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

Why did China pick 2030? Oh look…

After nine months of secret negotiations President Obama managed to get the Chinese to agree to stop their emissions rising after 2030. But look what else is peaking in 2030.

Population.

China: Projections of population growth

Did Obama do his homework? Seems President Xi did.

h/t to Andrew V

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (107 votes cast)
Why did China pick 2030? Oh look..., 9.6 out of 10 based on 107 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/l78dpuz

197 comments to Why did China pick 2030? Oh look…

  • #
    • #
      Roy Hogue

      The war in Iraq, which was won, has been thrown away along with the lives used to win it. — Pointman

      Thank you for making that point. We won it only to have the next president throw it all away. I don’t care what the folks back home wanted. A leader does what’s necessary and follows through until the job is finished. Instead, now the dead cry out to us from their graves saying, SHAME ON YOU, AMERICA!

      Some things are worth fighting for. And when you’ve won the fight you keep what you won — in this case, the beginning of self government in Iraq. And if we think self government is important to us, what’s to be said of those who don’t think it was important to Iraq? Remember all those fingers dipped in purple ink and then tell me we should have left.

      00

  • #
    Robert O

    I am too old and cynical to believe in co-incidence. However, it would be nice to see some real proof that there is a significant mathematical relationship between the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature; without one it’s meaningless.

    Also sick and tired of seeing the smokestacks of power stations emitting heaps of steam and particulate matter on ‘our’ ABC when they talk about climate change. Perhaps they are unaware, as well, that carbon dioxide used to be a colourless, tasteless, gas slightly more dense than air when I studied a little chemistry decades ago.

    510

    • #
      NielsZoo

      …carbon dioxide used to be a colourless, tasteless, gas slightly more dense than air…

      But no where near as dense as our television “reporters” or our “well informed” politicians.

      470

      • #
        King Geo

        “carbon dioxide used to be a colourless, tasteless, gas slightly more dense than air”.

        Which of course describes the “Warmists” perfectly, ie they are colourless, tasteless, a lot more dense than air and as weak as water with their comments. Don’t they realize that it is steam (H2O) coming out of those smokestacks? – obviously not.

        210

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Don’t they realize that it is steam (H2O) coming out of those smokestacks?

          That is probably because people insist on calling them smoke-stacks.

          They are cooling towers. They are designed to cool the steam, used to drive the generators, so that the hot steam does not raise the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere, thereby preventing local warming.

          80

    • #
      sillyfilly

      Tony Abbott also stated it was “weightless” but what more would you expect from such a scientific incompetent.
      Of course all the old arguments about the world not acting have turned to dust, “dead, buried and cremated” so to speak.
      Meanwhile we get a population graph, whereas China looks to maximise it’s energy efficient.

      036

      • #
        the Griss

        “whereas China looks to maximise it’s energy efficient.”

        They sure are.. look at the massive amount of coal-fired generation they are installing !

        With new hydro and nuclear making up to about 97% of the total ! :-)

        Now, off you go and weigh some CO2 gas, little donkey !

        220

        • #
          the Griss

          And they are going to keep up this massive expansion until at least 2030 :-)

          Plenty of luvly CO2 for all the world’s plants.

          Thank you, China. :-)

          170

          • #
            sillyfilly

            “Luvly CO2″ What was it from Quirk and Co, 2-3GT/Year increased uptake in arboreal forests in the NH. Meanwhile, anthropgenic emissions are 30GT/year.
            From Scripps Institution of Oceanography: Why are Seasonal CO2 Fluctuations Strongest at Northern Latitudes?
            “By the early 1990s, Keeling had noticed that the seasonal CO2 fluctuation at Barrow was larger than when he started his measurements. He knew that persistently warmer temperatures due to climate change could be leading to greater rates of photosynthesis during the growing season by land plants in the north, and also to increased rates of respiration in the winter. Both of these could lead to an increase in the seasonality of CO2. He teamed with remote sensing scientist Ranga Myneni, then a NASA researcher, to look for changes in land vegetation from space that would confirm his hypothesis. Satellites can see how much of the sun’s light plants are using for photosynthesis, sometimes referred to as the ‘greenness’ of the forests. They found that indeed, the forests in the Northern Hemisphere, especially between 45 to 70º N latitude, were getting “greener’ at the same time they were getting warmer. Part of this green-up occurred in the peak summer, but they also found that the spring greening was coming earlier each year as snow and soils melted a few days sooner.

            The implications of this finding are quite significant. It means that not only are human activities causing the overall increase in CO2 levels over time, but through the effect on global temperatures, people are also controlling CO2 fluctuation from season to season.”

            127

            • #
              the Griss

              ” It means that not only are human activities causing the overall increase in CO2 levels over time”

              WELL DONE HUMANS .

              The Planet’s biosphere thanks us. !! :-)

              The world’s plant life flourishes as the atmospheric CO2 level starts to climb to a reasonable level.

              (got a ways to go to reach 700ppm though.. but China, Germany and India are doing a great job)

              210

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Yes but notice the assumption. Where, in all of their observations, did they definitively exclude all potential causes, other than, “human activities”?

                Confirmation bias, anyone?

                81

            • #
              the Griss

              ps. I gave you a green thumb, because the post was such a positive one for beneficial effects of increased CO2.. Thanks. :-)

              150

            • #
              shrillyfilly

              Dear Self,

              Inhale…
              Exhale…
              Inhale…
              Exhale…

              21

        • #
          Rolf

          I do think you are really treating the donkey’s too bad. They are able to learn from experience while it’s now obvious a certain silly horse do not.

          20

      • #
        janama

        So what! his degrees are in Law and economics.

        50

      • #
        Joe

        Filly, sadly I think that the problem we have seen has not been a lack of ‘acting’ but too much ‘acting’ in this great stage show drama/fantasy already. The US, Europe and China are all renown ‘actors’. Alas poor Yorrick, I knew him Horatio. Perhaps it will be made into a musical one day.

        100

      • #
        cohenite

        Yep efficient; ultra supercritical which is what China is doing a lot of.

        40

        • #
          the Griss

          Need to build a few of those monsters in Australia.

          We have plenty of high quality coal in NSW and Qld, we should be using it instead of wasting funds on crappy wind and solar stuff.

          A decent coal drying unit, they could also use it with the Victorian brown coal.

          100

      • #

        SF, if we are going to quote politicians, don’t forget this one from Christine Milne:
        “Do you want death or do you want coal?
        “That’s what we’re talking about here,” she told reporters in Hobart.
        “Tony Abbott wants coal.”

        Given the alternative, who wouldn’t?

        It clearly shows what Labor/Greens want.

        120

        • #
          sillyfilly

          China acts, we go backwards:
          From TOZ

          That 13% I quoted at the time was theoretical, but in China over the last three years the emissions reduction of new USC plants is even better, around 15% to 17%. This is off-the-shelf technology that handles base-load, produces cheap electricity, and reduces emissions.

          Also an interesting article:
          Can “Ultrasupercritical” Technology Save Coal Power? by Michael Lewis January 14, 2014
          .
          Columbus, Ohio-based utility American Electric Power (AEP), through its subsidiary, Southwestern Electric Power Co. (SWEPCO), opened the plant at a cost of $1.8 billion, which makes it the most expensive project ever built in Arkansas…… How much of an improvement in efficiency does the USC plant yield? The Turk plant’s steam cycle efficiency is 39 to 40 percent, compared with 35 percent for a boiler operating at subcritical steam conditions. Carbon dioxide emissions are also lower, POWER stated: USC technology produces approximately 0.97 tons per megawatt-hour compared with emissions from subcritical plants that average around 1.06 tons/MWh.

          117

          • #
            the Griss

            China’s INCREASE in coal fired output last year was about TWICE our total output.

            It doesn’t matter what we do, our CO2 output is tiny, and we should be using the very cheapest, most reliable form of electrical power available… ie COAL !!

            Any move to restrict Australia’s CO2 output is totally meaningless……

            ……sort of like a sugar ant to an elephant.

            The Direct Action funds should be used to update as many of our coal fired power stations to USC type, to build toward the nation’s future.

            211

          • #
            the Griss

            “China acts, ”

            Yes, China is “acting”.. and you fell for it !!

            Gullible !!

            You always have had issues tell fiction from fact !

            Comes from being a drama queen, I suspect.

            41

          • #
            shrillyfilly

            Self,

            “Also an interesting article:
            Can “Ultrasupercritical” Technology Save Coal Power? by Michael Lewis January 14, 2014
            .
            Columbus, Ohio-based utility American Electric Power (AEP), through its subsidiary, Southwestern Electric Power Co. (SWEPCO), opened the plant at a cost of $1.8 billion, which makes it the most expensive project ever built in Arkansas…… How much of an improvement in efficiency does the USC plant yield? The Turk plant’s steam cycle efficiency is 39 to 40 percent, compared with 35 percent for a boiler operating at subcritical steam conditions. Carbon dioxide emissions are also lower, POWER stated: USC technology produces approximately 0.97 tons per megawatt-hour compared with emissions from subcritical plants that average around 1.06 tons/MWh.”

            From TOZ

            “That 13% I quoted at the time was theoretical, but in China over the last three years the emissions reduction of new USC plants is even better, around 15% to 17%. This is off-the-shelf technology that handles base-load, produces cheap electricity, and reduces emissions.

            China acts, we go backwards…
            ——————————————————————————–

            20

          • #
            James Bradley

            Dear SF,

            I see you finally got a conscience.

            China acts = Fossil Fuel good.

            Australia goes backwards = Renewable Bad.

            60

      • #
        Cookster

        Abbott is a scientific incompetent? So what – all Australian politicians are relatively weak on science – except Dr Dennis Jenson – a PHD who is on Abbott’s team.

        As for China – China will do what is best for China – not what the UN tries to tell them to do or what pleases western Lefties. China’s interest in building wind farms is only to reduce the real problem of airborne particulates. Yes real pollution – as opposed to plant food. And as we see with Jo’s revealing chart China’s population will peak at the same time they have chosen to stop increasing emissions. Or did you miss that?

        It was obvious 5 years ago at Copenhagen that the Chinese are not the least bit concerned about “catastrophic” man made climate change. The gig is up.

        110

        • #
          the Griss

          And the second most populous country, India, thinks its a joke too, and intends to greatly increase its coal use.

          Together, they have 8 to 9 times the population of the USA.

          30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            The combined populations of China, India, and the other southeast Asian nations constitute one half of the world’s population.

            These populations mainly use wood-burning ovens, coal-fired ovens, or coal-gas ovens, for cooking. They often use paraffin lamps for lighting, and only use electricity to power a radio or television. It is only the very privileged and rich who have air conditioners.

            The governments can promise, on the world stage, to reduce emissions from government run utilities, such as electricity generation, but they will find it hard to stop people burning lumber, or household rubbish, as an energy source.

            70

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        The article is about Obama, not Abbott. Reading 101 – you should retake the class.

        20

      • #
        LevelGaze

        Ach, SF, you are either have a shocking memory or are simply too young to recall the wall-to-wall television adverts some years ago with washing machines and other very useful household implements vomiting alarming amounts of black balloons very imaginatively full of CO2 and all floating UP to the ceiling!

        So, Abbott who has no science degree (to my knowledge) gets it wrong. But the scientivists who have squillions of degrees and are paid at enormous public expense also get it wrong – but worse, they invert the sign.

        Any comment on that fiasco?

        30

        • #
          LevelGaze

          Uhh, in case I didn’t made myself sufficiently clear. You ridiculed Abbott for calling CO2 “weightless”. Your Gods Of All Wisdom deemed it lighter than air and battered our brains at great expense to illustrate their phantasy.

          Jeeeez

          20

          • #
            the Griss

            Furthermore.. those Green blobs STILL think the stuff that comes out of cooling towers is “carbon pollution”

            Come on SF, next time they show a cooling tower and try to pretend its CO2, I dare you to RANT and RAVE as is your usual meme.

            10

        • #
          the Griss

          I still want to see the dopey donkey “weight” some CO2.

          You go, girl !

          00

      • #
        Andrew

        “Maximise their efficient” by burning more and more cowl, and then only peaking after the population does so they can keep burning more per capita? Yep, sounds about right.

        10

      • #
        shrillyfilly

        And just to prove to all you dunderheads that CO2 makes stuff warmer I have patented the new green invention of the century.

        My invention will eradicate the world of CO2 and at the same time make me a fortune.

        The models tell me that atmospheric CO2 causes Greenhouse Warming and that outer-space avccuum causes cooling.

        I intend to suck all the bad CO2 from the atmosphere because it is such a potent greenhouse gas and has the capacity to increase the hotness of the planet.

        I will then replace the outer-space vaccuum in thermos flasks with CO2.

        I will call it the ‘shrillyfilly’.

        The models tell me it can’t fail.

        11

        • #
          Cookster

          The models tell me…..

          This comment tells me all I need to know about you. Climate models are not evidence. Climate models are not a god (climate models say this or that) – and you wonder why we say global warmism is like a religious faith.

          Most sceptics accept CO2 causes some warming. But without the positive feed-backs assumed in global climate models the warming is minor (less than 2C) and will only result in better crop yields and a greener planet. Imagine that – we will achieve the UNs mystical 2C target if we do nothing!

          The inability to find the missing heat including no trace found by thousands of radiosondes in weather balloons suggests you and your beloved climate models are wrong. So does 18 years no global warming despite the enormous quantity of human CO2 emissions in the same period.

          20

        • #
          Annie

          You are definitely taking the mick. Have fun, fatuous facetious filly.

          10

        • #
          sillyfilly

          Apply for a Direct Action grant. That you’ll green the universe with CO2 should work wonders with the LNP establishment. Exactly the sort of innovation and technological invention that they need to meet their emission targets!

          02

    • #
      C.J.Richards

      Cooling towers are symbolic of emissions however, and warmies do need plenty of symbolism to help them get all excited about a few tenths of a degree of temperature variation ;-)

      120

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      However, it would be nice to see some real proof that there is a significant mathematical relationship between the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature;…

      I’ve asked essentially that question to nearly every troll who comes along and not one has bothered to answer. And it’s because they can’t and they know it.

      40

    • #
      Frank

      Robert, Roy and others: Mathematical “proof” that the rate of escape of thermal infrared radiation to space (OLR) will go down as GHGs rise can be obtained from the Schwarzschild equation:

      dI/ds = emission – absorption
      dI/ds = n*o*B(lamba,T) – n*o*I_0
      dI/ds = n*o*[B(lamba,T) - I_0]

      where dI is the incremental change in intensity of radiation at a given wavelength as it passes an incremental distance ds through the atmosphere, n is the density of a GHG, o is the absorption cross-section for that GHG at that wavelength, B(lamba,T) is the Planck function for that wavelength and temperature of the ds increment, and I_0 is the intensity of the radiation entering the increment. Whenever someone refers to radiative transfer calculations, they are using this equation. Since n, T and I_0 vary with altitude, this equation can only be solved by numerical integration. The radiative forcing for doubling CO2 is calculated this way. Programs such as MODTRAN make this easier (http://forecast.uchicago.edu/modtran.html). The radiative forcing for doubling CO2 is calculated this way.

      The Schwarzschild equation comes from combining emission of blackbody radiation with absorption spectroscopy. If I_0 comes from a light bulb at 2000 degK, emission from a sample at 300 degK can be ignored and integration of the remaining term produces Beer’s law. If emission and absorption have come into equilibrium and dI/ds is zero, I_0 = B(lamba,T) = blackbody radiation.

      The effect of increasing GHGs (n) depends on the SIGN of [B(lamba,T) - I_0]. For radiation passing upward through the troposphere, I_0 is emitted according to B(lamba,T’), where T’ is greater than the local T. So [B(lamba,T) - I_0] is negative and increasing GHGs (n) MUST REDUCE OLR. On the other hand, DLR is enhanced by increasing GHGs.

      In the stratosphere, temperature increases with altitude and rising GHGs increase OLR (and thereby cool the stratosphere). Unfortunately, the loss in the troposphere is much bigger than the gain in the stratosphere.

      So the GHE effect is a mathematical consequence of applying the Schwarzschild equation to an atmosphere which cools with altitude where most of the emission and absorption occur.

      During the satellite era, OLR has been observed to increase, not decrease. Unfortunately, temperature, humidity (especially in the upper atmosphere), the altitude and nature of cloud tops (60% of the sky) AND GHGs influence the amount of OLR reaching space. We currently can’t explain the observed change in OLR from increasing GHGs and temperature alone, but there is no reason to assume changes in humidity or clouds aren’t responsible for the discrepancy, if any. Accurately monitoring small changes (1% or less) in OLR and the things that effect OLR over one-third of a century is extremely difficult. (Only GHG data is reliable.)

      In the opinion of some vocal skeptics, the Schwarzschild equation and the GHE it predicts have been invalidated by observations of OLR and temperature. IMO, one invalidates the Schwarzschild equation with careful, reproducible laboratory experiments – not difficult observations of a complicated and chaotic planet. Make up your own mind – but make it “a choice, not an echo”.

      00

    • #
      Mr Farnham

      Colourless no doubt, but are you sure it didn’t taste like soda?

      00

  • #
    Robert O

    Incidentally, the Chinese know how to produce blue skies for important events; shut down the smoking factories. Although they have tropical haze and desert storms to contend with, they could do a lot with some emission controls which would be beneficial for their people instead of worrying about carbon dioxide.

    290

    • #
      TdeF

      The Chinese are not in the slightest worried about CO2. It is not an industrial pollutant and more than the other byproduct, H2O. They are in fact the building blocks of all living things. There are many other pollutants though.

      For example the lethal rare metals used to build 600kg magnets for the world’s windmills. Thanks to Greens, you can now only buy Niobium and more from China and prices have gone from $8kg to $250Kg. Clearly the caring Greens do not care how many Chinese die. Commercially Australia is now importing whole cheap windmills from China and China is even getting carbon credit cash for hydro which was started before the scheme. So there China has a great deal of interest in Global Warming. It is a licence to make money. Of course President Xi agreed to limit their output of CO2 to the absolute calculated maximum this century. Wow! What sort of restriction is that?

      As for Obama, Lame duck is on the menu while both parties snub energy giant and world superpower, Russia. No wonder Putin’s ships have gone on a little training exercise. China’s new aircraft carrier was second hand from the Russians. The trans Siberian express, from Vladivostok to Moscow is entirely electric and Europe is dependent on Russian energy, but who cares about little Russia? This Global Warming has become dangerous high farce, engineered by the Green parties and perversely run by Stalinist communists.

      381

      • #
        the Griss

        T, I assume you mean “neodymium” ;-)

        After conning the American people .. O-bummer has now well and truly met his match !

        111

        • #
          TdeF

          Yep, neodymium not niobium for magnets in windmills. It is true for many of the rare earths though, shutdown by Greens, the ones demanding the rare earths. They do not care if others die, so the caring is a very localized thing. NIMBY. Not In My Back Yard morality.

          40

      • #
        Peter Miller

        I occasionally watch RT to get the Russian view on current events.

        Some of it is a little weird, but there nevertheless is a lot of good stuff, such as the many programs on the supposed evils of fracking. Russia/Gazprom has a huge vested interest, both political and economic, in convincing ecoloons and gullible politicians in Western Europe not to frack.

        My take on what I have seen is that Russia is going to play hardball with the EU early next year over gas deliveries as they go about whatever it is they want to do in the Ukraine.

        Russia wants a buffer state to the West in the Ukraine (one of the world’s most corrupt countries), but the EU wants it to come under its sphere of influence – why is absolutely beyond me.

        Anyhow, sanctions on Russia are hurting both sides and nothing has been achieved by them and nothing ever will be. It is time for them to go and Russia seems about to play the gas card in order to achieve this.

        The greatest worry that Russia has with the EU is that just suppose it comes to its senses and starts to frack, a worry shared with the ecoloons and the scientifically challenged.

        180

  • #
    handjive

    Obama gets his 97% certified consensus settled apocalyptic science from his self-appointed experts:

    Al Gore: Ice free Arctic by 2014

    Bob Geldof: The world could end by 2030

    In climate negotiations no country is more influential than China (responsible for 28% of global emissions).

    Therefore it must be significant that Chinese scientists believe that ‘high correlations between solar activity and the Earth’s averaged surface temperature [provide] … a new clue to reveal the phenomenon of global warming in recent years’:

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/scp-hsa060414.php

    Moreover it’s a view prominently taken up by the Chinese Academy of Sciences:

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/scp-hsa060414.php
    . . .
    Those Chinese.
    They listen to science skeptics and think the planet will still be here in 2031.

    190

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      “Those Chinese.
      They listen to science skeptics and think the planet will still be here in 2031.”
      They are right.

      My standing bet about the end of the world remains. I started it back before Y2K and have just rolled it over to each new scare campaign.

      Anyone who wants a piece just email me.

      Basically pick a date, pick a scare campaign and I bet you everything we both own I will be around to collect your stuff the next morning after your prediction fizzes.

      Don’t let fear of being a bed wetting, panicking nit wit hold you back, email me, show some conviction! Cmon Silly Fly, BA,… you know you wanna. You guys are all so much smarter than this poor high school dropout, so take me for my shirt! I dare you.

      230

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Under Obama/Kerry, US foreign policy has become a complete joke.

    This is just another instance of how gullible the world views the current American leadership.

    Mr Xi ran rings around Obama, yet this stunt is claimed to be a triumph by Obama and all those suffering from ‘Save the World Syndrome.’

    When you are a politician obsessed with leaving a legacy, then the stupidity of the lengths you will go to can become awe inspiring.

    Of course, the rest of us inevitably end up paying for these colossal whims – nothing changes.

    220

    • #
      gnome

      Why can’t we be more like the Chinese?

      70

      • #
        Winston

        Gnome,
        In about 10-15 years- we will be.

        90

        • #
          RoHa

          Yes. The Chinese will own most of the country. The Indonesians will own most of the rest. A few little bits will be left for American military bases. The Americans will probably let us park the incredibly expensive but useless warplanes we bought from them there, while they plot another coup to overthrow another Australian PM. Not that China will care. Good thing I know the language.

          11

  • #
    The Backslider

    Wow! Great turnout for the protest in Sydney – 400 people from a population of 4.57 million.

    190

  • #

    This is all so absurd and apparently so pointless. However, as I have suggested before, don’t bother to question an absurdity, find what it accomplishes. In that you will find its purpose.

    What has actually been accomplished? China will continue as before without any interference from the western world. Obama gets to pretend and posture that he is acting boldly on the world’s stage. Attention is drawn from the results of the US midterm election and away from Obama’s planned and unconstitutional making legal all the illegal immigrants. The Republicans are being bamboozled and misdirected as usual. The MSM is pushing the same old party line as real news all the harder. We the People are left holding the bag and having to pay the price for the whole mess without having a say in the matter.

    The net of it all is that western civilization and individual rights are continuing to be reduced to a ghost of what they were only a few decades ago. The whole of mankind’s hard won civilization is being deconstructed back to man’s original state of subsistence survival and the law of the jungle. The good is being destroyed simply because it is good.

    The so called progressive’s intent is a clear and present very malevolent danger. Their every thought, every word, every program, and every act has been focused on this end since their thought system came into existence. They do not mean well and never have meant well. They know they are not worthy of living on earth and don’t want anyone who is to continue to live. Even and especially at the cost of their own lives.

    All we have now as a defense is a Republican Majority in congress starting in a little over two months. It is as if we have a tsunami coming at us and only low lying sand dunes covered with ice plant to protect us. There is no high ground to use for an escape. The prognosis is grim. It is going to take a lot more than luck to escape what seems to be inevitable.

    We are truly living in the “Interesting Times” mentioned in that ancient Chinese curse.

    200

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Cheer up, Lionell.

      Obama has wrecked any credibility that he ever had.
      He has promised to get this ratified by Congress, promised that he, and the next President, and the President after that will stick to this ‘treaty’ and perform the impossible. What are the odds on that?
      Obama will be laughed out of office if he claims that Congress denied him a ‘breakthrough”.

      The Chinese will go to Paris next year saying “Look, we cooperated with a treaty. It’s not our fault that Obama didn’t carry out his part. Why should we sign up to anything if it never comes to pass? But to show you what good guys we are, we will carry out our part anyway”. Then being polite they won’t burst out into laughter until they’re back in their rooms. Paris will make the retreat from Copenhagen look like a victory.

      Meanwhile, our? ABC (and the BBC and no doubt various liberal outlets in the USA) have hailed this as a breakthrough!!!!
      Do you really think that this enthusiasm will enhance their credibility? I expect Hilary Clinton to start hedging just after Paris (Dec. 2015) about what she’d do if elected.

      110

      • #

        There is a disconnect between the people and government and a disconnect between the government and reality. The entire scene is heading toward a collision with what is. There is only so many times one can kick the can down the road before one gets to the dead end. The best spin I can put on that is plan for the worst and hope for the best.

        50

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          “There is a disconnect between the people and government and a disconnect between the government and reality.”

          True, and it applies in many countries in the West. But Canada, NZ and Australia have bucked the trend, and the leaders of the first 2 have been re-elected with increased majorities. That sort of thing interests politicians and you can bet that a number of Republicans have noted this, and their recent win by associating the Democrats with global warming etc. It is only in the EU which is run by unelected bureaucrats that high level support for green matters continues. Even there they were recently cut off by Poland and 5 others who refused to damage their economies by adopting the proposed measures. Germany is slowly swinging away from political correctness too.
          See http://notrickszone.com/2014/11/11/german-vice-chancellor-gabriel-puts-brakes-on-ruinous-rush-to-green-energies-others-think-weve-lost-our-marbles/ and he’s a Socialist.

          Certainly there are problems to come, but this is the end of the green push. Everybody knows that the Paris Conference will be no better for them than Copenhagen and could be a great deal worse. Hence their desperation
          and stunts when the subject wasn’t included on the G20 agenda. There were probably sighs of relief all over the place when Tony Abbott ruled it out. And with Greens losing credibility and unable to deliver voters, all politicians (including Democrats) will be less and less willing to dance to their tune. That may well see a reappraisal of other ideas connected with them.

          90

          • #

            I see. You are hoping for the best. I too hope for the best but do not expect to get it. Politicians, especially Republican politicians, will find a way to turn a winning hand into a catastrophic loss. The government will continue to expand and become still more intrusive until the whole system collapses. However, I wish you well.

            30

          • #
            Tim

            “Tony Abbott ruled it out” (Climate Change discussion at the G20.)

            Sorry, Graeme, but he backpedaled today on this proclamation and said something like: “but of course there will be many other subjects discussed”

            The powerful are not to be underestimated and nobody interrupts their agenda.

            00

  • #
    Peter

    Jo
    The alarmist cause has degenerated into a complete farce. Every day there are multiple press releases on new papers that confirm extreme weather links to warming, loss of biodiversity, endangered species etc etc. In short time these papers are shot out of the water a la Gergis et al and the rear guard actions of psychology buffs like Lewandowsky merely add curry to the already purifying carcass of climate alarmism. The western world has taken its eye off the ball pandering to climate alarmism and the trumpeting of the Obama Xi pact by Australian greenies merely confirms their delusion. For mine, the potus has been taken for a ride bigtime, not only in the last few days but even before he became president.

    On a local level, my work has revealed two most intriguing ‘endangered species’

    The common Queensland blossom bat (Syconycteris australis) is listed as endangered in NSW. Millions of Banksia integrifolia have been planted as development conditions to provide food for these bats which are in no way endangered north of the border. The bats are tiny and prefer the warmer north to the cooler conditions of NSW.

    Similarly the Pink Nodding Orchid (Geodorum densiflorum) is listed as threatened in NSW but is more common the further north one travels. In fact G. densiflorum is endemic across northern Australian and SE Asia where warmer conditions suit it better.

    These two examples put in perspective the almost insane environmentalist cause which is deceptive in the extreme and panders to the naive and easily manipulated minds of the inner city latte set. It’s all bunkum!

    211

    • #
      Annie

      I take it the carcass is putrifying rather than purifying?! I expect that predictive text is to blame?

      60

      • #
        Peter

        I expect that predictive text is to blame?

        More likely a typo, my typing is not improving!

        20

      • #
        Yonniestone

        I do believe that a carcass is used in purification rituals in certain primitive religions around Russia.

        It’s speculated that Catherine the Great secretly practiced such religions and her exploits coined the term ‘flogging a dead horse’.

        50

    • #

      there is a lot to be cautious about regarding the status of the orchid’s taxonomy.

      30

      • #
        Dave

        GeeAye

        I agree, this species is listed as preferring dry sclerophyll forest in NSW

        Yet at Noosa, it’s in the swamps & lowlands (And called Nodding Swamp Orchid)
        Even if they are different sub species, what is the cause for the NSW ones becoming endangered?

        Can’t be heat, as BOM, CSIRO are saying the temp range is moving south. In fact it would prove COLD is the problem!

        I have seen both in NSW & QLD Nodding Pink Or Swamp, and always are in wet areas, low lying.

        I think the danger may be more due to ground water retention, rather than TEMP.

        10

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    They will also be introducing the “One Fart” policy.

    80

  • #
    Binny

    Both of them will have retired, and their promises become meaningless long before then. Obama’s term ends in a little over 2 years, and nothing will happen in his final year. China in 2030!!? pick a card…any card.

    70

  • #

    Please, Jo, some respect :-D The politically correct form of the question is:

    “Did President Xliv do his homework? Seems President Xi did.”

    50

  • #
    Binny

    Actually by 2030 the IPO will be at it’s low ebb, and the panic will be back to a ice age- As per the 1970s.
    In fact we’re just about due to past back through the long term trend line, and the ‘pause’ will become cooling with in the next year or two.
    Obama will be able to leave office having reversed global warming :)

    130

    • #
      FIN

      That’s a courageous statement Binny given the odds of 2014 being the hottest on record are shortening.

      38

      • #
        The Backslider

        How can you possibly believe such “records” when the satellite data clearly shows that temperatures peaked in 1998?

        It’s been a downhill slide since then.

        80

        • #
          the Griss

          Don’t forget.. If Gavin wants it to be a record year…

          … then by crikey, he will darn sure do everything he can make it one !!

          20

  • #
    TdeF

    There is a better idea. A real politician would think of this.

    Australia could also sign a deal to limit our CO2 emissions to levels in 2030 and get the same praise from leading politicians and Green activists. What a winner! If the US is busy, we could sign a Mutual Non Pollution Pact with New Zealand and perhaps Chile and Argentina, covering our 30% of the planet below the tropics. Anyone installing a new barbeque after that time will have to buy carbon credits or trade in the old barbeque.

    100

    • #
      TdeF

      We could go one better than China. We could offer to do absolutely nothing until 2050!

      40

      • #
        the Griss

        No, China has promised to EXPAND its CO2 emissions until 2030.

        So should we.

        China could actually help us by providing some new UC coal fired systems and some funds to help build dams in northern Australia for hydro and agricultural expansion.

        20

        • #
          TdeF

          Doing nothing is a fair description. If it expands, it expands. Doing nothing about anything is now a solemn promise drawing great praise from warmists. At least they are consistently nonsensical.

          20

  • #
    Binny

    Actually by 2030 the IPO will be at it’s low ebb, and the panic will be back to an ice age- As per the 1970s.
    In fact we’re just about due to past back through the long term trend line, and the ‘pause’ will become cooling with in the next year or two.
    Obama will be able to leave office having reversed global warming :)

    20

  • #
    handjive

    Global energy consumption will rise by 37 per cent by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency, which has released its annual World Energy Outlook Report 2014.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-14/international-energy-agency-global-outlook-2014/5889474

    30

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    That pesky democracy thing is dooming the planet again!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/13/greens-sneering-at-democracy-again/

    Python had it right all along.

    http://youtu.be/EgMqHL7kCtc

    60

  • #
    pat

    another pertinent graphic:

    12 Nov: NYT Graphics: Charting carbon emissions targets pledged by President Obama & President Xi Jinping of China:
    https://twitter.com/nytgraphics/status/532626387468050433/photo/1

    30

  • #
    pat

    CAGW policy collateral damage. solution? spend more on insulation:

    multiple links:

    12 Nov: ITV: 3.5 million elderly people ‘at risk from winter cold’
    Around 3.5 million elderly people are worried they will not be able to keep warm this coming winter, a charity has warned.
    Age UK pointed to the 25,000 elderly people who die every year from the cold, which they amounts to 206 deaths a day or one death every seven minutes.
    Known as “excess winter deaths” many of these could have been prevented if pensioners were in properly insulated homes, according to Age UK…
    Pensioner: ‘I never know which tariff I am on’
    A pensioner said he worries about the cost of heating his home because he “never knows which tariff” he will be on, Good Morning Britain has heard.
    Owen Ellis, who lives in East London and suffers from respiratory problems, can only afford to heat his home for an hour every day and said his bills were “going up all the time”…
    Govt: We made ‘clear commitment’ to keep OAPs warm
    The government has made “a very clear commitment” to keep over-65s warm every winter and 12.5 million would be eligible for between £100-£300 to help pay their fuel bills if there born before July 5 1952.
    A Government spokesman said:
    “Around 12.5m older people are due to receive £2.15bn in help from Winter Fuel Payments this year – part of our very clear commitment to keep British pensioners warm this winter.
    What’s more a total of £700 million has been paid out to vulnerable people in Cold Weather Payments since 2010 in 28 million separate payments – and this year the Warm Home Discount is providing £310m of extra help to those at risk of fuel poverty.
    But we know the way to help people – permanently – is to make their homes warmer and cheaper to heat. We are improving the UK’s housing to help over 1.3m homes, on top of an investment of over half a billion pounds in energy efficiency.”…
    Charity: 70% of over-65s ‘worried about cost of energy’
    Almost three-quarters of over-65s living in the UK are worried about the rising cost of energy, according to an age concern charity…
    Some 41% of older people believe the government should do more to ensure UK homes are made more energy efficient.
    Another 36% want energy companies to intervene and insulate old homes.
    http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-11-12/3-5-million-elderly-people-at-risk-from-winter-cold/

    someone asks in the comments why the fuel bills haven’t gone down with the crash in the price of oil.

    31

    • #
      Annie

      Sorry Pat…meant thumb up…don’t know what my computer was up to! That is a shocking situation in the UK.

      BTW…retirees who go to live in Spain etc. get their winter fuel payment. We, who have also paid up fully into NI but have moved to Australia, do not. I haven’t felt so cold in years as in this Victorian winter with having to live in a poorly insulated house. We could have done with that allowance to buy a couple of loads of wood for the rottenly inefficient stove in this place. Roll on the building of our properly insulated house; one day….

      We also do not get index-linked state pensions from the UK. It stinks, especially when I read about all the wasted money going to the EU, etc. etc.

      10

  • #
    pat

    apologies. the question asked in comments re oil price/fuel costs was on another website reporting on the AGE UK story.

    00

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    Obama strikes me as someone a bit like the suburban lawyer who first takes on the case in that movie The Castle. When pressed by the judge as to what the legal basis for the challenge to the airport development was he argues that it was sort of a vibe. He drifts between that and something like Chauncey Gardiner in Being There.

    God, the Chinese must just be in hysterics. To paraphrase Kerry Packer over the sale of Channel 9 to ALan Bond, surely ‘you only get one Barack Obama’ come along in your lifetime.

    80

  • #
    pat

    advisers should warn Obama against pushing his “climate deal” to reduce temperatures when addressing the faithful at Uni of Qld! doubt if it will go down well at home:

    13 Nov: CBS: All 50 States Will See Freezing Temperatures
    The Arctic chill is gripping the Rockies and Upper Midwest — and it’s crawling east…
    CBS News reports that all 50 states will see freezing temperatures…
    Dangerously cold weather was expected to linger until Thursday in eastern Montana, where temperatures could reach as low as negative 30 degrees. Denver’s high was only was 5 degrees on Wednesday, a day after the snow-covered city broke a nearly century-old record for the lowest temperature ever recorded on a Nov. 11…
    Temperatures fell more than 30 degrees overnight in northern Illinois, from a high of 58 on Tuesday to 26 degrees on Wednesday. Similar swings hit Oklahoma City, where temperatures went from 80 degrees Monday to a low of 30 on Tuesday.
    In the Dakotas, wind chills made it feel like 20 below in some places…
    SNOW, SNOW AND MORE SNOW
    Parts of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula were buried in more than 3 feet of snow on Wednesday, with more snowforecast through the weekend, along with temperatures that dipped in the 20s and 30s. Up to 18 inches fell in northern Wisconsin, while parts of central Minnesota saw more than 16 inches of snow…
    DON’T BLAME THE POLAR VORTEX
    Meteorologists are adamant the weather isn’t because of the polar vortex, a giant upper air pattern that normally pens in cold air in the Arctic in the winter. Instead, they say it’s being pushed in by a different weather phenomenon more related to the remnants of a powerful typhoon.
    “The polar vortex itself has not moved south. It’s still in the Arctic where it always is,” said National Weather Service spokeswoman Susan Buchanan.
    Whatever the case, the cold is expected to linger…
    http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/11/13/all-50-states-will-see-freezing-temperatures/

    60

  • #
    gbees

    these must be computer projections. a human could not have verified the projections unless China is planning future genocide.

    20

  • #
    pat

    The Backslider -

    CAGW-infest BBC halves the figure to around 200!

    13 Nov: BBC: G20 protesters bury heads in the sand on Bondi Beach
    More than 200 protesters buried their heads in the sands of Bondi Beach on Thursday in a demonstration over climate change inaction…
    Eden Tehan, one of the protest’s organisers told reporters that Mr Abbott’s “refusal to include climate change on the G20 agenda” showed that he had his head buried in the sand on “the most important issue of our time”.
    “We want to tell world leaders coming for the G20 that Tony Abbott does not represent the view of most Australians who want to see urgent and global action on climate change,” Mr Tehan added…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-30047811

    Tehan doesn’t speak for me or many other australians i know.

    .pdf: Infigen Energy Community Newsletter
    The renewable energy precinct is growing
    The Project
    In July 2012 Infigen was granted a planning approval from the Palerang Council for the development of a solar photovoltaic (PV) and energy storage facility of up to 1 megawatt capacity.
    The People
    You might have seen the Project Manager Eden Tehan roaming around town, joining the local library or pulling a rabbit out of the freezer at the Bungendore Food Lover’s Market. Eden studied PV engineering at the UNSW before joining Infigen in 2012…
    http://www.infigenenergy.com/Media/docs/Capital-Renewable-Energy-Precinct—April-2013-ea2268bb-2dda-4c09-bfd9-f32c62a9df5a-0.pdf

    BBC should google on people before quoting them!

    40

  • #
    Joe

    Jo, “peaking in 2030″, was that a bad pun?

    50

  • #

    Where on that graph do population growth and industrial emissions correlate?

    04

  • #
    pat

    MORE INFIGEN:

    12 Nov: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: The wind and solar projects that would disappear along with RET
    But “big wind” and “big solar” have hit a wall, because they rely on financing from banks and off-take agreements with utilities. Without clarity over the future of the target, and with the incumbent coal generators exerting huge pressure on the Abbott government to bring the program to a halt, or to scale it back by more than half, financing and off-takes have been impossible to secure.
    That has been successful. Apart from a handful of projects with direct funding from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, a pipeline of more than $20 billion of projects has remained moribund.
    This extends from projects such as the $1.5 billion Ceres wind project in South Australia, a 400MW solar project in Kilcoy, a network of solar farms spread across key regional centres in western NSW, and countless smaller, community-scale projects that are being considered across the country.
    RenewEconomy, with the help of the Clean Energy Council and its own contacts in the industry, has put together the following list of projects at risk from the government’s campaign against renewables…
    ***Australian companies such as Infigen Energy and Pacific Hydro have already put Australian paroject on hold…
    WIND APPROVED – NSW
    Infigen Energy: Capital 2 Wind Farm – 102.5MW
    Infigen Energy: Bodangora – 99MW
    QLD
    Infigen Energy: Forsayth – 70MW
    SA
    Infigen Energy: Woakwine Stage 1 – 372MW
    VIC
    Infigen Energy: Cherry Tree – 48MW
    WA
    Infigen Energy, RPV: Walkaway 3 – 298.2MW
    Infigen Energy, RPV: Walkaway 2 – 92.4MW
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/the-wind-and-solar-projects-that-would-disappear-along-with-ret-24255

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      But Pat, wind electricity is cheap and drives down electricity prices – we have that from our beloved Premier Jay Wetherall. He apparently can’t see any connection with SA having more turbines than any other State and the highest electricity prices.

      So, if it is that cheap the projects don’t need the RET subsidy of $65 a MWh (compared with coal fired selling at $30).
      I, for one, would be quite happy to forgo the installation of any more wind turbines.

      50

    • #
      the Griss

      Shouldn’t that be “IFFY-GEN” :-)

      00

  • #
    Neville

    I have to agree with Bjorn Lomborg that the USA, China deal to cut emissions is a con. China was always going to reach peak emissions of co2 by 2030 anyway.
    But let’s look at some facts. All countries could stop all co2 emissions today and it wouldn’t change the temperature or reduce co2 levels for thousands of years. See point 20 of the latest RS and NAS report. They are the world’s two major scientific organizations.
    Since 2007 Australian emissions of co2 have dropped, yet the Rudd and Gillard governments encouraged record exports of coal, gas and iron ore. This just proves they are clueless hypocrites and didn’t care less about increased co2 emissions at all.
    India has just announced that they intend to double coal use within five years. Just proves that the USA China deal is absurd.
    Of course Australia’s EEZ absorbs at least 10 times the co2 that we emit every year. So we are clearly covered by a factor of ten. Isn’t that enough?
    The mitigation of so called man-made climate change is the greatest con and fraud of the last hundred years. Yet some people continue to believe this unscientific nonsense and demand that we waste billions $ every year for a guaranteed zero return.
    Here’s that Lomborg link from the Bolter.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/obama_gives_china_a_great_climate_deal_a_weaker_us_at_no_cost_to_beijing/

    50

  • #
    pat

    compare to the reverence in which our MSM reports on “United States President Barack Obama”!

    14 Nov: Fairfax: Mark Kenny: Emissions deal: Abbott looks like a shag on a rock
    But he wasn’t expecting it would be the leaders of the United States and China who would leave him like a shag on a rock on climate change.
    This is Abbott’s most glaring ideological blind spot.
    Just a day after he held one-on-one talks with US President Barack Obama, emerging with the President to field questions while looking increasingly at ease in the role, the American showed leadership on a grander scale again.
    The US and China have agreed to new co-ordinated action described even in the conservative press as “a historic pact to reduce carbon pollution levels on the eve of the G20″…
    The government dismisses the risk of Australia being seen as a laggard, but the US-China climate pact has made its position look absurd…
    http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/emissions-deal-abbott-looks-like-a-shag-on-a-rock-20141113-11ljxb.html

    14 Nov: SBS with AAP: ‘More than a talkfest’: What’s on the agenda at the G20?
    Finance Minister Joe Hockey this week echoed those claims and said that the G20 focus would be on growth and jobs.
    The comments came after China and the US announced a climate deal aimed at slashing their greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
    When asked about the US-China deal, Mr Hockey said he was sure it would be up for discussion at the summit.
    “But they are part of the agenda. They are not the whole agenda,” he said.
    “The whole agenda is focused on growth and jobs.”…
    Climate change
    There has been much talk around the issue of climate change at the G20 and Tony Abbott’s decision to take it off the G20 agenda.
    This debate gained steam this week after US President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping reached a landmark agreement on clean energy…
    Following the announcement, former Prime Minister Paul Keating told ABC’s Lateline program that climate change “had to be” on the agenda and criticised the government’s Direct Action plan as a “complete nonsense policy”…
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/14/more-talkfest-whats-agenda-g20

    20

  • #
    pat

    13 Nov: AFR: India’s goals a challenge for G20
    Australia has withdrawn the carbon tax and the new Indian government has cleared some major infrastructure projects including coal mining in recent months that had been earlier blocked for environment reasons. Many would see this at odds with desirable climate action. Emerging countries, such as India, that view tackling climate change issues based on “common but differentiated responsibility and respective capability” are unwilling to endorse the low-carbon agenda since they see it as conflicting with the immediate goal of pushing growth. Unlike China, where there is a deliberate policy to slow growth from the frenetic pace of 10 percent in recent decades, India is concerned with recovery from its lowest growth rate since economic reforms started in 1991. Growth is considered necessary to, inter alia, combat high levels of poverty, to create jobs and to provide access to the 300 million Indians who are still deprived of electricity…
    http://www.afr.com/p/india_goals_challenge_for_UmqXuCIZ4r5jJUmXQfT87K

    12 Nov: Hindustan Times: Chetan Chauhan: US-China climate deal a surprise
    for India
    The deal will also be a talking point at the G-20 summit in Australia starting from November 15…but the developing world, including India, was
    not enthused with the secret agreement, saying it was not enough to have a treaty in Paris to limit the increase in global temperature by 2 degrees by
    the turn of the century.
    “The original base level for reducing emissions for rich nations was 1990 and not 2005 as announced by the US. If one makes calculations, the actual
    emission reduction by the US will be negligible to the 1990 level,” a senior Indian climate negotiator said, who was unwilling to be quoted as India has not officially reacted on the deal…
    http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-caught-unaware-on-us-china-climate-deal/article1-1285442.aspx

    20

  • #
    TdeF

    Our leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten, the man whose equivocation and subservience to Gillard went viral and according to British newspapers “gave brown nosing new meaning” is demanding that Australia do its share of the ‘heavy lifting’ with China.

    The fact that China has agreed in writing to do absolutely nothing escapes him. So childish. Apparently we will not only be shamed, then laughed at, we now will be called ‘lazy’ or ‘lazybones’. How much of this abuse from other countries can we take? Shorten is the embarrassment. To steal from “the Castle”, if there was an opposite of a Statesman, he would be it.

    61

  • #
    peter

    Listening to the ABC they were desparatly trying to get someone to say that Australia is getting behind the rest of the world on climate change. It was funny because every person they interviewed kept saying that Australia actually has a commitment unlike China and America.

    50

    • #
      Mike of NQ

      I think it is more noteworthy that China and the US has moved away from a Carbon Tax and / or ETS. I also think China is still upset that Obama introduced tariffs on solar panels being imported from China, hence China’s willingness to do ….um… nothing.

      10

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Tony from OZ this one is for you …

    I work for the privately owned company that transmits radio and TV signals over the whole country, mostly for the ABC and SBS, but we have a number of commercial customers as well (mostly regionals).

    Our CEO has just given us a business update (all good news) and he did mention that we have piloted taking one of our transmission sites off the grid to be fully powered by solar energy and battery storage. The site is Muswellbrook that only transmits one ABC Local Radio service. That’s it. Looking at the data for that site, the rated power consumption is 2.9571 kW. Yes that is a whole 2,957.1 Watts. Wow.

    At the “launch” of this site were people from the German consulant because apparently the German government is partially funding this. Maybe they are using some of the savings they are making by replacing the failed renewable power generation with brown coal power plants. Maybe. Moving on …

    So say 3,000 Watts at 24/7/365 is by my calculations about 26,298 kWH per year. Apparently that costs us about $20,000 per year or 0.76 per kWH. So, the number crunching is that it will be cheaper to go solar with a battery storage system.

    What are the odds that actual the solar panel and battery life span will not match what the manufacturers have promised …

    50

  • #
    pat

    bow to the US, PM, says Fairfax! unbelievable:

    14 Nov: Age: Tony Abbott says jobs and growth, not climate, top of the G20 agenda
    James Massola, Nick O’Malley, Philip Wen with Amy Remeikis
    In an extraordinary statement, Mr Abbott, who last month said “coal is good for humanity” and would remain an “essential part of our economic future” in Australia and right around the world, argued “for Australia, I’m focusing not on what might happen in 16 years’ time, I’m focusing on what we’re doing now and we’re not talking, we’re acting” despite the long-ranging superpowers’ climate deal.
    In Washington, US State Department senior spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that at the G20 meeting “there will be a focus on economic issues and how we are co-ordinating with the global economy. Climate in our view is part of that”…
    In Beijing, analysts told Fairfax Media China was unlikely to push as hard as the US appeared to be doing to put climate talks on the G20 agenda…
    Mr Abbott said the US and China were the “two most significant countries and they’re obviously the two biggest emitters” but said that at the APEC Beijing conference “climate change was hardly mentioned”…
    ***Wang Tao, a Beijing-based climate change expert at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Centre for Global Policy, said the joint announcement was a “clear signal” that would have leverage and implications on potential negotiations around climate change at the G20.
    “It’s regrettable that Australia’s scrapped the carbon tax and it’s actually moving on the other direction from everyone else in the climate change negotiations,” Dr Wang said…
    http://www.theage.com.au/business/g20/tony-abbott-says-jobs-and-growth-not-climate-top-of-the-g20-agenda-20141113-11lzud.html

    ***CarnegieEndowment: Wang Tao
    Prior to joining Carnegie, Wang was program manager at World Wildlife Fund China, working in the Climate and Energy Program on scenario analysis, energy policy, and climate change adaptation. From 2006 to 2009, he was a core researcher at the UK’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Science and Technology Policy Research Department at the University of Sussex…
    Tao contributed to the State of the World 2009 report by the Worldwatch Institute and the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Report 2007–2008. He is a contributing author to Energy for the Future and Introduction to Low Carbon Economy.
    http://carnegieendowment.org/experts/?fa=681

    btw, according to speakermedia.com, Wang Tao’s speaking fee is $25,000, but i guess he spoke to Fairfax for nothing.

    50

  • #
    pat

    gotta go out, but LOL LOL LOL. Nye speaks for “everyone”:

    14 Nov: 9News: AAP: Bill Nye chimes in on G20 climate talks
    A leading US science and television personality has criticised the Australian government for not speaking up on climate change at the G20 Summit.
    Bill Nye, known as the science guy, also believes Australia must re-introduce a tax on carbon to curb emissions…
    ***”Everyone hopes that the other 19 of the G20 will lead the way.”…
    But Nye believes taxing all users of carbon – including consumers – is the only way to go.
    “The interesting thing is that the rich people use more carbon so they would pay a higher fee,” Nye said…
    http://www.9news.com.au/national/2014/11/13/15/13/bill-nye-chimes-in-on-g20-climate-talks

    20

  • #
    pat

    a final laugh. 350.org – EDEN TEHAN ups bbc’s 200 estimate of the protesters to 650+ and looks for a guinness world record! who really has their heads in the sands????

    350.org: Heads in the sand at Bondi – our message to Tony Abbott on his climate change policies!
    BY EDEN TEHAN, organiser
    And although we’re still waiting for the official ruling from Guinness, there’s a good chance we may have had more than 650 of us to establish a new world record: most number of people burying their heads in the sand simultaneously!…
    Why did I organise this event? As a solar PV entrepreneur frustrated by our government’s shortsightedness with regards to all things renewable energy, I am embarrassed and disheartened that Australia is taking no action to address the most significant global issue of our time…
    As images of the event make their way around world tonight, the message to Tony Abbott and his Government will be as clear as the opinion of 97% of world’s climate scientists — this is what we think of your inaction on climate change!
    With the announcement yesterday that the US and China are committed to working together to reduce emissions and with our event at – and in! — Bondi Beach, it’s clear that intelligent climate action is an absolute must if we are to restore our planet sooner rather than never…
    http://350.org.au/blog/heads-in-the-sand-at-bondi-our-message-to-tony-abbott-on-his-climate-change-policies/

    30

    • #
      Annie

      I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the incredible tunnel-vision stupidity of all this.

      20

    • #
      the Griss

      “As a solar PV entrepreneur”

      Oh.. maybe he wants more taxpayer funding to keep his non-business afloat ! :-)

      And at Bondi, they really should put those bike racks in a more organised row.

      40

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Ah more low hanging fruit at Bondi, from a professional opinion those holes aren’t nearly deep enough, trust me :)

      20

  • #
    Richard

    On the issue of more ice surrounding Antarctica than in recorded history, this would actually suggest that ocean temperatures are actually cooling and not rising because it is the ocean freezing here. The climate change mob have some real strange ideas about what is going on. They blame carbon dioxide for global warming but obviously blame it also for global cooling … this makes no sense at all! Can I make a car speed up and slow down if I press on the accelerator? One last issue is that they always refer to “oh, that’s just a weather event.” So is a the world record of 160 consecutive days of 100 degrees fahrenheit or more set by Marble bar in Western Australia between 1923 and 1924 just a weather event? If so, it’s a pretty long one.

    90

  • #
    PeterS

    Tony Abbott should make up his mind. Is he for or against the interests of the country? He could snuff the opposition at the next election by campaigning against any hint of doing anything to impose a tax or fee on carbon emissions, either directly or indirectly. Then the voters have a simple choice, instead of the muddle we have now. Either we vote for higher power costs and the death to our economy while producing no impact on climate change, or we scrap the whole notion of trying to stop climate change and get on with the business of keeping this country from entering into a deep recession/depression.

    70

  • #
    el gordo

    Eric Worrall guest post at Watts on ‘deep green’ types, sometimes known as watermelons or pseudo leftist scum.

    ‘The utter contempt greens hold for democracy, or for anything which empowers ordinary people to obstruct their ruthless pursuit of their goals, is in my opinion a trait they share with other villains from the pages of history.

    ‘A belief in imminent catastrophe is a moral slippery slope – if someone truly believes the world is on the brink of destruction, what wouldn’t that person do to stop their nightmare from being realised? What crime could possibly be more awful than a horrific vision of the whole world dying?

    ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In the case of deep greens, that road to hell is paved with their utter, unshakeable belief that they know better than other people what is good for them, and with a totalitarian willingness to override the concerns and rights of others, in a singleminded effort to realise their warped vision of global salvation.’

    42

  • #

    I would like to point out something here with respect to population and then to electrical power generation.

    In the already Developed World, the ratio of power generated to population is relatively the same, depending upon the amount of Industrialisation in that Country. Here you need to realise that Industry is far away the largest consumer of electricity. Commerce on average consumes 7.3 times what the average Residence, and that’s just the average, because it varies considerably from a small clothing retail store to a typical Coles or Woolies. However, the average Industry consumption is 135 times higher than the average residence, and that also varies wildly from a small engineering company to a large auto manufacturer or Steel maker etc. Some Countries have more Industry than others like the US has more per capita larger industries than here in Australia.

    As far as for the average home, in the residential sector power consumption is remarkably similar across all Industrialised Countries, between 20 and 25KWH per day, some higher some lower, but not by much.

    So, for an example, let’s take the ratio between the population of Australia and the population of the U.S. Theirs is higher by a factor of 16.

    With respect to power consumption, the U.S. is larger by a factor of 17.6, but they have far more Industry than we have here on a per capita basis.

    So, now we see this Climate Change deal between the U.S. and China, so then, let’s do a similar comparison between the U.S. and China.

    The population of China is larger than the U.S. by a factor of 4.25

    The power generation of China is larger than the U.S. by a factor of ….. 1.4.

    Now can you see the discrepancy there.

    There is NOTHING that will stop China going further towards parity with the U.S. and by extrapolation, the already Industrialised World.

    Let’s pretend for just one fleeting second that China does not want to reach the same level of Industrialisation of the U.S. and only get say a half to two thirds of the way there. If that is the case, then China right now is only HALF WAY through their electrical power generation explosion of construction.

    I might suggest here that perhaps China think they can reach that half parity by 2030.

    That still accounts for around 20 to 25 new large scale coal fired power plants ….. PER YEAR, until 2030, hence this deal.

    For every 5 of those coal fired plants, there will be one equivalent Hydro scheme opening, and their Nuclear power plants will also be ramping up.

    So now we have the case that China will have virtually all new power plants, while in the U.S. all those coal fired power plants with technology from the 60′s and 70′s will have long since time expired.

    Now, as a by product of power plant construction of every type, electrical power is finally being made available to the actual people of China.

    In the U.S. 38% of every KWH being generated goes to that Residential Sector.

    In Australia, 28% of every KWH goes to the Residential sector, but here in Oz, we consume a lot of natural gas in homes for heating and cooking, while in the U.S. that is covered by electricity. Their heating component in the homes is also a reason why their household power consumption is (only marginally) higher than here in Australia.

    However, In China. barely 14/15% of all power goes to the Residential sector, and what does go there, they have considerably less consumption than we do, not because they are more frugal than we are, but just that that’s all there is to have.

    As recently as 2008, barely 4% of power went to the Residential sector.

    That’s the advantage of so many new power plants going in. What comes with that is access for the population in their homes.

    All of this is why that phoney, fake, moronically stupid per capita electricity consumption is the biggest crock of bovine waste that has ever been perpetrated upon humanity.

    Now, if you think this situation with China is enough to make the hairs on the back of your head stand up, think then of India, which is only now at a level China was six years ago, and they are also ramping up.

    Those cretinous morons who call for Australia to reduce their CO2 emissions by any amount show themselves for the fools that they are.

    Any yearly reduction by Australia will be totally and utterly cancelled out by China and India in virtually hours.

    Years compared to hours.

    That’s why when I see idiots like Ross Garnaut in his thousand dollar suit on Lateline last night, it makes me absolutely furious. He has his head so deeply in his own fundament, and the ALP and Greens swallowed this stuff hook line and sinker.

    When President Obama stood there with President Xi Jinping, only one guy had a clue about what was happening.

    I cannot fish to save my life but if every fish was called Obama, I would have had to throw half of them back.

    Sometimes I get so angry.

    Tony.

    170

  • #
    Frank

    Should Jo get some proper credentials ? . As a biologist she knows what the scientific method entails and yet ignores what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying, instead taking comfort in confirmation bias. Because she knows reputable scientific bodies ( Jo who ? ) would reject her cherry picking, she has created this Blog to preach to a lay audience , telling armchair scientists what they want to hear. She should stick to biology.

    026

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … And you should stick to … what exactly? You don’t appear to do anything apart from supercilliously preaching to the choir.

      Many of the people who come here are working Scientists and Engineers who are highly concerned that it is the climate scientists who totally ignore the scientific method, that the rest of us, more or less, use daily.

      Climate science gives the rest of science a bad name, because it has become obvious to all, that climate scientists are willing to move the goal-posts, or “adjust” the data in order to confirm their origional hypothesis. It is they who have the confirmation bias. It is not us. How could it be? We are not even permitted to see the underlying data (as is normal within most other scientific disciplines).

      Could it be, that the data is highly variable, depending on the audience and the purpose? Nah, that would make it propaganda, wouldn’t it?

      But seriously, your comment is nothing but pure projection. Shame on you.

      200

      • #
        the Griss

        “Many of the people who come here are working Scientists and Engineers “

        If only I could let you guys know what I am working on at the moment….

        ….. you would all have a marvellous chuckle ;-)

        80

    • #

      As a biologist she knows what the scientific method entails and yet ignores what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying, instead taking comfort in confirmation bias.

      If you knew what the scientific method was, you wouldn’t make that statement.

      130

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Frank why not create your own blog so you can piss and moan how gullible Jonova’s lay audience is, and I bet if an actual scientist from here tried to comment on your blog you’d crap yourself and ban them so you didn’t look completely stupid in front of your lay audience.

      I’m not sure what type of troll you are but I see a definite projection of anger towards a woman in control of her life and working environment, if it’s part of your troll playbook then try harder it’s too transparent but if your actually serious with these ideas get professional help or at least get one of your flat earther friends to try out their Phrenology qualification.

      80

    • #
      the Griss

      “vast majority of climate scientists are saying”

      BULL S**T !!

      You and the newspapers have NO IDEA what the majority of scientists say.

      Your ignorance in continuing to push that particular piece of CRAP really does mark you as a non-thinking gullible twerp. !

      70

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      What I appreciate about LolMyThesis.com is that it occasionally gives some insight into the pressure on upcoming scientists to exaggerate the significance of their results.
      It’s not confined to climate science either, as Chemistry can be affected.

      We don’t ignore the method of Science, Frank, we reject some of the oversold products of some of its very human practitioners.

      40

    • #
      Carbon500

      Frank: I see no evidence presented in a coherent argument to indicate that you’ve read round the subject at all, or have any interesting slants to present.
      You’ve tied yourself to the coat-tails of those who talk about ‘the vast majority of scientists’.
      Have you even looked at the original ’97%’ paper?
      If you do, hopefully you’ll look at it critically and realise what nonsense it is.

      20

      • #
        Frank

        Having read round the subject I can see the minority skeptic arguements are mostly made from non-scientists or scientists from neighbouring fields,let alone climate scientists ( eg Jo, Bolt , Jones , Monckton , some geologists ), should’nt this set off some alarm bells ? . If a lay person were to criticise ebola medical research data on specific points you would doubt them . I think evolution is the only other area to attract as much doubt as climate science.
        Outing themselves as amateurs,the skeptics triumphantly present with 100% certainty some cherry picked facts in complete defiance of the scientific method.
        Why do they discount all the reputable scientific bodies and publications ? , it might be possible that the vast majority of scientists are correct.

        05

        • #
          the Griss

          Still brain-washed on that 97% farce , I see. !!

          77 out of 79 is NOT a “vast majority of scientists”

          Your stupidity in still believing this monumental piece of propaganda really does speak to your lack of intelligence, you gullible fool.

          There are many, many real scientists that KNOW that the CAGNW meme is a load of mumbo !

          Let me guess, you are a failed first year ARTS student.. !

          60

        • #
          the Griss

          And while the occasional alarmist troll here is definitely lay person, with near zero scientific knowledge or understanding, there was a thread back a while (someone may have it bookmarked, I haven’t) where regulars on the forum gave their academic credential.

          In many cases, those credentials would leave the average so-called “climate scientist” looking a bit like a janitor or a failed Arts student.

          signed, the Griss. BSc.(Hons-1) UNSW

          40

          • #
            Frank

            Dear Griss
            You have a BSc ( Hons-1 ) !!
            Your words –77 out of 79 is NOT a “vast majority of scientists” , could you check my math please ? — 77/79 = 97 % is NOT a vast majority ?
            You haven’t addressed the point I made , just made ad hominem attacks .
            Please outline the global conspiracy that is suppressing the ‘true’ science, like religion,extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

            03

            • #
              the Griss

              You have made no real points to address..

              All you have put forward is ad hom attacks.

              You have just proven that you don’t know the joke behind the 97% lie.

              Why should I bother educating someone who hasn’t even checked up on that piece of junk.!

              Seriously ?????

              STOP WASTING OUR TIME, FOOL !

              20

            • #
              James Murphy

              So, Frank, you must think there are only 79 ‘real’ climate scientists in the world then? Unless you are one of them, then, by your own logic, who are you to have a point of view on the subject? What do you think qualifies someone as being a legitimate ‘climate scientist’?

              By the way, if you had even the slightest ability to comprehend anything remotely scientific, you might possibly, just possibly be able to understand that ‘the climate’ actually encompasses a diversity of fields – such as physics, chemistry, geology, mathematics, oceanography, meteorology, astronomy (note that this is not the same as astrology)…and the list goes on… Are you able to comprehend that the world is not as simple as you, and your scientifically illiterate cohort claim it to be?

              I should add that I think your enthusiastic expression of profound scientific ignorance, coupled with your rigid world-view should always be welcome here, both for the amusement factor, and the fact that you do more to damage the AGW cause than you do to aid it. Keep it up, as the saying goes, with friends like you, who needs enemies?

              30

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Giss it was Honey I shrunk the consensus where people gave their names and academic qualifications in support of Lord Monkton’s letter of protest of the Cook et al 97% paper.

            Frank seriously contradicts himself by stating that Jonova’s blog and people involved are insignificant ignoramuses but then takes the time and effort to respond and interact with such perceived stupidity, why would such a higher thinker even bother if we fools are being ignored and have zero impact on debating ‘the science’?

            Answer is Frank is a control freak that simply cannot stand other people forming an opinion other than his, I bet he still fumes over that grade 4 teacher that made him sit in a corner for ‘showing’ how wrong the other kid was, nothings changed for Frank and now his challenging personality is still getting him time outs in the corner.

            30

        • #
          Carbon500

          Frank: Here’s how the time-worn statement that ’97% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming’ was derived.
          In January 2009, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a research paper entitled ‘Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’. This can be accessed via the internet.
          Comments in quotation marks are verbatim from the paper.
          Survey questionnaires were sent to ‘10,257 Earth scientists’.
          The paper explains that ‘This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey’.
          These were:
          1) ‘When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained generally constant?’
          2) ‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’
          The survey was ‘designed to take less than 2mins to complete’ and was administered online.
          Firstly, note that of the 10,257 to whom the questionnaire was sent, only 3,146 individuals bothered to complete and return the survey – i.e. just short of 31%.
          ‘Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists’ – as opposed to for example oceanographers and palaeontologists. That’s 157 individuals out of the 3,146.
          Of these 157, 79 scientists had published more than 50% of their recent research papers on the subject, and so were deemed by the authors to be ‘the most specialised and knowledgeable respondents’.
          In other words, of the total of 10,257 considered knowledgeable enough to have their opinion sought at the outset of the study, only 79 individuals were by now considered to the most knowledgeable.
          Of these 79, 76 (96.2%) answered ‘risen’ to question 1, and – wait for it – 75 out of 77 (97.4%) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.
          So there we are – job done – 97.4% of scientists agree that humans are warming the planet significantly – or do they?
          Let’s see now: 75 out of the 10,257 polled. I make that 0.73%.

          10

          • #
            Frank

            Hello Carbon 500,
            My whole point is that climate scientists are the most knowledgable scource on the subject of climate science, not geologists, engineers, oceanographers or Jo. So when you sift the people who know their stuff out and have recently published in a peer reviewed journal ,you end up with the 79. The rest ,as you showed , are in other areas of expertise, lumping the dross back into the equation to get 0.73% is a gross distortion.
            The tiny proportion of skeptics with any scientific clout have had their views discredited by their peers to the extent that they can only speak in the media or places such as the Heartland Institute.
            If 77 out of 79 aeronautical engineers tell you a plane is unsafe to travel in , would you get on that plane ?
            You have to address the fact that all the world’s reputable scientific bodies and publications are in aggreement on this , which hasn’t happened .
            This is obviously not about the science.
            Thanks for not being abusive.

            04

            • #
              Carbon500

              Frank : I’d like to go back to your initial comments, where you refer to ‘climate scientists’ and the unsuitability of Jo Nova as a biologist to be running a website offering views contrary to the one that holds human-generated CO2 as being responsible for a potentially catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).
              I disagree.
              Anyone with a science background of any kind will immediately ask where the data being shown has come from, and all manner of other questions. Importantly, biologists are very much aware of variability in the natural world.
              To underline the need for scientists of various disciplines to be involved, here follows just one example:
              Al Gore in his book ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ proclaims on p173 that ‘mosquitoes are profoundly affected by global warming. There are cities that were originally located just above the mosquito line, which used to mark the altitude above which mosquitoes would not venture. Nairobi, Kenya, and Harare, Zimbabwe are two such cities. ’ He also says ‘cold temperatures caused freezing at high elevations and limited mosquitoes and mosquito-borne diseases to low altitudes.’
              So here we have it from Mr. Gore. Mankind is causing global temperature rises, and this will cause the spread of mosquitoes.
              However, temperature is not a limiting factor, as pointed out by a specialist in mosquitoes and the diseases caused by them, Professor Paul Reiter of the Institut Pasteur, Paris. The most catastrophic epidemic of malaria occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1920s with a peak incidence of 13million cases a year and 600,000 deaths. Transmission was high in many parts of Siberia, with 10,000 deaths close to the Arctic circle.
              Here’s a passage from a report he gave to a Select Committee of the House of Lords in the English Parliament.
              This report is easily found on the internet.
              In summary, he says “The natural history of mosquito-borne diseases is complex, and the interplay of climate, ecology, mosquito biology and many other factors defies simplistic analysis. The recent resurge of many of these diseases is a major cause for concern, but it is facile to attribute this resurgence to climate change, or to use models based on temperature to ‘predict’ future prevalence. In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying on ‘experts’ who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based on sound science. In truth, the principal determinants of transmission of malaria and many other mosquito-borne diseases are politics, economics and human activities. A creative and organised application of resources is urgently required to control these diseases, regardless of future climate change.’

              30

              • #
                Frank

                Hello carbon500,

                Due to the complexity of the issue ,climate science is a multidisciplinary endeavour, research data from related areas is investigated for relevance and included accordingly.

                An entamologist can rightly complain if he thinks his discipline is poorly represented in the IPCC, however, Paul Reiter seems to be the only entamologist to have done done so, just one , plus he has been critised for cherry-picking facts. Further, as a contributor to the big picture specialists, the ‘ climate scientists’ he appologetically acknowledges ‘he is not a climate scientist nor an expert in sea levels nor polar ice ‘ and through talking to some scientists who have voiced doubts is unconvinced—this is hardly a scientific process . He ( and Jo ) cant seriously challenge data from areas he’s not qualified in, a lawyer wouldn’t disparage medical research findings.

                Jo cant argue on the same level as a climate scientist and presents only one view of the science . She has to show why all the world’s leading reputable scientific bodies ,etc ,etc are wrong as well as proper evidence for her stance and , to be a true scientist, openly consider and address evidence that would contravene her view, which is not going to happen because of her confirmation bias.

                Science thrives on skepticism, scientists love to prove someone else wrong hence the rigid peer review process ,what other mechanism for the advancement of knowledge would work better ?. Because of poor peer review responses the persistent skeptics have to get on Alan Jones’ show or write blogs

                Again , this is not about science

                05

              • #

                Jo cant argue on the same level as a climate scientist and presents only one view of the science . She has to show why all the world’s leading reputable scientific bodies ,etc ,etc are wrong as well as proper evidence for her stance and , to be a true scientist, openly consider and address evidence that would contravene her view, which is not going to happen because of her confirmation bias

                Address what evidence? You can’t name any, and neither can the associations or climate “scientists” you obediently follow.

                Keep reading here Frank, you’ll find I cite, quote, and link to my critics. I present their best arguments against me, and describe why they’re wrong. In reply they give up, refuse to debate, and republish their attacks but take my name and links to my blog out of their replies (respectively: Andrew Glickson, Andy Pitman, John Cook – who never replied to my ). Poor Sou “Hot Whopper” won’t even link to this site at all. Too scared they might send real traffic, or her commenters might try out her arguments over here.

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                “Again , this is not about science”

                No the climate change / global warming thing never was about science.

                Glad you finally realise that. !!

                And again, all you put forward is one incoherent ranting ad-hom propaganda diatribe, with basically zero content.

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                “Science thrives on scepticism”

                Which is exactly why so-called “climate science” is NOT science.

                Your every posts shows that you consider that scepticism is not part of climate science.

                In every post you rely purely on ‘consensus’ and ‘authority’.

                Climate science is not science.

                No facts, nothing but brainless belief.

                Climate non-science is akin to a dark ages religion.

                30

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Mann has no degree in climate. Nor does Jones, Trenberth, Gore, Schmidth, Hansen, et. al.

              Your point is noted, but you basically just excluded every “name” on the alarmist side. Indeed, Jo probably has better credentials than most of the published “names”.

              20

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Frank, you say:

              My whole point is that climate scientists are the most knowledgable scource on the subject of climate science, not geologists, engineers, oceanographers or Jo.

              And I would expect nothing else, considering Climate Science is their chosen speciality. It would be very embarrassing, if they were not the most knowledgeable source.

              But similarly, I would expect any geologist to have a good understand the chemistry involved, and any engineer to have a better understand the maths involved, and any oceanographer to understand the fluid mechanics involved intimately, each within their speciality. In fact, from my own personal experience, I would expect the sum to be greater than its parts, once it had all been explained.

              But it is that explanation that we are missing here. We cannot understand the reticence of Climate Scientists, it is so … unscientific? Phil Jones said that he would not share his methods or findings, in case somebody, “found fault with them”. A strange attitude from a senior member of a learned institution, wouldn’t you say?

              You claim they are the most knowledgeable, something I cannot refute. So why is it, do you suppose, that they are so reticent to show their data, methodology, and calculations to others?

              20

              • #
                The Backslider

                I disagree with the whole concept of “climate scientist”.

                Climate science is a field which requires the expertise of a wide range if scientific fields – palaeontology, astrophysics, mathematics, geology, physics etc. etc.

                It is not possible for a single person to specialise in all.

                I am a software engineer and learned very early on to specialise. Whenever I see a resume where a person claims to know a ridiculous number of programming languages I know immediately that they are mediocre with all.

                I cannot write a lick of code in Java, Ruby, Python, C#, C++, Perl etc. however I am still a very good programmer in my field. If I need something of any of the above I collaborate.

                It is the same with climate science, which requires (and to a very large degree lacks) collaboration between a wide variety of specialties.

                This is why most geologists and astrophysicists just laugh at “climate scientists”, the same way that I laugh at jack of all trades programmers.

                20

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          Frank, meet the other half.

          10

    • #
      Carbon500

      Frank: having read your recent correspondence, I would like to make some final points. You thanked me for not being abusive.
      However, in your initial posting you said “Should Jo get some proper credentials ? As a biologist she knows what the scientific method entails and yet ignores what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying, instead taking comfort in confirmation bias. Because she knows reputable scientific bodies (Jo who ?) would reject her cherry picking, she has created this blog to preach to a lay audience, telling armchair scientists what they want to hear. She should stick to biology.”
      Do you wonder why the ‘warmists’ get so much flak? Your comment is aggressive and rude. Jo, like so many, has spent years studying her subject, and deserves courtesy. I understand that she too once believed the CO2 story, but no longer does so. Perhaps you should find out why?
      Now let me give you a simple example as to why you should not always put your faith firmly in those perceived to be experts. Some years ago my dentist left. The new one dabbed lightly when checking my teeth and over a couple of years I became suspicious that he wasn’t being thorough enough. Then came the day a filling dropped out of a molar, leaving a huge crater. My check-up was imminent, and I decided to test my suspicions. Much to my amazement, this dentist pronounced that my teeth were in good order! I found a new dentist immediately. What if I hadn’t paid any attention to what was going on, and simply trusted this man? You say that a lawyer shouldn’t question a doctor. I’m sure that lawyers suing for medical malpractice cases do their reading very thoroughly and have a very good understanding of the relevant issues!
      Finally, a word about the scientific process. I’m scientifically educated to Ph.D. level, so rest assured that what follows is the way it works. If you’re constructing an argument, you’re going to need to research it thoroughly. That’s why scientific papers are splattered with references. ‘Bloggs said, Smith said that, in contrast, McHugh found that, and so on. It therefore seems possible that,’ and so on. There is always caution and respect. When I underwent my ‘viva voce’ examination for my Ph.D., I was questioned for well over three hours over every detail on every page of my thesis and had to justify my experiments and procedures. Importantly, because my project was part of a much bigger one, my work had to be reproducible by others – which it was.
      My advice to you when posting is to use figures, state the point you’re making clearly, and please refrain from using phrases like ‘cherry picking’ and ‘the science says’. These have no part in a proper discussion, and only serve to irritate people. Instead, demonstrate that you’ve done some proper reading research yourself.

      10

      • #
        Frank

        Hello Carbon500,
        So , finally , thanks for your thoughtful response, I am sorry if I initially came across as being rude but as a biologist , Jo knows that if her views were soundly argued and referenced and she had successfully undermined the majority global view, point by point, she could have submitted her findings for peer review. It seems she hasn’t , otherwise she’d be famous and not running this blog.
        Not being a climate scientist , I can only go with the overwhelming evidence from the experts, there being no equivalent to a missing filling. Jo could have been one of them.

        04

        • #
          the Griss

          There is no “overwhelming evidence”. !

          You really haven’t been following this for more than a few days, have you.

          Just read a few newspaper articles, listened to the ABC.

          And you are still coming across as rude and obnoxious, just dripping more with slime, this time.

          Jo is famous, and the alarmists really despise this blog, because its makes the point and is heard.

          Otherwise.. why are you here ?? :-)

          30

        • #
          Robert

          It seems she hasn’t , otherwise she’d be famous and not running this blog.
          Not being a climate scientist , I can only go with the overwhelming evidence from the experts, there being no equivalent to a missing filling. Jo could have been one of them.

          Really, famous you say? Who would have thought. Science is about becoming famous? Really?

          How about you show us some of that “overwhelming evidence” please. It must be really overwhelming because every time we ask someone to produce it they are to overwhelmed to do so.

          Shall we mention the failure of the models, the continual game of “where’s the heat hiding”, the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming in almost two decades now?

          So back to your “could have been famous” line. Did you ever stop to think that your “experts” in a field that is in its infancy are more concerned with preserving their fame than they are in truth? Who would know of Mann, Trenberth, Jones, et. al. if it were not for this nonsense.

          We ask for evidence, yet as is typical all we get from your sort is appeals to authority.

          I’m too damn old to blindly accept authority. Too many “experts” have been wrong during my lifetime for me to simply accept what they say just because they are “experts.”

          But feel free to do so, after all being unable to think for one’s self seems to be the trendy thing these days.

          30

    • #

      Still don’t have any empirical evidence to back up the feedback assumptions in the models then?

      Just Ad Homs? Thanks for visiting Frank. It helps. Guests can see that I will publish critics, and you are the “best” there is yet you have nothing.

      If my views are not soundly argued you would point out the flaws. Can’t find any, eh?.

      40

      • #
        Frank

        Dear Jo,
        I cant/wont go through all your evidence point by point , thats not my point.
        Its not necessary for me to point out flaws , professionaly ,if all your arguements are soundly researched you could confidently present them for publication in reputable journals ,etc and for peer review , has this happened ?
        This is what really counts , not a blogfest, but you know all that.
        Some of your regular guests would contend that the global conspiracy against ‘real science’ is blocking the truth , I hope you dont subscribe to that ?
        If you rank me amongst the best of your critics , Id hate to see the worst !
        I’m sorry if you think I’ve made ad hominem attacks , that would be against your character , not your method.
        Thanks

        00

  • #
    Joe

    Peter, we may no longer have the carbon tax, which was essentially a broad based consumption tax on everything, but we still have a direct 10% tax on the consumption of electricity regardless of how it is produced and Tony Abbott is keen to increase that. We also have a manufacturing excise on most fuels be they old carbon or new carbon derived which was essentially reducing but now Tony wants to ensure this tax keeps rising with the CPI. The main coal mining States also increased their direct taxes or royalties on the mining of this form of fuel. I don’t think that Tony and his Government are going out of their way to decrease their tax take, we are operating at an historically pretty low tax:GDP. Any promises of ‘cheap electricity’ are probably just going to be election gimmicks because people want to hear that.

    00

    • #
      PeterS

      In that case we have no real distinction between the two major parties. They are only arguing for the sake of arguing but their agendas are the dame – collect more money in the name of stopping climate change. Might as well say let’s collect more money to stop wars, when in fact they will use some of that money to build more weapons.

      20

  • #
    pat

    how to explain Murdoch media carrying this front page? it is just another inexplicable case of Obama worship, yet the guy has lost even his own Dem followers in the US? our own PM is given short shrift. still, it’s not as bad as the front page that was planned – a black background, with text demanding Putin say sorry for something he didn’t do:

    G20 front page Courier Mail 14 Nov…
    http://couriermail.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx?code=401

    the front page that didn’t happen:

    A sneak peek at tomorrow’s front page for Courier-Mail+ members
    November 14, 2014
    PIC
    On the front page, Vladimir Putin will arrive in Brisbane with an apology expected over the downing of Flight MH17..
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/a-sneak-peek-at-tomorrows-front-page-for-couriermail-members/story-fnn8dlfs-1226956482813

    our MSM continues to self-destruct.

    20

  • #
    • #
      PeterS

      Nothing really new. Universities for a long time now have been against the search for truth, and instead peddle myths and legends based on bad science. The only slight exception is in the schools of medicine, but even there they are hiding certain sad truths. For example, it’s a given that if the world spent on cancer research only a fraction of what they have spent on defense over the past few decades, a cure for cancer would have been found a long time ago.

      30

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        For a Marxist, the truth is anything he/she can persuade you to believe that will increase his/her power over you.

        00

  • #
    Richo

    Mr Abbott should tell the MSM that Australia’s global warming policy will match China’s word for word and then call the ABC, SBS and Faux Fax out on their hypocrisy.

    80

  • #
    Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

    President Obola – he’s got his country’s interests at heart.

    10

  • #
    el gordo

    China reaches out to the world and offers a Third Way, trying to become inclusive, yet until they adopt democracy China will be regarded as ‘authoritarian capitalists’. Obama is a lame duck, nevertheless Xi is happy to be generous, while they quickly gain the benefit of a technical co-production.

    A fifth of China’s agricultural land has become polluted and the cities are an environmental disgrace. The advantages of this deal, in a financial and moral sense, is that the new technologies will be redirected away from CO2 suppression to surviving something more horrifying …. natural variability.

    The US is in for another chill and they expect it to linger. Fortunately its not the vortex, so we can now ponder the possibility that its a regional cooling signal caused by a wobbly jet stream.

    “The polar vortex itself has not moved south. It’s still in the Arctic where it always is,” said National Weather Service spokeswoman Susan Buchanan.

    http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/11/13/all-50-states-will-see-freezing-temperatures/

    10

  • #

    Should I humbly apologise?

    Tony.

    20

  • #
    Matty

    No Tony. Definitely not before they introduce a one power station per family policy.

    10

    • #

      No, for my Comment in moderation since 1.24PM.

      Tony.


      Sorry Tony, I’ve been doing other things today. Helping a friend. – Jo

      10

      • #

        Thanks Joanne, and I do apologise.

        I know why it was in moderation, right from the minute I posted it, but I could not retract it to take out the offending word, so my apologies for that.

        Tony.

        10

  • #
    pat

    such precision? well, not quite!

    13 Nov: Carbon Brief: Robert McSweeney: US lightning strikes to increase under climate change
    New research, published in Science, suggests that lightning strikes in the US will increase by 12 per cent for every degree of temperature rise, if greenhouse gases continue to be emitted at current levels…
    But working out how lightning will be affected by climate change is difficult because climate models don’t simulate lightning directly…
    Romps, D.M. et al. (2014) Projected increase in lightning strikes in the Unites States due to global warming, Science, 10.1126/science.1259100
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/11/us-lightning-strikes-to-increase-under-climate-change/

    Obama’s great generosity? well, not quite:

    14 Nov: Guardian: Suzanne Goldenberg: G20: Obama to pledge $2.5bn to help poor countries on climate change
    Additional reporting by Lenore Taylor
    Exclusive: In a one-two punch, America plans to pledge at least $2.5bn and as much as $3bn over the next four years to help poor countries invest in clean energy and cope with rising seas and extreme weather, according to those briefed by administration officials…
    The ballpark figure of $2.5bn to $3bn is not that much higher than the $2bn pledged to climate finance by George Bush in 2008…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/14/barack-obama-to-pledge-at-least-25bn-to-help-poor-countries-fight-climate-change?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=98e45ff985-DAILY_BRIEFING&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-98e45ff985-303439889

    it’s all smoke & mirrors.

    10

  • #
    Peter C

    Victoria goes to the polls in 2 weeks!

    If you are thinking of voting below the line, and you should , you will want to know something about the parties.

    Anthony Green gives some info
    http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/

    To my uncertain knowledge, only the Liberal Democrats have a clear policy against CO2 reductions/ taxes etc.

    10

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Ah, morning coffee all over my screen! Thanks for the morning laugh Jo. “Did Obama do his homework?” ROFL.

    20

  • #
    pat

    now it’s Oakes with propaganda from the headline to the final word. talk about obsessional:

    15 Nov: Herald-Sun: Laurie Oakes: Abbott faces a climate of change
    In a joint statement, Barack Obama and Xi Jinping announced measures to be taken in each country to cut carbon pollution and counter climate change
    By putting climate change in the headlines in a big way just days out from the G20, they wrong-footed Abbott…
    When United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres suggested climate change could lead to more frequent and intense bushfires, Abbott famously accused her of “talking through her hat”.
    Cameron, on the other hand, showed no reluctance in linking widespread floods in the UK to climate change…
    A possible downside for Abbott in having a bunch of international leaders visit Australia is that it invites comparison.
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/abbott-faces-a-climate-of-change/story-fni0fha6-1227123619260

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    This is a comment nobody will read about a summary few people have read of an economics research paper that even fewer people have read. But it’s humorous.

    The website lolmythesis.com encourages PhD and Masters thesis authors to anonymously summarise their entire thesis in less than 140 characters. A recent one caught my eye. The boring quotes first, then the punch line.
    I can’t find the exact thesis it references at Sussex, but there is a very similarly titled paper from Leeds which might have been the result of the PhD.
    The abstract gives a hint of the problem:

    This paper reviews recent strands of work arguing that high quality energy
    inputs and their efficient conversion to useful work have been key drivers of economic growth. This is important for understanding how a low carbon transition could be achieved and resulting implications for economic growth. An increase in energy input costs, due to declining availability of cheap oil and the need to switch to low-carbon alternatives, will have profound, but insufficiently understood, economic impacts.

    Towards the middle of the paper they spell out the economic impacts more clearly (my emphasis):

    However, as societies move to using lower EROI energy sources, because of depletion of easily accessible fossil fuels and/or the adoption of low carbon technologies, they will have to spend a larger and larger proportion of economic output on investment into energy acquisition. This would lead to a dramatic reduction in discretionary spending and discretionary capital investment.

    But the bottom line is… best summed up by the author.

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Turns out society is screwed without fossil fuels

      Andrew, have you passed this by Al Gore? I’m sure he would give you a million good sound reasons why it’s false. ;-)

      00

  • #
    Andrew

    I wonder what kind of deal The Kenyan would have had to sign before the MSM called him out on it? China promised to increase CO2s without bound for 16 years plus build hated dams and nucular, peaking emissions only with their population. What could Xi have offered instead for them to say “This is a Seinfeld Deal – it’s an agreement about nothing!”?

    30

  • #
    Mike of NQ

    I noticed that Paul Keating rubbished Abbott’s climate policies in the Age yesterday. He indicates that Abbott is rewarding polluters through his Direct Action policy and that the carbon tax is the zenith of positive action. Personally, I would prefer to reward an electricity generator to help keep thousands of children alive on a dialysis machine than to tax a recycling company like an Alcoa smelter out of Australia where the same or higher emissions are produced elsewhere, just not attributed to Australia.

    10

  • #

    [...] It emissions growth will slow and stop in the next couple of decades, not because population will peak, or because of any agreement to stop emissions growth. China’s emissions will peak, like with [...]

    00

  • #
    Dennis

    POTUS Obama wants the Great Barrier Reef to be there in fifty years time.

    I have no doubt that the Reef will be, but also that he won’t be, but he will be remembered, but not as he would like to be.

    10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The year hardly matters. China gets off the hook and we get skewered. And Obama doesn’t care.

    10

  • #
    sophocles

    China would be very happy to see the US hobble its industries. I can’t see anything in the press release about this `wonderful’ agreement requiring China to hobble its own. In case of war, which side would hold the royal flush, and which one would be betting on a two pair?

    10