lead authors of a major new report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said.
    “NGOs have at times been alarmist over climate change… but the IPCC has been very clear and measured throughout. I think alarmism on any issue is unhelpful.”
    He suggested the alarmism had resulted in the general public getting the wrong impression about what climate change entailed.
    “People think climate change is just all about melting icecaps and the Arctic, the reality is climate change is about the weather changing in many parts of the world including where many people live,” he said…
    THEN ON TO EVEN MORE ALARMIST DRIVEL…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11204289/Alarmist-green-groups-made-exaggerated-claims-about-global-warming-UN-climate-change-scientist-says.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    when ABC & the rest of the CAGW pawns try to shut down our economy – especially mining – & insist on renewables – they are really shilling for other interested parties. meanwhile, Power Africa isn’t working out all that well!

    6 Oct: Devex: Lorenzo Piccio: Ex-Im’s $5B checkbook for Power Africa has few takers — for now
    Advocates for Ex-Im, including the Obama administration, insisted that in the face of stiff global competition, the bank’s support is needed to sustain American businesses and jobs.
    Drawing far less scrutiny and attention in Washington, however, is the reality that Ex-Im is also emerging as a key player in Power Africa, U.S. President Barack Obama’s initiative to double access to energy across sub-Saharan Africa by 2018. In fact, of Obama’s $7 billion, five-year pledge to Power Africa announced last year, up to $5 billion in financing is slated to come from the bank…
    Billions in additional contributions from the private sector and donor community have also poured in — including the World Bank’s $5 billion commitment at August’s U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit…
    Self-sustaining from its interest and fee revenues, Ex-Im imposes no maximum limit on its ***loans, which the bank only authorizes when there is reasonable assurance of repayment.
    “The financial merits of a project — that really sets the amount that we would be comfortable with in lending to a project,” Ben Todd, senior business development officer for Africa at Ex-Im, elaborated.
    ***Ex-Im’s single-largest authorization to date — an almost $5 billion loan in 2012 for a petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia — nearly matches the bank’s five-year commitment to Power Africa…
    Although Ex-Im now plays a key role in Obama’s marquee, second-term development initiative, the bank is still, at its core, an export credit agency with a mission to sustain U.S. businesses and jobs…
    https://www.devex.com/news/ex-im-s-5b-checkbook-for-power-africa-has-few-takers-for-now-84462

    reminder:

    2013: Forbes: Christopher Helman: Obama’s ‘Power Africa’ Plan Greases Billions In Deals For General Electric
    G.E. CEO Jeffrey Immelt, who until early this year chaired the president’s Council on Jobs and Effectiveness, is accompanying Obama on his Africa trade mission. Immelt will clearly appreciate a financial backstop from Uncle Sam. Federal guarantees will reduce G.E. financial risks in Africa and will help it compete better against Chinese companies, which have been falling over themselves to invest in Africa…
    According to the White House fact sheet on Power Africa, more than $300 billion in investment will be required to bring electricity to the two-thirds of the population in sub-Saharan Africa that currently lack it…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/07/01/with-power-africa-plan-obama-to-grease-billions-in-deals-for-g-e/

    10

  • #

    Get rid of ALL CO2 emitting power generation in its totality.

    Just who are they trying to kid?

    The total power generation for Planet Earth is (around) 22,000TWH per year.

    The total power generated from *fossil fuel sources is (around) 16,500TWH, which comes in at 75% of all power generation.

    No matter how many tiny and ancient coal fired plants are closing, the new and much larger plants which are opening up in China, India, Germany, and many other places ensure that percentage will only rise. Ancient and tiny coal fired plants are being replaced by Natural Gas fired plants, also CO2 emitting.

    These new plants have a life expectancy of 40 years plus, and no Country in its right mind will be closing them down until they have served their life span.

    So, the statement remains.

    Get rid of ALL CO2 emitting power generation in its totality.

    There is NOTHING they can replace them with on a like for like basis, power which actually CAN keep a Country running.

    Huge centralised large generation plants which CAN supply on a 24/7/365 basis.

    There is quite literally NOTHING which can replace that, of an acceptable green favoured renewable power anyway.

    The thing about all this is that these people who call for the closure of ALL CO2 emitting power generation ….. KNOW this, and yet they keep calling for its closure.

    There is NO Country on Planet Earth which can afford to close those plants down. The result of their closure would be disaster on a scale unimaginable.

    And the thing about that is that those people who call for the closure of ALL CO2 emitting power generation ….. KNOW this, and yet they keep calling for its closure.

    It just WILL NOT happen.

    Tony.

    * Fossil Fuel Generation includes coal fired power, Natural gas fired power, petroleum liquids power generation, petroleum coke generation, and other gases generation.

    Data Source – International Energy Statistics

    120

    • #
      The Backslider

      The thing about all this is that these people who call for the closure of ALL CO2 emitting power generation ….. KNOW this, and yet they keep calling for its closure.

      The thing also is that there is no way in the World they could ever produce all the infrastructure required for renewable energy, even on a tiny scale, without fossil fuels.

      90

    • #
      Ken Stewart

      Many years ago, a geologist mate of mine had a bumper sticker on his car reading “Ban mining- let the bastards freeze in the dark.” All we need is to change “mining” to “fossil fuel”.

      90

      • #

        Funny thing is this. It would only take three days.

        Everything would happen within the first three to sixty minutes, and then take three days to remedy, at the soonest.

        Read this link very closely, especially the time line shown at the sequence of events, and note how suddenly it all happens starting at around 4PM. That’s 55 Million people.

        It would be three days of the biggest disaster in World history, and then this whole thing would just go away. Stopped dead.

        We wouldn’t hear another thing.

        Electrical engineers would fix all this, while Climate Scientists look around and wonder what the hell just happened. During the next three days, while electrical engineers slave away to fix all this, those Climate Scientists and their green acolytes will spend the time packing their offices into boxes.

        Tony.

        110

        • #

          Think here of Manhattan, and then refer it to Sydney or Melbourne.

          Everyone working in all those high rise offices had to walk downstairs in the dark mostly, and then walk home.

          No electricity also meant no water, as pumps would not work.

          The result would be horrendous.

          Tony.

          80

          • #
            the Griss

            In Sydney, trying to get home by train could actually be marginally worse than usual. ;-)

            10

            • #

              Griss,

              no trains because of the electrification of the rail system, and anyway, even with the diesel locos, still no trains as there’s no signalling or comms.

              On the roads, traffic gridlock with no traffic control, even if they could get their cars out of the car parking facilities.

              Billions lost just from Coles and Woolies with no cold/cool storage, all of that thrown out.

              Cities virtually closed, no banking, no ATM’s, no computers, no shopping, hospitals on emergency backup, as long as their fuel supply lasts, because no electricity means no fuel pumping of any sort.

              Tony.

              30

              • #

                Oh, and no rooftop solar because there is no grid to reference it to, and also the prospect of Islanding.

                No wind power, no commercial solar, again because no grid to reference it to and hopelessly overloaded, hence not supplying.

                Coal fired power is absolutely essential, and without it, unmitigated chaos on a humungous scale.

                Turn it off. Yeah, right!

                Tony.

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                I know all that Tony. :-)

                Notice that I said, “marginally worse” ;-)

                10

    • #
      Robert

      Wasn’t the phrase “unrestricted fossil fuel use” what they had in the report? Which to me means “we can still use it, but the rest of you can’t.” I don’t think anyone has any intention of ending the use of fossil fuels, what I do think they intend is to turn it into something only the “elite” are allowed to benefit from while the masses, meaning us, get the fecal covered end of the stick.

      Always love reading Tony’s comments on this kind of foolishness, he grasps the realities of it far better than the so called “experts” apparently do.

      20

      • #

        Thanks Robert.

        Which to me means “we can still use it, but the rest of you can’t.” I don’t think anyone has any intention of ending the use of fossil fuels, what I do think they intend is to turn it into something only the “elite” are allowed to benefit from while the masses, meaning us …..

        The grid is the grid. There’s no way they can isolate people from the grid, umm, unless they have, err, smart meters.

        Tony.

        30

  • #
    Neville

    The Bolter fact checks Prof Lesley Hughes after her interview on their ABC. How clueless can these people get?
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/fact_checking_the_abc_and_it_warmist_guest_professor_lesley_hughes_no_wonde/

    41

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Well if the Bolter is upholding the ABC’s charter and actually presenting researched information to Australian’s then I will claim him as “Our Andrew Bolt”

      or the ABC ‘Andrew Bolt Conciliator’ :)

      30

  • #
    the Griss

    A BIG OUCH for the alarmista models.

    Those models are literally dead in the water !!!

    41

    • #
      NielsZoo

      … too true and the Climateers also assign those same “black body” properties to the atmosphere and use black body math which is even worse than using those theories for liquid water. It’s one of my pet peeves as the only things that act even remotely like black bodies are homogenous solids in vacuum… not a planet covered with amorphous solid material, living organisms using portions of the solar spectrum, liquids with suspended solids and dissolved gasses and a gas atmosphere that also contains vapors and suspended solids… compressed by gravity and swirled around by solar and terrestrial magnetic fields et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But you’ll never catch them paying attention to those pesky “facts” it’s all about control CO2.

      00

  • #
    Streetcred

    Is the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change right that, on current fossil use ‘projectories’, we are heading for a global warming of four or five degrees by century’s end?

    No 91%
    Yes 9%
    3101 votes counted

    Just cleared it with John Cook, that is close enough to claim a 97% consensus!

    80

  • #
    scaper...

    Well, if the IPCC expects to get any money from this government they are going to be disappointed.

    They didn’t get a cent pledged by Labor and won’t get any under this government because we will do no more than what was legislated last week.

    Method and madness, yet again!

    50

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    O/T …

    Rumours abound that Abbott’s agenda for G20 has been changed at the last minute. After refusing government subsidies for the car industry earlier in the year, it turns out today that Protectionism is a winner.
    Nyuk nyuk.

    31

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see the ABC is trotting out the usual garbage about public perceptions of “climate change” by ESM (Essentiasl Media Communications:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-04/lewis-woods-extreme-politics-warning-as-climate-changes/5865366

    I have no idea why this company gets so much coverage on The Drum, other than the obvious explanation that they are left-leaning oxygen thieves:

    http://essentialmedia.com.au/

    Given that they have run campaigns for the ACTU and conservation issues… I think their leanings are quite apparent. Hence the automatic ABC carte blanche and endless virtual inches. The director (Peter Lewis) also used to work for the AG under the Carr regime – on his linkedin).

    Let’s see if my post about survey bias gets up (based around the ambiguous meaning of the term “climate chang). Unfortunately I costed before copying it… so the ABC mods might catch me out this time.

    20

  • #
    pat

    ***if only….

    1 Nov: ABC Science Show: The big difference between science and politics
    Guest: Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge, UK
    Julian Huppert: …
    ***As a scientist you are used to the idea of coming up with a hypothesis, testing it and rejecting it if it doesn’t work. There’s no shame for a scientist to say I had an idea and it turned out not to be a good one. And yet politicians are expected to come up with an idea and stick dogmatically to it…
    And I think if Australia goes for a policy of saying ‘our role in the world in 2050 is we will have some earth you can dig up and sell to people’, I really think that’s incredibly limiting for what Australia can do.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-big-difference-between-science-and-politics/5857836

    Julian Huppert, Liberal Democrat, MP for Cambridge
    The son of two academics (Australian-born geophysicist Herbert Huppert and psychologist Felicia Huppert), Huppert has lived in Cambridge since he was a small child.
    Having attended The Perse School in the city, Huppert went on to study at Cambridge University, completing a BA (2000) and then a PhD (2005) in Biological Chemistry at Trinity College
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huppert

    00

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Came across this while browsing books on Amazon…

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231152558/ref=s9_psimh_gw_p14_d13_i7?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-2&pf_rd_r=0N323AF6673BP2KKA4JD&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=1935655302&pf_rd_i=desktop

    Gotta love the honesty of the description (this is for real)…

    “The Hockey Stick achieved prominence in a 2001 UN report on climate change and quickly became a central icon in the “climate wars.” The real issue has never been the graph’s data but rather its implied threat to those who oppose governmental regulation and other restraints to protect the environment and planet.”

    Yup that’s right, it was never meant to be actual data lol…. classic.

    20

  • #
    pat

    just up at India Times – asking for comments:

    3 Nov: India Times: Rutu Ladage: Is Global Warming A Joke Cracked By The Government?
    Well, at least science thinks so. Or so, some meteorologists want us to believe. There’s actually no scientific proof that the earth is going to soon burn in the fires of hell. We hear reports of the snow caps melting and the ice-levels in the poles reaching disturbing levels. But according to 9000 experts with PhDs and 31 scientists, global warming is just a myth.
    On The Kelly File, which is an American TV show on current affairs and problems plaguing the world, the Weather Channel founder John Coleman refuted claims of man-made global climate change…
    Global warming is one of the most controversial topics with the political parties too, torn over the issue. While a majority are of the opinion that global warming exists and man-made global warming is not a myth, there are many like Coleman who contest such claims…
    Do you agree with Coleman or are you with those 1000 news headlines claiming the Everest glaciers are drying up? Let us know in comments!
    http://www.indiatimes.com/news/world/is-global-warming-a-joke-cracked-by-the-government-228234.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    4 Nov: BBC: Australia is ‘holding back’ global climate change fight
    Australia is a drag on international efforts to tackle climate change, says leading economist and former government adviser Professor Ross Garnaut…
    Australia has the world’s highest carbon emissions per capita and is its second biggest coal exporter…
    “It is a bit sad. We are a drag on the international efforts [to tackle climate change],” Prof Garnaut said in an interview on ABC TV.
    “You could make the case [that] we were once doing our fair share, now we are not,” he said…
    He was reacting to comments by Mr Abbott made earlier in the day that coal was the foundation of Australia’s prosperity and would be so “for the foreseeable future”…
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says most of the world’s electricity can – and must – be produced from low-carbon sources by 2050.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-29891071

    read all for the background to the NK reference:

    4 Nov: Australian: Perhaps we should send Christine Milne to North Korea for a capitalism detox
    Death or coal! Sky News yesterday:
    NEWSREADER: The Greens are issuing their own warning today, which perhaps didn’t quite go to plan. Here was Greens leader Christine Milne:
    Milne: “Do you want death or do you want coal? That’s what we’re talking about here. Tony Abbott wants coal …
    Sky newsreader: Death or coal? Well, I guess most people would probably pick coal. Death and coal might have been what the Greens leader said; perhaps she was talking about renewable energy or death. We’ll wait and see if there’s a clarification later on…
    Tick, tick tick! Five years ago there were only five years to go and the heat was in the water! Olga Galacho, Herald Sun, December 4, 2009:
    THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the federal government’s chief scientist, Prof Penny Sackett …
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cutandpaste/perhaps-we-should-send-christine-milne-to-north-korea-for-a-capitalism-detox/story-fn72xczz-1227111382465

    00

  • #
    pat

    relentless propaganda. never forget, there’s Lima before Paris:

    3 Nov: Telegram, Canada: French president calls on Canada to work for climate change agreement
    Behind a firm show of solidarity with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the French president — in some carefully chosen language — made clear he doesn’t want to see Canada deferring active participation on the environment until after the next federal election, set for October 2015.
    During Monday’s state visit to Ottawa, Hollande outlined several upcoming international events on the road to Paris, indicating he wants to see Harper walking with him every step of the way.
    They include this month’s G20 summit in Australia and next month’s international climate change meeting in Lima, Peru…
    “I would like to host a number of events all along 2015, so that we reach this conference in December with a comprehensive and differentiated agreement which would be ready, specific, set and within a particular framework,” Hollande told a joint news conference with Harper on Parliament Hill…
    Hollande said he wanted to avoid a similar fate as the 2009 Copenhagen summit, in which world leaders — despite an 11th-hour effort — failed to reach a substantive deal.
    “We have to find an agreement in the coming months,” he said.
    Harper didn’t shy away from the challenge, touting Canada’s sector-by-sector approach and success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the Alberta oilsands and banning coal-fired electricity generation.
    ***He also noted that the European Commission had backed off its plan of ranking Alberta oilsands crude in a category that would have branded it as dirty oil…
    The (IPCC) report was the work of “the highest scientific authorities” and a “lack of action will lead to a disaster,” Hollande said…
    Last month, Hollande’s special climate envoy visited Ottawa, but was unable to get a meeting with Harper…
    http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Canada—World/2014-11-03/article-3927462/French-president-calls-on-Canada-to-work-for-climate-change-agreement/1

    10

  • #
    pat

    SBS doesn’t care how uninformed & ignorant you are, so long as you are a CAGW alarmist:

    4 Nov: SBS: Sallie Forrest: Comment: Current health care system unprepared for effects of climate change
    (Dr Sallie Forrest works in public health as a WA Representative for Doctors for the Environment Australia, and works part-time as a GP.)
    The release this week of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest Report makes it clear Australia is taking insufficient action to address the dire health consequences that will increasingly result from unchecked climate change. The Report states the world is on track for more than 4 degrees of average warming…
    As medical professionals, Doctors for the Environment Australia is extremely concerned the federal and state governments are neglecting their duty of care to citizens and society to both limit climate change to the extent possible, thereby preventing the likely health consequences, and also to prepare Australia for those effects which we cannot avoid. It is predicted Australia will face days hotter than 50C within 10 or 15 years under continuing global warming- the human body struggles to cope with such temperatures, such a situation would dramatically increase the number of heat-related deaths and illnesses…
    The Great Barrier Reef’s coral reef systems could be eliminated by mid-to late-century under current rates of ocean warming and acidification. Climate change is having a negative impact on agricultural food production, and Australia could see marked decreases in water flows in the Murray-Darling Basin if projections of severe dry conditions are realised…
    Alarmingly the government is now intent on scaling back the Renewable Energy Target- when it should be increased for it is an effective public health measure alone, leaving aside the climate change benefits…
    Addressing climate change should be the government’s number one priority leading up to the Paris negotiations…
    The government’s sloganeering needs to recognise “An emissions trading scheme is a good, healthy scheme”, rather than “The carbon tax is a bad tax” and “Coal is good for humanity”.
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/04/comment-current-health-care-system-unprepared-effects-climate-change

    00

  • #
    pat

    saw a vague reference to this on a previous thread, but documenting it here, as pathetic as it is:

    2 Nov: Guardian: Lenore Taylor: G20: Australia makes token concession on climate change after US lobbying
    Government resists calls for climate change to be listed as a major agenda item, but agrees to include in final communique
    The final wording of the leaders’ statement after the meeting is still being finalised but it is believed to simply recommit to addressing climate change through UN processes…
    Australia has agreed the G20 should discuss climate-related issues as part of its deliberations on energy efficiency, but this also appears to be wrapped up in a general commitment that countries consider taking action in the future on some of a long list of areas where energy efficiency improvements might be made…
    None of the discussions are likely to require G20 nations to commit to anything…
    US president Barack Obama’s international adviser, Caroline Atkinson, has insisted publicly that leaders around the table at the G20 will raise climate change.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/02/g20-australia-makes-token-concession-on-climate-change-after-us-lobbying

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova says the IPCC is recycling its message of doom, despite being consistently wrong. Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleLike this:Like Loading… [...]

    00

  • #
  • #
    stuart

    Jo Nova states that the globes CO2 levels have remained fairly constant [presumably at about 280 ppm]…This is essentially true. However, upon perusing a book pertaining to global cooling catastrophism in the early 14th century and its relationship to the Black Death pandemic ['New Light on the Black Death: The Cosmic Connection' by the dendrochronologist Mike Baillie] I noticed that the author refers to Antarctic ice core research undertaken in the late 1980′s by U. Siegenthaler et al [the relevant paper is: 'Stable Isotope Ratios and Concentration of CO2 in Air from Polar Ice Cores, Annals of Glaciology 10, pp 1-6, 1988] which ascertained a hefty injection of approximately 40-45 gigatons of CO2 [45 thousand million tonnes] into the atmosphere between 1250 and 1350 AD. Baillie refined this massive input of CO2 as probably having occurred between 1330-1350 AD. Apparently this amount of carbon translated to 6% of the worlds pre-industrial biomass. A huge amount…Mind you 1350 AD was the onset of the Little Ice Age. And yet guess what happened?. No rebound warming…The LIA continued!.[Despite approx. 6% of all the worlds living carbon pumped into the air] I’m not sure if this research paper has been contravened by later palaeo-environmental research..Does anyone know?..Does this have any implications for the scientific ‘maxim’ of CO2 centred global warming?..As I am not a scientist I am just issuing a query

    00

  • #
    pat

    5 Nov: Time: 4 Ways the New Top Environment Senator Disagrees With Science
    by Haley Sweetland Edwards
    Meet Jim Inhofe
    Inhofe: The Senator says hundreds of scientists dispute the idea that global warming is the result of human activity.
    Science: 97% of international scientists working in fields related to the environmental sciences agree that current global warming trends are the result of human activity. No U.S. or international scientific institutions of any caliber dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change…ETC
    http://time.com/3558611/jim-inhofe-global-warming-climate-change-2014/

    00

  • #
    pat

    5 Nov: National Geographic: Mark Silva: Election Results Make U.S. Congress Action on Climate Change Even Less Likely
    Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell, who will lead the Senate, emphasizes coal-mining jobs over warnings from scientists.
    He successfully campaigned for reelection there with warnings about a “war on coal” he accuses Democratic President Barack Obama of waging. This helps explain what the United States won’t be doing about global warming in the near future…
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141105-united-states-congress-election-climate/

    00

  • #
    Steve McDonald

    Can anybody help!
    I went to the Irish club in Brisbane on the 5th of Nov to listen to and watch Patrick Moore give a science lesson on catastrophic man made global warming horror.
    He was brilliant but most importantly sane.
    No hysterical faith based money gouging religion anywhere to be seen.
    They made a D.V.D of the event and I left without getting the details of purchase.
    A D.V.D. from any venue will do.

    10