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

Kill the squirrel to save the planet

And you thought humans were special because they can control the climate. Move over Big-Coal, make way for the squirrels and beavers. They’ve been stirring up the soil releasing CO2, or damning up streams and producing methane.

Daily Mail — Richard Gray

Forget humans, RODENTS are the climate villains: Squirrels and beavers are contributing to global warming far more than previously thought

  • Arctic ground squirrels churn up and warm soil in the Tundra, allowing carbon dioxide gas trapped in the ice to escape into the atmosphere
  • Methane released from ponds created by beavers estimated to contribute 200 times more greenhouse gas to atmosphere than they did 100 years ago
  • Climate scientists will have to tweak their models to include role of rodents
  • Scientists insist that rodents role in global warming does not let humans off the hook but shows animals play more of a role than previously thought

Wake up climate simulators, it’s time to add rodent-forcings to the models. Along with anthropogenic forcing (and beaver-effects), that’s three vertebrate families down, and only 181 to go.

Squirrels have been around in some form for 40 million years, but in the last 100 they’ve become dangerous climate movers. Freaky timing that.

Amazing how the world survived with squirrels for so long, and without any windmills.

He [Nigel Golden, an ecologist at the University of Wisconsin] said the temperature of the ground around their burrows was higher than in the surrounding area.

Speaking to the BBC, he said: ‘They are soil engineers. They break down the soil when they are digging their burrows, they mix the top layer with the bottom layer, they are bringing oxygen to the soil and they are fertilizing the soil with their urine and their faeces.

‘We saw an increase in soil temperature in the soils where the arctic ground squirrels were occupying.

‘This is a major component. As that permafrost begins to warm, now microbes can have access to these previously frozen carbons that were in the soil.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

h/t Eric Worrall :- )

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (81 votes cast)
Kill the squirrel to save the planet, 9.1 out of 10 based on 81 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/mbad3jo

275 comments to Kill the squirrel to save the planet

  • #
    Obie

    God, you get sick of it – Any port in a storm. Will they ever give up?

    411

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Nope….although I do believe anyone found supporting cliamte change despite all th esolid eveidence against it shoul be immediately barred from voting or holding any form of repsonsible position.

      131

    • #
      aussieguy

      They will NEVER give up…As long as there is money to be made from the taxpayer and political power to be attained; they will keep going. They are parasites.

      You can see how desperate things really are for them as the public are walking away from the hysteria. They are literally throwing nonsensical $hit against the wall and hoping anything sticks. Step back and think about it: Squirrels? Seriously?

      …And you know what’s ironic? They said “the science was settled”! Why are they still tinkering with the models if the science is settled? LOL! (You only stop tinkering with models when you’ve accurately modelled what’s happening in the real world. So obviously, their models don’t reflect anywhere near the real world! Of course, they must demand more money in order to refine their models!…See! Its all about money!)


      Its over. They are done. The public isn’t listening any more. And the more erratic they behave with their claims, the more they drive away the public at a quicker rate. The public aren’t as vocal as activists. But that doesn’t mean they’re stupid!

      150

      • #
        Olaf Koenders

        Next it’ll be anything that burrows.. wombats, worms et. al. Nothing appeared to be said about HOW MUCH higher the temperature in the burrows were. It’s probably in the hundredths.

        So.. what’s Agenda 21 to do now – eliminate people or troglodytes?

        50

        • #
          mc

          Ok, this has gone just about far enough; from this minute on I will be maintaining a permanent vigil at the kitchen window with my shotgun pointed into the garden and if I see hide or hair of any dammed critter, rodent or varmint I’ll start a-shootin and send those poison gas belchin dirt bags to varmint hell where they belong!

          90

  • #
    the Griss

    “estimated to contribute 200 times more greenhouse gas to atmosphere than they did 100 years ago”

    I would love to see the justification for that statement. 200 times? seriously?

    How? Are they digging bigger holes for themselves or something?

    452

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Note to climate scientists … when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

      300

    • #
      Lawrie Ayres

      The thing I love about having grandchildren (young ones) is that I can watch some wonderful animated stories and cartoons. It’s quite obvious that the critters are becoming more sophisticated. I saw a mole driving a backhoe last week and a family of mice in a rather nice apartment. It doesn’t surprise me that these creatures are contributing to CO2 emissions. Toad of Toad Hall is now driving a V8 SUV and the stoats are into high powered sports cars. That crazy trougher at the uni of Wisconsin has been observing similar happenings and has made the connection to higher temperatures in the forest. Another animal based heat island effect. It should be very comforting that such scientists still exist and didn’t perish with the makers of Frankenstein. But for his ilk you would all have to watch cartoons.

      70

  • #
    R2Dtoo

    Yup- 200 times what? How much were they emitting in 1900. Let’s see the data- oh, the models say so!

    281

  • #
    James Bradley

    Then there’s earthworms and the protected bird life decomposing around wind turbines…

    422

    • #
      Allen Ford

      … and the termites. Don’t forget the termites!

      10

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      Well spotted, James.

      Amazing how the world survived with squirrels for so long, and without any windmills.

      There’s your answer! The new-fangled, bird-chopping, bat-exploding windmills are removing the squirrels’ natural predators from the equation! Whichever way you look at it, it is all the fault of humans.

      10

  • #
    Alan Poirier

    I am so tired of studies. If I had the power, I would defund all climatology research. It’s such a phenomenal waste of money.

    512

    • #
      Fox From Melbourne

      I totally agree with you Alan. I don’t understand why they still get the funding that they do. If the Science is settled then why do they need all that money. There isn’t settled science on getting children out of wheelchairs, up back on their feet running and playing again. Curing Cancer or Aids that science isn’t settled why aren’t they getting the funding. Climate Scientists should be unfunded and the money giving to real scientists that will do real science with the money. Not waste phenomenal amounts of it. Or waste money going around complaining about poor squirrels making homes for themselves.

      190

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    This is surely the bottom of the barrel. Now they’ve become squirrelly. There can’t be much more to go. There just can’t…

    241

    • #
      LeeHarvey

      I’d suggest you keep quiet, lest someone take your words as a challenge to dig deeper.

      171

      • #
        D.J. Hawkins

        Or as Einstein was supposed to have said, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I’m not sure about the universe.”

        90

    • #
      Ron Cook

      They are squirreling away funds for their retirement :-)

      R-COO- K+

      90

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      To you who love to click the red thumb,

      Think for a while about the significance, the real significance of this so-called research. What has the world gained from this? Perhaps it’s some additional knowledge we didn’t have before. But does it tell us anything useful about climate change? I think not since these animals have been around for thousands if not millions of years and if anything, their numbers were much greater in the past than they are now. And if you think otherwise my question to you is the same one Jo posed — are you going to kill all the squirrels to get rid of their contribution to atmospheric CO2? I doubt it.

      What you no doubt will do with this is point an ever angrier blaming finger at the skeptics who don’t see any evidence of a significant human footprint in what little temperature change has happened since the little ice age. It’s a shameful act all the way around and deserves nothing more than the ridicule we give it. You’ve long past the point where you’re arguing science with us and have stooped to being petulant children because you can’t get your way.

      When my son was 10 years old he could do a better job than you do.

      60

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Roy

        Some new understanding has come from this shambles.

        Most political shiftiness, in the past, has been hidden from the average person.

        This scam, however, has been exposed to intense scrutiny and although we may not like the fact that they have gotten so far with fleecing us and misdirection our resources towards themselves, we can at least now see and describe what is happening.

        So what we have gained is a real understanding of how this scam was started and the mechanisms of deceit used to keep it going.

        A very valuable insight into human behaviour.

        Frightening that whole countries can be entrained and dragged along by a scheme that is so inherently dishonest.

        KK

        40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          KK,

          Please don’t get me wrong. But I think we’ve already had enough evidence of how these people operate to fill a 100 car freight train… …OK accounting for my exaggeration, maybe 50 cars. Perhaps this will give it more or better exposure and I surely hope so. But the Emperor has been walking around in the buff for a long time.

          Let’s hope this sinks his whole shameful act once and for all.

          30

  • #
  • #
    CC Reader

    The following data could put a stake in the heart of the green glob.

    Early Results from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 Mission to be presented at #AGU14 via Live Stream

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/18/early-results-from-nasas-orbiting-carbon-observatory-2-mission-to-be-presented-at-agu14-via-live-stream/

    41

  • #
    the Griss

    It seems that the “200 times” is based on the massive rebound in the beaver populations since 1900 because hunting stopped.

    “Fur trade between the sixteenth and nineteenth century lead to beaver populations in many areas becoming extinct. But now Dr Whitfield and his team have estimated that beaver numbers have grown dramatically to more than 10 million and estimate populations in Europe and Asia could increase by a further four million.”

    This is obviously a bad thing for the climate.. restore beaver hunting !! ;-)

    And of course permafrost thaw has to get a mention. !

    202

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      My first thought was, when did hunting start?

      Another more pertinent question would be, so what?

      70

      • #
        Winston

        Fur trapping in North America was at its most prevalent in the 17th to 19th Centuries, and coincided (or perhaps it wasn’t such a coincidence after all) with the peak of the Little Ice Age.

        To quote that font of all knowledge- Wikipedia:

        The French started trading in the 16th century, the English established trading posts on Hudson Bay in present-day Canada in the 17th century, and the Dutch had trade by the same time in New Netherland. The 19th-century North American fur trade, when the industry was at its peak of economic importance, involved the development of elaborate trade networks and companies…….. By the mid-1800s, however, changing fashions in Europe brought about a collapse in fur prices.

        So, there you have it- it would appear that actually the putative “Global Warming” crisis is not “anthropogenic” at all, and coincides entirely with the collapse of the fur trade in or around ~1860, thereby allowing these little beasties the opportunity to sabotage our climate by releasing vast quantities of GHG’s into the atmosphere with reckless abandon.

        “Squirrelogenic Global Warming”- You know it makes sense.

        170

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    The only barrier to the complete collapse of the CAGW scam are the MODELS. They are all that stands between the scammers and complete

    ridicule. These are not science nor are they acceptable engineering as we all know.

    The “modelling” issue has the potential to cause confusion and loss of clarity in arguing the point that man made CO2 is irrelevant to any real or imaginary Global Temperature Change.

    By it’s very definition a model has certain requirements that must be met.

    First a model has one or more input factors which are variable (eg atmospheric CO2 level) and when this variable changes the model must register changes in another factor (eg atmospheric temperature) which shows conclusively that the two factors, input and output, are linked.

    The most important requirement however is that the output must duplicate reality.

    By definition a model successfully duplicates reality in some range of operation and allows extension, and prediction, outside the measured limits used to verify the model.

    A model which does not duplicate reality is by definition NOT A MODEL.

    Global Climate models have NEVER duplicated reality in any way and by definition cannot be claimed to be models.

    They are mind games.

    This is why I feel that great care should be used in discussing “Climate Models” because to do so might give them credibility in the eyes of

    the uninitiated to which they are not entitled.

    The fact that Models are so abused by the Climate Community Academics is nothing short of an academic scandal of gigantic proportions.

    Deceit knows no bounds.

    The other truth which anyone with real modelling training knows is that some systems are just too complex to model.

    The Earth’s climate is just such a system.

    To pretend that it can be modeled in it’s entirety is either enormous self delusion as demonstrated by politicians or cynical deception as exhibited by armies of climate academics.

    KK

    254

    • #
      JohnM

      It seems it’s not only squirrels that play with their nuts.

      100

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Yes and no KinkyKeith.

      If it was purely a question of, if this stuff correct? You’d be right.

      But CAGW is a political campaign.

      70

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        True , I should have acknowledged that I was only talking about “The Science” and that politics was a whole separate matter founded only in part on the science.
        :)

        50

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      John Christy completely shreeded the AR4 models with basic weather balloon & satelite data in 2012 with a sumbission to the US Senate Public Works Committee.

      150

    • #
      gai

      They can start with the %$#@ beaver clogging up my streams. The last trapper took out over 200 of the nasty dirty beasts. (The are disease carriers and US water treatment does nothing to stop ‘Beaver Fever’)

      60

    • #
      gai

      The IPCC is well aware that the climate is to complex to model. In 2001 the IPCC said:

      …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible

      IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

      60

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Slam dunk…they just did themselves out of a job right there…..

        This should be on the front of every skeptic website.

        40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Yes. The key word there is “chaotic”. Chaotic means, “random”, and as soon as you insert random events into a computer model it turns into a computer game.

        Become a climate scientist and get big grants of public money to play computer games. The downside is that you have to write one or two novels a year. But on the other hand, they all have the same basic plot, so you can cut and paste a lot.

        30

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        I don’t think that the term “chaotic” is a good description of the situation.

        The interpretation I have is that many factors of significance are left out and you just can’t do that with a model.

        It is almost certain that processes of orbital mechanics of the solar system control the approx 100,000 year cycle of freezing and heating undergone by Earth over the last couple of million years.

        The interglacial periods such as the one we are currently enjoying are a relatively short part of the cycle and rarely seem to last much past 10,000 years.

        Given the fairly stable conditions on Earth for the past 7 or 8,000 years any real scientist would be asking”what can we do to prepare for the next sharp drop in Global Temperatures due any time soon?

        Recent northern winters have been devastating and may be precursors of the big permanent drop.

        It does happen quickly according to past records. Even wicki can’t deny these facts:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#mediaviewer/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

        KK

        30

  • #
    bemused

    Next it’ll be whales, et al, they come to the surface, get warm and then dive down deep, getting rid of the heat and warming the deeper waters.

    283

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hilarious!

      Mass, heat and momentum transfer!

      :)

      122

    • #
      Sweet Old Bob

      And when their ” ass is passin gas ” it’s worse than we thought !

      80

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Maybe we can run a betting book on what the alarmists will use next for their next “It’s worse than we thought!” moment …

      70

    • #
      LevelGaze

      Next it’ll be whales

      So…

      A three generational Aussie with antecedents in Britain decides to visit the old homeland for the very first time.

      After a couple of weeks he finds himself enjoying lunch in a lovely quiet little country village pub, when the place is invaded by a gaggle of vile young females. You know the type – fat, tattood, midrifts hanging over their waistline, very very loud.

      He senses a strange accent here. “Are you ladies from abroad?”

      One fixes him with a scornful eye: “No, you stupid f****ng old git c**t, we’re Wales, Wales!”

      “Oh, I’m so dreadfully sorry. I mistook you for human beings.”

      40

      • #
        Annie

        I’m so sorry that your country pub visit was ruined by those specimens of female Britishness LG. It seems to me that certain types are a bit too mobile! I do hope that didn’t happen again It makes me ashamed to be British…we’re not all like that. Annie

        00

  • #
    pattoh

    ” We saw an increase in soil temperature in the soils where the arctic ground squirrels were occupying”.

    Yep & cattle don’t sleep on the bitumen road in winter for the warmth either.

    Or perhaps these clever little buggers are keeping a portal open for all that heat to get down deep enough to slip sideways into the deep ocean.

    111

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    See this is why I keep referring to environmentalists as “the old woman who swallowed the fly”. They arnt happy with anything. If nature itself isn’t fitting their models and ideals, it needs to change. Only eco loons know how the planet should run and they will do anything to get their way.

    I saw this the other day and it just blew my mind.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-14/native-noisy-miners-cause-more-damage-than-introduced-species/5964328

    So we are talking about culling native species now because we don’t like what they do???

    Can I make a suggestion. DEAL WITH IT!! LEAVE $HIT ALONE!! FFS get a life and get a hobby you maggots!

    182

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Safety,

      perhaps a little off topic but triggered by your comment.

      A blast from the past in a less PC era.

      here in Newcastle when I was very young, there were plagues of small birds (starlings), they got inside buildings, nested in all sorts of places like roofs and darkened the sky when they flew.

      Because they represented an obvious health hazard measures were taken to fix the problem. this might seem a little harsh but currently we have an infestation of what appear to be the subject of the ABC comment; they are noisy, and leave lots of calling cards next to the restaurants. Nobody is game to do anything.

      We live in fear of the PC monster!

      KK

      92

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        PC has been the most damning idea to hit the human species, ever. For some reason it has been all pervasive and complete.

        70

    • #
      Glen Michel

      What bilge- coming as it does from those eminent houses of knowledge- QLD and Griffith Unis. Noisy miners are aggressive and somewhat annoying- particularly when you’reabout to ping a bunny for tea! As for the decline of dry sclerophyll woodland- their natural and preferred habitat- there is an increase in the last 50 years. I guess that there has been more planting of trees in urban areas and that has lead to an increase in numbers.Maybe they should do some study into the proliferation of Corellas, which have taken on the urban habitat and are thriving in large numbers.

      80

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Safety, the Indian or common Myna isn’t native to Australia, it was first introduced to Australia in Victoria between 1863 and 1872 into Melbourne’s market gardens to control insects. Typical of the ABC to get that fact wrong.

      But they’re known as one of the most invasive species, belonging to the Starling family.

      My biggest gripe is noisy dogs.

      40

      • #
        the Griss

        The local butcher birds and magpies seem to keep those mynas under control.

        btw… magpies LOVE milk arrowroot biscuits.

        40

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Griss

          My pet magpie who I “caught” and befriended with a centipede offered on a shovel will only eat one item.

          Bacon rind.

          He loves it.

          Gets a gullet full and goes off to feed the brood.

          He- she eats out of my hand and has never bitten me – they have perfect depth perception and unlike many humans

          WILL NEVER BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS HIM.

          KK

          50

          • #
            Olaf Koenders

            Same as Kookaburras they’re also partial to mince. If your magpie has a grey back it’s likely to be female or young.

            Beware of Galahs tho.. They mangle everything!

            50

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Hi Olaf

              Kookas don’t come that much but they are a lot more cautious than the maggies.

              We have had two visits from the local peacock and thankfully the galahs stay well away in the tree tops.

              Ever fed a peacock by hand.

              Not something for the faint hearted.

              Would never trust the peacock to peck out of my hand , just to grab the large bit of bacon rind dangled from my fingers.

              They have big beaks and are not as accurate as the magpie.

              Our magpie sounds like a male by your colour coding; do they normally do the scavenging?

              KK

              20

              • #
                Olaf Koenders

                Depends on the nesting season Kinky. While the egg’s being brooded the male does most of the scavenging I think. Otherwise they all hunt.

                00

          • #
            Annie

            We have a large family of magpies but I don’t encourage them as they bully the King Parrots that visit.

            10

  • #
    George McFly......I'm your density

    Sounds like squirrels have their own little urban heat island effect…..funny that

    91

  • #
    Winston

    I think before they include squirrels in their climate models, I would have thought it would have been a good idea to include things that are really important, I dunno- like clouds, the water cycle, oh and those little white mice on running wheels in the brains of most climate researchers.

    I feel somehow that those little rodents have the most influence of the lot.

    150

    • #
      Allen Ford

      Slartibartfast thought so, too!

      Slartibartfast: I was most upset to hear of its destruction.
      Arthur: *You* were upset?
      Slartibartfast: Five minutes later and it wouldn’t have mattered so much. Shocking cock up. The mice were furious.
      Arthur: Mice?

      00

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    Can’t wait for Naomi Klein’s vicious tirade about squirrel supremacists and beaver bigots. Will she come out in solidarity/whimpering sympathy for the planet wearing a squirrel fur coat with beaver hat?

    130

  • #
    JohnM

    This study would never have received the publicity it has if it wasn’t for the hype. It’s probably ensured that the study team get more funding for their next effort. That’s how science works these days. :-(

    80

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I don’t think it’s the hype, I think it’s the absurdity that made the headlines.

      And, it’s worse than we thought.

      50

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    My cats are doing their part to stem the tide of CAGW.

    80

    • #
      MacSual

      I once lived near the Healesville Sanctuary and my cat was always coming home with little critters that looked suspiciously like members of endangered species,but hey it’s called evolution/survival of the fittest,so who am I to stop the progress of nature?

      50

  • #
    Grahame

    This research only goes to reinforce something I, as a geologist, have been saying for decades to anyone who will listen. Since life began it has been, and still is, haveing a dramatic effect on the planets atmosphere and the environment in general. Life in the oceans changed their chemistry as well as the atmospheric composition, life on land changed how rivers flow, how mountains erode, created bush fires, and on it goes.
    The impacts are not natural nor are they unnatural, they just are.
    The planet’s environment is staggeringly complex, and to think we can model any part of it with any degree of accuracy is naive in the extreme.
    As a user of computer models one of my favourite quotes is the famous, “All models are wrong, some models are useful”.

    150

  • #
    Richard

    There seems to be a very angry warmist taking his time to arduously thumb down every single post here regardless of its content.

    91

    • #
      Matty

      It has been going on for a few days now, since last weekend even. It was almost as if one down was becoming the new normal. Seems to be tiring of out now. May have realised that such obsessive compulsive behaviour isn’t going to save the world from Global Catastrophe

      121

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Yup, did it to mine two days ago, about 30 minutes after posting, and my comment was not even controversial. Small mind with nothing else to do. I’m going to time this one; its 19:30 ESummerTime, Aussie time.

        60

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Or maybe just one angry beaver, recursive furry! :)

      90

  • #
    PeterK

    “We saw an increase in soil temperature in the soils where the arctic ground squirrels were occupying.”

    Question: Does this mean that they missing ‘hot spot’ has been found?

    80

  • #
    Peter Miller

    My problem with all this is that during the last ice age most of the present tundra areas were scoured clean of soil by the glaciers, or fast running water..

    Nearly all the soil in the tundra areas today was deposited since the end of the last ice age circa 10,000 years ago. Most of the Holocene era over the past 10,000 years has been warmer than it is today. Yet during those warmer times the tundra was a carbon sink and there must have been least as many squirrels as there are today.

    So neither methane emissions, nor the antics of squirrels, can possibly compute to be a problem, unless you live in the wacky world of climate science and are a card carrying alarmist. The tundra areas of the world have to have been a carbon sink during the warmer parts of the Holocene, or their carbon rich soils would simply not be there today.

    110

  • #
    Pathway

    We can just add squirrels and beavers (I’ve heard beaver tail is quite good) to the long list of animals that enviors want to kill. Top of the list is always humans followed by eagle, other raptors and of course those bug munching bats.

    90

  • #
    handjive

    Here is a video about a squirrel and rising heat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdCWgWlbyLU

    It’s obvious the squirrel has nothing to do with inflating heat indexes alarmingly.

    But the moose does.

    30

  • #
    NielsZoo

    Beaver Forcings? Really? Is this what it’s come to? Is the EPA going to start fining squirrels for digging? (I assume flying squirrels will be under the aegis of the FAA.) We joke about distractions and misdirection (e.g. “look squirrel!”) and here they are actually using squirrels to fling more dirt into the air. Any other observations I could make about warm holes and beavers would be rightly snipped…[Indeed! - this is a family blog -Fly] but there are a lot of them running around my demented brain.

    Just… …damn.

    120

    • #
      James the Elder

      If 7 billion humans, several trillion termites, and billions of herbivores and carnivores all farted at once, what would be the change in global temps? YOU CANNOT PREDICT NOR MODEL CHAOS!!!!!!! But, you can create it easily enough to keep the unwashed in an uproar. And then there are volcanoes, methane hydrates—nevermind.

      110

    • #
      Another Ian

      NielsZoo

      Careful or this could go off topic – remember the North American use of “beaver”? [Indeed!]

      60

      • #
        Yonniestone

        I believe “squirrel” is also used in North American slang in much the same way, interesting connection. [Don't go there -Fly]

        50

      • #
        NielsZoo

        As a card carrying native of North America I knew I should have kept my keyboard shut. It was just too ridiculous to pass up.

        30

  • #
    handjive

    Meanwhile …

    One of the fun Doomsday Climate exercises is finding the contradictions in the 97% certified “settled science.”

    19 December 2014, 6.46am AEDT

    Australia faces a stormier future thanks to climate change

    “Overall, the frequency of severe storms in 2014 was about average, or even slightly below.”
    https://theconversation.com/australia-faces-a-stormier-future-thanks-to-climate-change-35327

    The opine from the American arm of theconversation has various examples; the Brisbane supercell hailstorm of November 27 has a damage bill rising above A$500 million, receives a mention.

    But, strangely, the unpredicted spring snowstorm in the Blue Mountains, 31 Oct 2014 with a clean up bill estimated at more than $500,000: natural disaster application being lodged, fails to get mentioned.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-31/snow-clean-up-bill-estimated-at-more-than-245002c0003a-natur/5857640

    Doesn’t Global Warming Climate Change now cause more snow?

    Shortlist – 97% certified settled science contradictions & inconsistencies from above:

    Jan. 06, 2014: Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap
    http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/

    July 25, 2014: Worst of winter likely over as warming trend begins
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/worst-of-winter-likely-over-as-warming-trend-begins-20140724-zw7wk.html

    October 17, 2014: Fewer big storms expected for Sydney as climate warms
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/fewer-big-storms-expected-for-sydney-as-climate-warms-20141017-117kfj.html
    . . .
    Stormier future, fewer storms, warming trends, unpredicted snow storms.
    Too much fun.

    110

    • #
      el gordo

      From that last Fairfax link. This type of scaremongering is criminal because its totally false.

      ‘Professor David Karoly at the University of Melbourne said that sea levels along the east coast of Australia have already risen 20 centimetres and may rise a metre or more by 2100.

      “On the south-east coast, even with fewer east coast lows, the storm surge impacts are even greater because of the overall increase in sea-level,” Professor Karoly said’

      40

      • #
        the Griss

        “said that sea levels along the east coast of Australia have already risen 20 centimetres “

        What?.. in 300 years or something?

        Sydney, Fort Denison trend is 6.5mm/decade ..ie… 6.5cm in a century !

        And no sign of any acceleration.

        40

        • #
          Popeye26

          Griss,

          NOBODY/NO-ONE/ANYONE/ with or without satellites can predict or measure sea level rise in the last 15 years!!!!

          Try walking around Sydney Harbour (or anywhere else on Australia’s coastline) and I challenge anyone to PROVE that the sea level is rising – HINT – Fort Denison!!

          Go for it warmists!!!

          Cheers,

          40

    • #
      el gordo

      Don’t know how we can counter this, nobody will believe its the adjustments.

      ‘Australia has seen persistent warmth in recent seasons, and spring 2014 was no exception. It was the warmest spring on record for Australia, with the national mean temperature anomaly of +1.67 °C not only surpassing the spring record set only last year, but indeed surpassing the largest positive mean temperature anomaly recorded for any season (previous record +1.64 °C set during autumn 2005, records start in 1910). Nine of the ten warmest springs on record have occurred in the last thirteen years (2002–2014). The warmth of spring was not only exceptional in degree, but also in extent, affecting nearly all of Australia.’

      BoM Dec 1

      30

  • #
    Lank treasures his nuts

    There are no squirrels or beavers in the Antarctic so they clearly contribute to the different trends in ice cover at the two poles. Clearly this is evidence that these mammals are climate controllers.

    70

  • #
    TdeF

    Now we have Squirrel Science and Squirrel Made Global Warming? (SMGW) It’s a conspiracy! What about otters? Beavers? Foxes? Then you get the herds of evil Caribou across Siberia digging through the snow and releasing CH4. Ruminants eating more grass and farting more? So if the rains return and the CO2 goes up, the planet is greener and there is more fodder for ruminants which in turn means much more methane and an explosion of animal forced Global Warming. We have started a terrible chain reaction by inventing the motor car and the now Gaia is trying to kill us. Makes sense.

    80

    • #
      Matty

      ” Now we have Squirrel Science ”
      The kind where you hide your data away and won’t let anyone see them ?

      80

    • #
      Allen Ford

      With all this hypothetical conjecturing about various faunal contributions to GW, there has been no reference to the possible contribution by unicorns, a serious omission in my view.

      00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Speaking of saving the planet

    “$10 billion UN-linked climate change fund wants immunity from prosecution”

    Via

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/are-we-still-a-20.html#comments

    90

    • #
      Bushkid

      Yep, I wish more people would ask why the heck they would need or want immunity from prosecution if it’s all hunky-dory and above board and beyond any and all doubt or question that CO2 is the nasty, dire, awful dreadful cause of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or climate change or climate disruption or whatever the heck it is they need to call it this week to avoid the embarrassment of being wrong when the imperial evidence disproves their precious theory.

      100

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    In Canada we have Beaver Fever, an intestinal parasite, who would have guessed that the fever caused by beavers was actually global :)

    70

    • #
      TdeF

      Justin Beaver Fever?

      80

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        That one is going global, and making a lot of people sick.

        60

      • #
        gai

        Beaver Fever = Giardiasis

        Giardiasis is the most common cause of water-borne, parasitic illness in the U.S.. It is estimated that 20,000 cases of giardiasis occur each year in the U.S., and there is a 20% to 30% prevalence in the world’s population.Symptoms include diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, bloat, weight loss, fatigue and dehydration. Because of the dehydration and chronic diarrhea and vomiting it can be dangerous in young children and babies. Since it is connected to beaver (now protected) and water treatment, Doctors are loathe to test for it at least in my area even when the parents hammer on the doctor.

        Lactose intolerance can sometimes occur and a friend of mine who had Giardiasis as a child has never been able to tolerate milk products even though she is now in her sixties.

        60

        • #
          Matty

          I remember Giardiasis being the great bogey of hikers in New Zealand’s National Parks in the 80s/90s. and they don’t have beavers

          40

        • #
          Tim

          “Symptoms include diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, bloat, weight loss, fatigue and dehydration.”

          So it wasn’t the alcohol after all, it was those pesky beavers!

          40

  • #
    gnome

    The weasels have discovered the ground squirrels. No good will come of it!

    90

  • #
    Keith L

    I’m pretty sure I saw a squirrel on the grassy knoll in the Zapruder film…

    80

    • #
      Yonniestone

      I always believed Rocky and Bullwinkle worked as a team with Boris and Natasha during the Kennedy assassination, it was a shame Dudley Do-Right had an RDO that fateful day.

      50

  • #
    Climate Researcher 

     

    Why, Jo, do you keep publishing articles like this which only serve to support the hoax that greenhouse gases like water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane supposedly warm Earth’s surface? There is no valid physics that can support such a conjecture, as is explained here.

     

    57

    • #
      gai

      Jo brings them to our notice so we can all have a good belly laugh before we get angry about the waste of our tax dollars.

      100

    • #
      Frank

      CR,
      Since all the world’s climate scientists dont know what they are doing , you should help them out being alerting them to their’ follies.
      They will be forever thankful.

      37

      • #
        the Griss

        “Since all the world’s climate scientists don’t know what they are doing”

        Yep, you got that right !!!

        Have you found that paper proving that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere?

        You have only been asked 40 or 50 times…

        …..but so far, even after help from ALLLLLLLL those climate scientists..

        ..NOTHING,

        NADA,

        ZIP !!!

        Empty and Hollow !!

        100

      • #
        the Griss

        And Frank..

        They HAVE been alerted

        and they are NOT happy !!

        As the CAGW farce comes crashing down, with temperatures, over the next few years..

        …hopefully, so will their careers and funding !!

        110

        • #
          Frank

          G,
          Sorry I pulled your chain.
          Again, (for what feels like the 50th time ) as all the leading scientific bodies have failed to convince you then I cant, CO2 has been linked, go look up Confirmation Bias.
          You can’t answer my questions.
          The constant focus on a short term surface phenomenon is very unscientific. The climate system continues to warm, despite solar and other trends that would lead one to expect cooling.
          The burden of proof is on you, its science, its falsifiable, just get out of the sand pit and publish.
          [Frank, you cannot debate reasonably, using supportable facts. 1. Not "all leading scientific bodies" have published an opinion. Many are silent on the question. 2. The notion of "confirmation bias" works equally on both sides of the question, so it is a fact, but it is not an argument in a debate. 3. The burden of proof does not rest on the questioner, since it is not possible to prove a negative. 4. If this is science, then to be falsifiable, the original data, and details of the method of analysis, and the modelling processes and calculation algorithms, should be published, and made openly available to the general scientific community. That has not occurred, so, assuming that you would know that, I have to conclude that your final instruction was devious. 5. You would have more credence if you did not use a disposable email address.
          Finally, I dislike having these arguments on my watch - they distract from the actual conversation (which we expect to be civilised and polite), and detract from the honest sharing of opinions and information. You (and the Griss) have made me angry - that is not good, please take note -Fly]

          013

          • #
            the Griss

            You have NOTHING.

            You cannot even support the most basic tenet of the climate change agenda.

            And you know it.

            Your pathetic evasion and total refusal to provide ANY SCIENCE WHATSOEVER to support the political climate change agenda is there…

            .. FOR ALL TO SEE. !!

            If you want to convince ANYONE….

            PROVIDE SOME SCIENCE !!!

            100

            • #
              Frank

              G,
              Stop shouting you rude little boy.
              The whole scientific community has provided the evidence yet you continually scream ” Nothing “, try reading ALL the material.
              Stop wasting your time here in cherry picking blogworld , its not me you have to convince, its the real scientific community.
              If you think your evidence is so strong just publish, end of story, but of course you have your old conspiracy excuse to hide behind.
              Good luck

              013

              • #
                the Griss

                Frank, the hollow man.

                ZERO, NOTHING is all you have.

                Keep running and hiding, little child.

                And what do you mean by “try reading all the material”

                You haven’t provided any !!!

                90

              • #
                James Bradley

                Aw, geez Frank,

                59 papers that allude in some way to man made global warming does not constitute the whole scientific community and if it did then 174% of the world’s scientists have now disagreed with the consensus and are now published in ‘Climate Change the Facts 2014′ available through this site.

                Do yourself a favour…

                120

              • #
                ROM

                Frankstar comment
                I strongly suggest that you go and read ALL of Steve McIntyres latest Climate Audit post. along with all the couple of hundred comments from and including a couple of climate modellers plus numerous other modellers in other sciences and proffessions along with a very good input from statisticians, engineers and other professionals who use and develop models in their own industries as does Steve McIntyre also.

                All of whom comment on the quite remarkable inability of the 100 plus versions of unverified, unvalidated, unproven climate models to actually create anything relating to a realistic model of the global climate despite having attempted to do so for well over two decades, now getting on for four decades since the first climate models in the late 1970′s.
                And some of these guys like you are or were like Proff. Judith Curry and I believe our hostess Jo, were originally strong believers in the catastrophic global warming meme but are luke warmers through to outright skeptics now after going through the real actually researched and known climate science.

                After reading that Climate Audit’s post and all the couple of hundred comments in the ; Unprecedented” Model Discrepancy” post and realising that the ENTIRE CAGW / Climate change meme is founded solely and exclusively on the basis of nothing more than those climate model outputs you might stop and reconsider your position on CAGW.

                Now Frank, if you don’t read that Climate Audit post and all the comments I would assume you don’t want your belief in the climate catastrophe ideology to be challenged by actual facts in any way.
                In short your mind would then be classed as already being totally closed to any other science based inputs on the global climate.

                Or alternatively it is far beyond your mental capabilities because you want it to be, to actually read and mentally comprehend and analyze for yourself the guts of the Climate Audit post, the comments and the implications of what you will read there about climate models directly from a few of the scientists involved on which the entire CAGW meme is entirely based and has been for some two decades.

                And for your information, as far as can be ascertained, Steve McIntyre was a luke warmer and possibly still is.
                He just ain’t saying.

                140

              • #
                the Griss

                I’m sure that EVERYONE can see that in a multitude of empty posts, Frank has offered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the way of proof of ANYTHING.

                He is totally incapable of providing even one piece of science to support his irrational belief in CAGW.

                Everyone can see that he is constantly trying to weasel his way around his total lack ability to provide any proof.

                We are waiting, Frank !!!

                60

              • #
                the Griss

                ROM,

                Steve is a mathematician (as am I). (Honours degree. BSc (maths))

                Steve looks ONLY at the science and mathematics supporting the AGW agenda (as do I)

                That science and maths has been found sadly lacking

                I don’t really care which way the maths and science leads,

                I have no agenda and no hand in any trough.

                …I am perfectly open to being converted by “the science”,

                but no matter how many times,

                … and no matter who I ask..

                .. NO-ONE has been able to produce a paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

                Every piece of solid science/maths/physics that I have seen points exactly the other way…. ie…

                CO2 concentrations have NO EFFECT on atmospheric temperature.

                100

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Hello there Franki

                You would be surprised to learn that many of the “bloggers” om this site have qualifications which outstrip those of the 60, or was it 58, renowned climate scientist who originally authored this scam of CAGW.

                It may even surprise you to learn that Models can be created WITHOUT COMPUTERS.

                The sly Emphaasis (no that wasn’t a spelling error – just sound it out please) on computer size is just another part of the East Anglia – IPCCCCC – RIO – Paris soon, Copenhagen (lovely old girl by the sea, once I sailed away —–)etc CAGW scam.

                They did good – but we’ll get them in the end.

                The only question is can we sell their homes and possessions to get our money back.

                KK

                90

          • #
            the Griss

            You want published.

            From the Abstract….

            “Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

            The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible.”

            So….

            Let’s see something, ANYTHING, from you, that shows that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

            Put up or shut up. !!

            91

          • #
            the Griss

            Some more reading for you, Frank

            Come back when you have something other than your usual empty rhetoric to refute it.

            61

            • #
              Frank

              G ,
              You are joking ?
              That old hockey stick crap was been debunked years ago, get up to speed lad.

              19

              • #
                the Griss

                [SNIP - Griss points out Frank is an empty hand]

                [Griss, you are resorting to ad hominem arguments, which is "regrettable". If it continues, you will be moderated] -Fly

                51

              • #
                the Griss

                “That old hockey stick crap was been debunked years ago”

                Yes Mann’s hockey stick WAS debunked many years ago.

                Keep up to date, Frank. !!

                61

              • #
                the Griss

                [SNIP]

                61

              • #
                the Griss

                [SNIP]

                61

              • #
                the Griss

                [SNIP]

                61

              • #
                the Griss

                You say debunked ?

                Please provide a paper that debunks the post I linked to.
                [SNIP]

                41

              • #
                the Griss

                Sorry Fly, I shouldn’t tell you your job, be bad.. :-(

                Just frustration at Frank’s totally inability to back up ANYTHING he says with any sort of science.
                [Griss, see my comment to Frank at 33.2.2.1 -Fly]

                51

              • #
                Olaf Koenders

                Throughout this interglacial, we’ve had strong warming and cooling periods, roughly 1000 years apart, with CO2 doing nothing to cause those warm periods because it wasn’t doing much anyway.star comment

                So we get another warming, CO2 goes up a bit and suddenly there’s “causation” by the warmists. Sorry, but if this was taken to court then the charge of CO2 being the culprit would be thrown out – not due to massive reasonable doubt but a severe lack of evidence that doesn’t correlate at all with the past.

                Some questions for you Frank – I don’t expect them answered intelligently, more likely I’ll be referred to RealClimate because you’re a lazy thinker, but we’d really like to know:

                * How is it that delicate aragonite corals evolved when CO2 was some 20x higher than today?

                * With CO2 so much higher in the past and warmists expecting a LINEAR scale to CO2 heat trapping effect, why was there never a runaway greenhouse, ever?

                * How is it that CO2 was many times higher than today even during deep ice ages?

                * You understand that CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis and farmers actually pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yields, right?

                * Do you know that Viking graves in Greenland now are in permafrost – something almost impossible to dig without hydraulics? Vikings colonised and farmed Greenland 1000 years ago, why did they leave 300 years later?

                * The Little Ice Age is documented in paintings from the 1600’s where the Thames and Hudson rivers froze 10ft thick most winters and the locals held fairs on them. Are you aware of this at all? Are you aware this was caused by the “Maunder Minimum”, a time when very few Sunspots and Solar activity occurred?

                * Do you remember when an imminent “ice age” was predicted in the 70’s?

                * Are you aware that Global temps rose sharply between 1910 and 1940, then fell sharply between the 40’s to the 70’s? Did Man have something to do with it or is my next question the answer?

                * Do you understand the cycles of the oceans (PDO, AMO, ENSO) and their impact from warm to cool and back again over regular decadal scales?

                * Why is it that in a desert, you can fry during the day and freeze at night, but not in the tropics? What magical atmospheric component is missing in a desert to cause this and therefore, is CO2 actually trapping any catastrophic heat at all? A clue – notice how the night is usually warmer when it’s overcast?

                * Have you noticed that CO2 continues to climb but Global temps have flatlined for the last 18 YEARS? Why the disconnect?

                * Are you aware that according to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~397 ppm, accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level?

                * Do you understand that warm water outgasses CO2 – try opening a warm and a cold bottle of soda water. The warm bottle bubbles over vigorously. Do you now understand that the oceans could never become “acidic”, considering their pH ranges from 7.9 to 8.3, depending on where you measure it and, that the pH scale is also logarithmic?

                * How do you explain the findings of ancient tools and tree stumps under retreating glaciers?

                * Have you seen the geologic records that show CO2 rising AFTER temp rises by some hundreds of years?

                * Have you discovered Milankovitch Cycles – how the Earth has cyclical wobbles in its orbit being tugged on by other planets causing major changes in our distance from the Sun?

                * Have you discovered that on very regular cycles, the Earth suffers a major ice age about every 100,000 years lasting many times longer than our current interglacial? Do you think that’s connected to my previous question?

                * Why is it that some 90%+ of species live around the Equator?

                * Figures are readily available to show winters kill more people than summers – have you looked into them and why do you think retirees look forward to living in warmer climates?

                * Are you aware that the Arctic ice extent is now similar to the 1979 annual mean? Do you really think it’s going to be “ice free” at all this NH summer?

                * Are you also aware that cat 3+ cyclones making landfall in the US and tornadoes are at record lows? The NOAA has figures on that if you dare look.

                * Does it make sense that “climate scientists”, being largely (if not totally) government funded, need to continue blaming Man for CO2 ills since governments want to tax us on it and, if they say it’s not, they’ll lose their jobs?

                All of the tip-toeing, cherry-picking and completely unscientific (if not impossible) explanations I see on sites in support of AGW are truly far-fetched wonders of the age. They seem to suggest that surface winds are somehow stopping hot water from rising? Nonsense. All that rubbish and referencing to desperately try and explain-away the now 18 year warming pause.

                If you get the temp charts and scale them by whole degrees (something we might physically feel – maybe) then they’d be a straight line not even resembling static.

                When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.

                180

              • #
                the Griss

                Olaf, I doubt you will get even one answer to any of those points.

                Its not something Frank ‘does’.

                50

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Olaf

                I’ve ead the first three paragraphs of your post and it looks very interesting.

                I’m going to top up my drink and come back and finish it off.

                The post that is.

                KK

                40

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                [removed double comment- Jo]

                20

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Can nobody rid me of this duplicate?

                30

              • #
                Olaf Koenders

                Hi Griss. I’m not expecting an answer, just putting out a match with a torrent of water.. ;)

                KK: Maybe your mouse button is becoming faulty and double-clicking imperceptively?

                60

              • #
                Popeye26

                KK

                Sounds like you’ve topped up once too often already – hang on – need up top up myself.

                :-) :-)

                Cheers,

                30

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                No Olaf

                It’s more like what Popeye said

                I didn’t proof read and saw the error and tried to change it. No go.

                :)

                30

            • #
              Frank

              Fly,
              Just asking questions that dont get answered.
              I think Griss is the angry one.

              01

            • #
              Frank

              Hello Jo,

              I have never asked for money, that’s a red herring .
              By my ‘grand claims’ you must mean my accusations of conspiracy theories which I still maintain. Its a defense response to justify why the whole credible scientific community rejects your arguments.
              I didn’t miss much by not viewing the whole dialogue , the standard of scientific debate is pretty low, consisting of exchanges of cherry-picked data followed by mutual backslapping , interspersed with trivia, hence my oft repeated request that all this evidence be formerly submitted. This was not properly answered and instead I got criticism of the peer review process and the scientific world in general, suggesting it was corrupted, thereby further supporting my CT assertion.
              If after 5 years of asking for evidence in blogworld you say you’ve had no answer , then you should ask the scientific community instead, that’s where it counts.
              The evidence for AGW is overwhelming . You are a tiny minority making all sorts of accusations, the burden of proof is in your camp, just publish it properly for peer review and it could all be over. To this request I only get reversal of proof demands or more CT responses.
              Looking forwards to the book’s peer reviews.

              12

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Hi Franki

                You seem to have missed the main point.

                Warmers proclaiming ” Man Made Carbon dioxide Did it” are under-qualified cranks looking for Green Fame and or money.

                We ARE the scientific community and are more than equipped to understand that NO CASE has ever been made scientifically to substantiate the CAGW meme.

                We are STILL waiting.

                Waiting ……

                KK

                11

              • #
                the Griss

                “The evidence for AGW is overwhelming .”

                Then produce some. !!!!

                So far, all you have is just a hollow, zero-substance, echo-chamber.

                Even after the help of all those societies….
                (I assumed you have asked them. yeah.. as if ! ;-) )

                .. you still can’t produce a single paper to support the most basic hypothesis of the AGW fantasy.

                Quite funny, really. :-)

                21

              • #
                Robert

                You are a tiny minority making all sorts of accusations, the burden of proof is in your camp, just publish it properly for peer review and it could all be over.

                You must have some mental defect that you are struggling with. I would prefer not to have to mention it but it is quite obvious considering that you have been told numerous time that minorities and majorities have nothing to do with this, that is a figment of your own distorted view of the scientific process.

                The burden of proof is not in our camp, never has been and never will be. Each time you try that line of bull you establish to everyone who actually has some training in the hard sciences, regardless of which side of this debate they are on, that you have no clue how science is done or what science is.

                We understand why you can do nothing but make accusations of conspiracy theories, after all you have succumbed to the biggest of them all, it shaped your opinion of who we are and drives your comments. You should look a little harder in the mirror Frank, because everything you are constantly trying to accuse everyone here of is all in your own mind.

                However your comments here are more than sufficient to validate our assessment of you and your scientific illiteracy.

                10

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Frank, (@71)

                … the whole credible scientific community rejects your arguments.

                Who conducted the survey? How many scientists were canvassed? What was the response rate? How were the responses distributed across the entire spectrum of scientific endeavor? What was the proportionality that justifies the claim that, “the whole community” were of one accord? Do you consider Applied Scientists to be part of the scientific community? Do you include Registered Engineers to be included in the community, as part of the Applied Sciences?

                Can you see how eight little words, when phrased as a logical fallacy, can totally destroy your credibility? Or perhaps it is a spelling error, and you meant to type, “the whole of the incredulous scientific community …”?

                20

              • #
                Robert

                You are a tiny minority making all sorts of accusations, the burden of proof is in your camp, just publish it properly for peer review and it could all be over. To this request I only get reversal of proof demands or more CT responses.

                It is you trying a reversal of proof demand. The burden of proof is on the one claiming that CO2 causes X, not on the person who disagrees with that claim.

                Do try and learn some science before you start crying about how we ignore your requests.

                It is quite simple Frank, until you can make a request that is valid under the scientific method with regards to establishing the validity of a hypothesis, then we will ignore you and continue to correct your “request” that we provide the proof.

                In short Frank, pull your head out of your ______.

                00

          • #

            Looking through the green & red thumbs I thought all the trolls had gone with tails between their legs but no here is Frank who has been taken in by the political scam. He clearly has no understanding of engineering science or is overcome by his political stance to not see through the scam. Frank, have you also been taken in by promises of money from the Nigerian scamers? I bounce the emails so now I rarely see one in my junk (spam) box. I suggest that you should bounce those emails from “green” organisations you support (eg greenpeace, ACF, Senators -Milne, Ludlam, Waters, S H-Y, Wish-Wilson etc) These people and organisations including the IPCC have been influencing governments around the world to make life difficult for the poor, sending more into poverty and even taking action to kill large numbers of poor. Maybe their aim is to reduce the worlds population. Do you feel comfortable with that??

            100

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Well said FLY

            KK

            50

          • #
            Robert

            The burden of proof is on you, its science, its falsifiable, just get out of the sand pit and publish.

            No the burden of proof is not on us. Never has been. Null hypothesis.

            Since you have no proof and apparently can’t grasp higher mathematics or understand the scientific method then that is all you are able to do, constantly come here and claim the burden of proof is on someone else when it is not.

            The claim is CO2 causes global warming, more to the point it will cause catastrophic, runaway global warming. Yet there is no proof this is the case outside of models. Models are not evidence.

            The claim needs to be proven, we do not need to prove it wrong, you need to prove it is correct. Or the climate “scientists” do. They haven’t yet and they’ve had a couple decades with which to try.

            Learn something about science, the scientific method, as well as the difference between a theory and a hypothesis before you come here spouting off. Your skill set is lacking in every way possible.

            120

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              That really hits the spot and gets us right out of the fantasy zone inhabited by the Warmers!

              70

            • #
              James Bradley

              Spot on.

              The dams are full.

              Snow is on the ground.

              Polar caps aren’t melting.

              Global temperatures remain within normal parameters.

              Increased CO2 coincides with increased crop yields.

              Gore, Suzuki and Flannery buy waterfront mansions.

              11,885 papers out of 11,944 did not support man made global warming.

              the failure of CO2 based warming models proves CO2 is not a factor.

              Michael Mann is not a Nobel Laureate.

              Australia has a negative carbon footprint.

              Truth is self evident.

              71

            • #
              Frank

              Robert,
              Yet another cry for more evidence when you are surrounded by it, its like talking to young earth creationists, science is not the issue.
              You are in the tiny minority, the burden of proof is most defintely with you.
              Merry Christmas

              =—-
              So stop talking about the mountain of evidence and provide some. – Jo

              07

              • #
                Robert

                Frank, you can claim all you want that the burden of proof is on us, that will never make it true. It has to do with the scientific method and how a hypothesis is validated. These things have not changed, and you cannot change them. It is how science is done. It has absolutely nothing to do with majorities or minorities and it never has.

                I would like to be charitable, but after weeks of this type of ploy from you I no longer can, I will just say that you have to be one of the most thick headed and scientifically illiterate people I have ever run across.

                Now as to this evidence we are surrounded by it should be easy for you to provide an example if it exists in such profusion (look it up). Why is it you are unable to?

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                YAWN..

                Another empty, hollow post from Frank.

                One wonders why he bothers when he knows he can produce NOTHING to support his irrational, un-scientific religion.

                00

              • #
                Robert

                Griss, one my my relatives has an 8 year old son who was visiting the other day. He’s been assessed as reading at a high school level. He looked through some of the comments here and made the following observation after reading some of Frank’s comments. And I quote him: That guy isn’t very smart is he?

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                Another paper that brings into question the basic theory behind AGW (pdf. open in new tab or right-click to save)

                The Conclusion of the pdf. (my bolding)

                “There is of course an even simpler way of looking at the NOAA data. The AGW theory claims the earth is warming because rising CO2 is like a blanket, reducing Earth’s energy loss to space but the NOAA data shows that at least for the last 30 years Earth’s energy loss to space has been rising. The last 30 years of NOAA data is not compatible with the theory of AGW.
                It would appear that either 30 years of NOAA data is wrong or the theory of AGW is very severely flawed.

                10

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @Mod – that would require substance. SOmething so far not demonstrated.

                10

          • #
            Climate Researcher 

            Produce VALID physics, Franky boy! I have already shown the errors in Pierrehumbert’s book so don’t just cite it. None of the radiative forcing “fissics” explains any temperatures on Earth, let alone other planets. Why is it hotter at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus than it is on Earth’s surface, Frank? I can explain with valid physics. Be the first in the world to win the $5,000 reward I have offered to anyone who can prove the physics I present to be substantially incorrect and likewise my study that water vapor cools. Are you so gullible that you believe the IPCC clain that water vapor does most of that “33 degrees” of warming? It doesn’t do any – it cools by a few degrees, thank Heavens. Gravity causes the “lapse rate” and that explains why the surface is at the temperatures we observe.

            30

  • #
    Val

    There must be a lot of squirrels in South America, Africa and Indonesia.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30399073

    60

  • #
    pat

    kill CAGW to save our sanity!

    18 Dec: NoTricksZone: P. Gosselin: World’s Second Largest Reinsurer Swiss Re Sees Huge Drop In Losses From Natural/Manmade Catastrophes In 2014!
    According to preliminary Swiss Re estimates, total economic losses from natural catastrophes and man-made disasters were USD 113 billion in 2014, down from USD 135 billion in 2013. Out of the total economic losses, insurers covered USD 34 billion in 2014, down 24% from USD 45 billion in 2013. The 2014 loss amount is way below the annual average of $188 billion dollars for the past 10 years, 1.e. over 41% less.
    The Swiss Re press release writes that disaster events have claimed around 11,000 lives this year – down almost a whopping 60% from the 27,000 fatalities in 2013…
    The Zurich, Switzerland based reinsurer attributes the reduced damage in part to “the mild hurricane season“. It adds: “No major hurricane made landfall in the US, the ninth year running that this has happened.” …
    Moreover, the major losses resulted from cold events. The Swiss Re writes that “2014 started with extreme winter conditions in the US and Japan and, as the year drew to a close, the Northeast US was once again gripped by very low temperatures and heavy snow…
    Another myth bites the dust…
    http://notrickszone.com/2014/12/18/worlds-second-largest-reinsurer-swiss-re-sees-huge-drop-in-losses-from-naturalmanmade-catastrophes-in-2014/

    this winter is looking pretty harsh too!

    18 Dec: Weather.com: Sean Breslin: Japan Snowstorm Dumps Feet of Snow, Kills 11; Hundreds of Flights Canceled
    “As of late Thursday night, local time, Tsunan, Japan reported a snow depth of 81.5 inches (207 centimeters),” said weather.com meteorologist Jon Erdman. “Seven other locations in western Honshu reported at least 150 centimeters (about 59 inches) of snow depth, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency.”…
    Travel was also affected by the big storm, both in the air and on the ground…
    http://www.weather.com/safety/winter/news/japan-snowstorm-latest-news

    90

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Nice one Pat.

      Naturally all this evil snow was caused by a wobbly circumpolar vortex, caused by a consensus on global warming, which also occurred in the 70′s, caused by a consensus on global cooling.

      These climate scientists are amazing.

      70

  • #
    Bevan

    That is obviously the reason why Dr John Christy’s summary of 36 years of satellite lower tropospheric temperature measurement showed that the greatest rate of temperature increase was over Baffin Bay in Northern Canada. This was in contrast with the least warming, namely cooling over Dome C in the Antarctic in spite of both areas having the same rate of increase in CO2!
    Perhaps man-made CO2 goes South and rodent CO2 goes North – something to do with the magnetic field perhaps. Or is it rats in your Cray super-computer?

    80

    • #
      NielsZoo

      …greatest rate of temperature increase was over Baffin Bay…

      OMG! Those evil squirrels have learned to build boats. Soon nowhere on the planet will be safe.

      30

  • #
    pat

    who would believe a spooky Chatham House survey on CAGW!

    18 Dec: CarbonBrief: Insights from a global survey of climate change opinion
    by Robert McSweeney & Rosamund Pearce
    People say they are more likely to recycle or cut back on energy use at home compared to other actions to reduce their impact on the environment, new survey data suggests…
    We recently reported on a survey carried out for Chatham House examining public opinion about climate change and meat and dairy consumption. But the survey of thousands of people in 12 countries didn’t just ask questions about eating habits. Chatham House has kindly allowed us to delve a little deeper into their data…
    Across the 12 countries, 83 per cent of people surveyed say they agree that humans contribute to climate change. Just seven per cent disagree…
    Polling expert Leo Barasi says the Chatham House poll could show a higher level of agreement because of the ordering of the questions in the survey…
    “[The question] comes after several questions that have told respondents that humans are causing climate change. Because of that, respondents are probably skewed towards saying they think climate change is caused by humans.”
    This is something that Chatham House also notes in their report…
    Research also shows people tend towards affirmative responses such as ‘yes’ or ‘agree’ in questionnaires. In Ipsos MORI’s Global Trends survey, for example, 93 per cent of Chinese respondents said that they agree current climate change is caused by humans, but 51 per cent also said they agree that the recent changes are a natural phenomenon…
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/insights-from-a-global-survey-of-climate-change-opinion/

    MAP: 18 Dec: CarbonBrief: Roz Pidcock: First look at new NASA satellite map reveals global carbon dioxide hotspots
    The map shows an average global concentration of 400 parts per million (ppm) with hotspots of high carbon dioxide in the Southern Hemisphere above southern Africa and Brazil. The scientists attribute this to springtime burning of savannas and forests and clearing land for farming…
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/first-look-at-new-nasa-satellite-maps-reveals-global-carbon-dioxide-hotspots/

    30

    • #

      pat mentions this here:

      People say they are more likely to recycle or cut back on energy use at home compared to other actions to reduce their impact on the environment, new survey data suggests…

      Just an observation here on how the brainwashing is working, making people believe that reducing their electricity consumption ….. at home ….. has an effect.

      Residential power consumption, in other words, what people use in their homes, is a relatively small part of the overall electrical power consumption equation, and here I should say so small as to hardly even register.

      The U.S. is the largest residential consumer of electricity, and even there, it’s only at 38% of the total consumption.

      All of Europe is around 28 to 30%. Australia is at 28%. Japan is around the same as for Europe, and there’s the bulk of the already Developed World. China is around 15%. India around 8%. The rest of Asia is around 10%. Africa is around 5%, if that.

      Now here is this article saying people might reduce their consumption in their homes, but only in some areas of the already Developed World.

      Worldwide, Residential consumption is (probably) around only 15% at the absolute tops.

      The actuality is that Residential power consumption is rising, virtually everywhere.

      So, any reduction in the residential sector of power consumption would be so small as to not even register.

      This so called survey probably would have covered, and let’s actually say it was a substantial number of people.

      Now, I ask you, what do you think they’re going to say so as to not look like fools when asked, you know, Political Correctness and all that.

      A few people in the Developed World are asked if they would cut back consumption in their homes.

      The effect would be so minute it would not even register.

      So, a small cutback in this surveyed area, and even extrapolated out across the rest of the Developed World would be the (tiniest) fraction of one percent, in fact probably with two or three zeroes before the actual number.

      That’s just for the electricity consumption, and electricity consumption is only 40 to 45% of all emissions.

      And that’s just man made emissions.

      You just have to laugh really.

      These people are clutching at straws, making (some) people feel guilty for absolutely ZERO end result.

      This is an absolute joke.

      Tony.

      130

      • #
        Robert

        Tony one of my relatives was constantly unplugging the toaster to “save electricity.” Took quite some time to finally get through to them that when it was off it did not use any. It has no timer, has no memory, nothing. It is either on or off. But because of some article somewhere talking about “saving electricity” the idea had taken root and I had to deal with it.

        The amount of power we would be talking about is trivial. What could have more of an impact is the heat radiating from transformers over time if a person had enough AC to DC devices plugged in throughout the house. It might make the air conditioner work a little harder and that is one device in the home where depending on how long and often it is run the impact on the utility bill will be obvious.

        This is, as you noted, just more “feel good” foolishness.

        60

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          I once calculated that if all of our “at the ready” appliances were left at the ready, it would cost me a grand total of about AUD $7.00 for the whole year.

          KK

          50

        • #

          Have a look at the image at this link, average Australian residential consumption.

          Note how here they have used the curly CFL to indicate Lighting.

          By changing to CFL’s, that percentage has dropped from 7.5% to now just on 7%, virtually nothing.

          So the percentage is this. a saving of 0.5% (Lighting) on 28% (overall power consumption) on 45% of all emissions, a saving of 0.063%, and only in Countries which mandated that light bulbs be changed.

          And please do not ever try and tell me they are better.

          Instead of using a 60W Incandescent in the rooms which used to have them, to get the same lighting, you need to get an 18W (75W equivalent) CFL, as long as it’s a Cool White Daylight one, because the ordinary ones give a yellowish light which is dimmer.

          And as to lasting longer, well we’ve been living here in this home in Rockhampton for four and a half years, and this room where I am now is the one where the light gets the most use, and the CFL in the socket here is the fourth one in that time, and coming from an electrical background, I know to get the brand name bulbs from a Company which does light bulbs, and to not get the Coles or Woolies generics.

          That light bulb change campaign was a wonderful exercise in making money only and had absolutely ZERO to do with saving the Planet.

          Tony.

          120

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            That’s very different useage to what I would have expected.

            I thought water heating was a lot more efficient than that.
            And I thought cooking would have used a lot more power.

            While I have 3 lights on in the house at any one time (max), I notice my neighbours have thier house lit up inside and out constantly.

            Standby power is almost equal to cooking? serious?

            Last winter I got sick of being cold. So I put two heaters on 24C for the lounge all weekend. A rare event for me. I looked for a signal in my power bill when it came in, but couldn’t recognise any difference at all.

            40

          • #
            Robert

            That light bulb change campaign was a wonderful exercise in making money only and had absolutely ZERO to do with saving the Planet.

            I agree completely, incandescent bulbs have been around for years and with the exception of perhaps some special coatings on the bulbs themselves, or special formulas for the glass of the bulb, were not proprietary. Anyone could make them, and they were cheap.

            What a boon to manufacturers to have their new, proprietary CFL bulbs mandated for use by the governments. Now these companies can charge you from $5 to $15 US for a single bulb to use in a room where you used to by them in packs of 4 or 6 for less then $2.

            At the moment I still use incandescent bulbs, with the occasional LED, the only florescent are tube type like you’d find in office spaces, over the work bench in the garage and in the ceiling in the basement.

            We can still buy them in the store. I have a moderate stockpile and add to it now and then.

            At least when one of the old style bulbs breaks all I have to concern myself with is broken glass. Far more environmentally friendly than those corkscrew things they’re shoving on us now.

            90

            • #
              ROM

              Somewhere a few years ago I came across a USA research article which showed from actual data that when consumers buy power saving appliances their power consumption actually increases which is totally contrary to any sensible reasoning

              And the reasons for the increase in power consumption.?
              Human psychology and perverseness at work all over again.

              It came down to; We are doing the right thing by saving power with that new and expensive appliance so we can let ourselves splurge a bit on power use because we have done the right thing with that power saving purchase.

              40

              • #
                Matty

                Well I can see how that might work, if they do their saving on the light and splurge with the power (as in heating), heating being at least one order of magnitude greater in power use.

                Saving on lighting is little more than tokenism.

                50

          • #
            Richard111

            Hmm… no mention of mercury in those CFLs?

            50

          • #
            Olaf Koenders

            Tony, I’ve NEVER had a CFL bulb last the thousands of hours (8000?) they advertise, irrespective of the brand. Not even close. The amount of money you pay for a single bulb offsets (if not obliterates) any energy savings. Then there’s the mercury to consider. Then again I’ve handled liquid mercury countless times over the last 30 years and I’m not completely bonkers yet.. :)

            70

      • #
        Annie

        My use at home is utterly minimal compared with what is poured out of shop and pub doors….heating in winter and cooling in summer. I walked past a cold blast coming out of an hotel door in Alexandra a few days ago…I wonder how much that cost?

        00

      • #
        James the Elder

        And for every dollar I save by conserving electricity, I am hammered by $1.50 in taxes and fees to make up for the lost revenue. The same with gas; the less I drive, the more gas taxes climb.

        00

  • #
    ROM

    As Roger Pielke Jn has been roughly quoted as saying; “Politicians have outsourced climate policy decisions to climate scientists”.

    The activist, ideology driven climate scientists have taken maximum advantage of this abrogation of the policy creation responsibilities by the politicians to impose their own personal ideologies onto the public at large to the extreme detriment of the interests of the public and society.

    Politicians have failed totally to balance the best and broad interests of society they supposedly represent against the claims of the extremely narrow extremist climate science activists ideologically driven demands for harsh imposts to be imposed on society. All based entirely and solely on completely unproven, unverified climate model based predictions that supposedly predict a future climate catastrophe from increasing CO2. And a climate change scenario that is supposed to be catastrophic but which no predictions have ever proven will actually occur or be more severe and outside of the climate variations of the three billion years old past climate.

    As for the true state of climate modeling on which the entire climate catastrophe meme is based in it’s entirety and which has no actual real world evidence to support the climate modelling for which we, the public both personally, individually and collectively are now paying such a high price in both economic terms as well as personally; To get an insight into the real and highly artificial, disconnected almost totally from reality [ thats being very polite ] climate modelling that has driven this whole CAGW/ climate change debacle I would strongly suggest that those who are really interested in why we have such gross distortions forced upon us by ideologically driven climate science activists and it’s modellers should take the time to read all of Steve McIntyres Climate Audit post and particularly the couple of hundred often technical but highly enlightening comments to that post;

    You are likely to be appalled at the standards or complete lack of standards in the climate modeling groups who have created this whole damn climate science farce that we, the public and society are now paying so dearly for in every way possible.

    And incidentally the sheer arrogance of a couple of climate scientists towards the public who to quote “Your opinion does not count!”

    “Unprecedented” Model Discrepancy

    80

    • #
      gai

      ROM,

      The politicians, weasels that they are, are throwing the Climate Scientists under the bus.

      When John Houghton was IPCC Chairman.He said:
      “We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”

      This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. So, IPCC custom and practice dictate that the scientific report will be edited to match the SPM. Such adjustment of Reports to agree with the SPM is stated in Appendix A of the AR5. It says

      4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
      Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies

      50

      • #
        ROM

        gai @ #38.1

        The politicians, weasels that they are, are throwing the Climate Scientists under the bus.
        ____________

        Only because the economics and a very late realisation by the politicians that after some two decades of climate scientists running major economic and societal policy all geared to a supposedly preventing a climate modeled climate catastrophe which at the costs of hundreds of lives , entire formerly productive industries, tens of thousands of jobs and close to a trillion dollars worth of wealth and treasure, it is all becoming a major disaster in economic terms, in job creation and in societal and political dissension and conflict for which the politicians are now starting to get some very serious feed back implications as to their role and their abrogation of their responsibilities to the public and society who elected them to govern on that same public’s behalf.

        And the climate activists are just beginning to trying just walking away from the whole debacle while whistling Dixie in the Dark as though they have nothing to do with the whole two decades long climate modelled catastrophe debacle.

        Ain’t going to work!.

        As the whole global warming debacle collapses over the next few years there are a lot of very disillusioned politicals driven by a whole lot of other sections of the public that, well behind the scenes and well away from the public view, will go after those climate activists scientists in a very big and I suspect very nasty political way as only politicians can.
        Possibly already under way; ie ABC here in Australia

        Get set to see some serious political knee capping of quite a lot of activist climate scientists and their university departments as well as a number of the worst of the climate activist NGO’s.
        India for one has started on Greenpeace as has Russia and I would hazard Peru will very much so.

        And thats just for the first bit of the entree and I would suggest with lots more to come in the next few years as the climate catastrophe meme collapses in both the public’s eyes and in overall science circles , a collapse which is already well under way.

        120

  • #
    pat

    18 Dec: Business Spectator: John Conroy: ACCR claims win in ‘big four’ carbon disclosures
    The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) has today celebrated a successful campaign to force the big Australian banks to disclose how much carbon they finance. ANZ and NAB held their AGMs today, CBA and Westpac’s were held over the last six weeks.
    All 4 banks have improved their disclosure as a result, it said.
    CBA has undertaken to disclose the carbon emissions initially from their lending to the energy sector and then all their lending. NAB has disclosed how much of its lending to the mining sector is to fossil fuels. Westpac has disclosed how much of its lending to the mining sector is to fossil fuels as well as the carbon intensity of its Infrastructure and Utilities portfolio. ANZ has disclosed the emissions intensity of its power generation lending, the ACCR said…
    “We expect other banks will be forced to move to more disclosure rapidly from sustained public, regulatory and shareholder pressure. In particular NAB has committed to facilitating collaboration with other Australian banks to disclose more.
    “There is an increase in awareness of climate risk in Australia after the Lima climate conference and the US China announcements…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/12/19/policy-politics/accr-claims-win-big-four-carbon-disclosures

    ***reminder:

    11 Dec: Herald-Sun: Alan Moran: Fossil-free funds not so clean-cut in long run
    In this vein, the National Australia Bank launched its “Climate Bonds” fund this week. Carrying a 4 per cent interest rate (less than the amount banks offer all long-term investors) this will invest in 17 Australian wind farms and solar energy facilities.
    These facilities are intrinsically risky. They are uncompetitive and depend on the Government requiring electricity consumers to buy their output for 15 years at three times its value.
    If the Government withdraws that requirement, the renewable facilities become insolvent, hence their lobbying for continued climate action, including at the current Lima Conference.
    NAB itself will carry the risk of a change to government policy to renewables but sees the fund as a way of taking debt off its balance sheet. The bank has already lent the money to subsidised energy investments…
    ***In addition to the government regulatory assistance to these investments, taxpayers have also provided 25 per cent of the NAB Climate Bond funds.
    We have done so through the so-called Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a taxpayer-financed entity set up by the former Gillard government…
    Several banks and governments readily support and fund innately uncompetitive renewable energy…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/fossil-free-funds-not-so-clean-cut-in-long-run/story-fni0dcne-1227153138095

    50

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Brunswick Stew is the easy solution to this problem.
    Start with “About 70 squirrels, cut up” . . .

    http://recipes.epicurean.com/recipe/919/brunswick-stew-(squirrel-stew)-for-a-crowd.html

    40

  • #
    Robert

    Squirrels eat nuts, these people are nuts, therefore they are afraid of squirrels. Can I have my grant money now?

    80

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Yes Robert. Yes indeed you can. Here’s a motza of moola to write a paper proving squirrels eat nuts because warmists are nuts.. :)

      40

  • #
    Matty

    The BBC are talking :
    “Speaking to the BBC, he said: ‘They are soil engineers. They break down the soil when they are digging their burrows, they mix the top layer with the bottom layer, they are bringing oxygen to the soil and they are fertilizing the soil with their urine and their faeces.”

    and the squirrels are taking, the p!$$ literally.

    40

  • #
    Manfred

    This beaver/squirrel article per usual, relying on ‘scientific’ estimates, for example:

    Scientists estimate that 200 times more methane is released from beaver ponds now than was being released in 1900.

    Dr Colin Whitfield, from the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, estimated the size of global beaver populations and the amount of area covered by their ponds.

    But now Dr Whitfield and his team have estimated that beaver numbers have grown dramatically to more than 10 million and estimate populations in Europe and Asia could increase by a further four million.

    This appears entirely consistent with the lingua franca of politicised climate ‘science’, for example ‘Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional (Chapter 10) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    My quick view and pdf. count of the chapter found that it uses the word ‘estimate‘ 74 times and ‘could‘ 41 times.

    But I wonder about The Mail peddling this kind of squirrely rubbish. Are they short of stories too, or is it a case of someone wagering Richard Gray, the author of the Beaver article, during a drunken Christmas party to see whether he could extend the climate catastrophe meme with lovely pictures of green meadows and cute looking rabbit-like creatures standing on their hind legs. Honestly.

    Newspaper articles such as this (un)intentionally weave associations and reinforce the global warming meme into wider consciousness (despite the trendless interval in global temperature of 19 years). It is an old (and useful memory trick). Next time you see a photo or hear a discussion about squirrels or beavers, like polar bears, they will be cortically cemented to global warming.

    Are we really that short of real news given the Latest offering in the Journal of Quaternary Science?

    70

  • #
    old44

    Would it help if we could use ground up squirrels as fuel for SUV’s?

    60

  • #
    MacSual

    Just how many of these little arctic ground squirrels are there.
    I bet if they found a bit of ground where a Moose had just been sitting it would be warm as well.
    Next thing it will be ants,after all these little toilers dig holes and bury stuff.

    50

  • #
  • #
    Wombat

    Reminds me of another utterly ludicrous claim made a year or so ago: the really big global warming villains are – wait for it – potato farmers. Some half-wit (no – make that quarter-wit) in a Danish think tank claimed that the soil in the moor area where Denmark’s best potatoes come from is rich in organic matter, and “disturbing” it releases CO2. So the potato farmers should be driven off their land to save the planet.

    50

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Let the warmists eat the nuts they’re forced to steal from squirrels, because they’ve banned everything else. Justice.

      40

      • #
        NielsZoo

        That’s an excellent idea. In order for them to get any additional grant money they must take nuts away from squirrels before they can bury them, thereby protecting the Earth from those evil gases. First we “protect” the squirrels so they Climateers can’t just kill or drug them. We then assign a nuts to funding formula, x number of nuts per y number of dollars/pounds/euros/fezzules for climate research. That should cut the flow of money off immediately. Speaking as one who has kept squirrels as pets I will guarantee you that any human being stupid enough to try and take a nut away from a squirrel will be spending the rest of the day trying to stop the bleeding. Gloves thick enough to stop teeth that can chew through a hickory nut would make grabbing a nut almost impossible.

        We should try to pre-sell the video rights… it will be an instant classic.

        40

  • #
    Amber

    Now we know why climate modelling has grown as a field .What kid grew up thinking the study of squirrel poo is where I want to be .

    50

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Maybe it’s what they wanted to do, but it (like every other rubbish study) wasn’t lucrative, let alone viable, until “Climate Change ©®™” was tacked onto the paper.

      50

  • #
    Paul in Sweden

    Nigel Golden knew that he would have no where to hide if he also named the holy Badgers in the CO2 crimes against GAIA. So he isn’t a complete fool.

    30

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    A little of track, but maybe not. I recall a few years ago where the eco-loonys championed earthworms as the solution to almost everything. Aerate the soil, improve infiltration to boost crop yields, etc. etc. etc. Then a pyramid scheme was started based on this widely held truth. A few slicky-boy con men started selling worm farms and touting the fortune one could make growing and selling the worms. As in all pyramid schemes, the people at the bottom finally figured out they had been taken and the whole scheme collapsed. But the fact was earthworms are good for the soil and will thrive where good soil conservation cropping systems are used.
    Hope the green leftists do not discover earthworms and try to get rid of them.

    70

    • #
      DonS

      All those uncounted billions of earthworms churning soil and turning dead plants into fertiliser freeing all the CO2! Those bastards!

      They are out there even now, I can almost hear them laughing at us. That’s it, I’m getting a big knife and am going to crawl around the backyard stabbing the lawn. That will fix those little bludgers. I only hope I don’t frighten the neighbours too much.

      Wait a minute, if I cut an earthworm in two don’t I just end up with 2 earthworms? I might have to re-think my strategy. :)

      60

  • #
    Beachcomber

    So the problem is actually squirrels and badgers eh? And here I was thinking that all of the AGW nonsense was being generated by rabbits

    50

    • #
      Robert

      Well I was worried about my dogs since they like to dig in the yard, but now that I know it’s the squirrels that are guilty I feel better. Since the dogs chase the squirrels out of the yard do I get some free carbon credits? Will I have to give them back if the dogs ever catch one of the squirrels? I’m getting the feeling no one really thought this thing through…

      60

    • #
      Paul in Sweden

      What happened to the days of ♫ Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.

      50

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Paul,

        Not sure how much Sun the English would be enjoying but here in Newcastle we have great summers and relatively mild winters (no ice or snow on the coast)

        If you put these coordinates into Google Earth it will take you to our local Beaches, particularly Bar Beach where I spent most of my summers until the age of 13.

        32°56’32.45″ S 151°46’07.12″ E

        KK

        30

  • #
    pat

    for those following UK Dept of Climate Change’s efforts to ensure the lights stay on:

    18 Dec: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: New gas plants ‘to be shelved after failing to win subsidies’
    Government scheme to keep lights on offers lower subsidies than expected, saving consumers money but meaning big new power plants unlikely to be built, experts say
    Under a new “capacity market” policy, designed to keep the lights on, ministers are offering retainer-style subsidy contracts to existing or proposed plants to guarantee they will be available when needed from 2018.
    At least eight big new gas plant projects were vying for the contracts but are thought to have missed out in favour of existing old plants that are cheaper to keep running…
    A “reverse auction” to award the contracts has been taking place this week and is understood to have closed on Thursday night at a price of between £15 and £20 per kilowatt of capacity – far lower than had been expected by the industry, and less than half the £42 assumed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in its impact assessment…
    The capacity market was originally launched as a way of ensuring that there would be enough reliable fossil fuel plants to act as back-up for intermittent wind and solar power, as old coal plants are shut down by environmental rules…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11302588/New-gas-plants-to-be-shelved-after-failing-to-win-subsidies.html

    18 Dec: Guardian: Terry Macalister: Consumers face £750m subsidy scheme bill for generators to keep lights on
    But price demanded by energy companies in government’s ongoing ‘capacity market’ auction is substantially lower than feared
    Energy consumers look set to pay at least £750m a year extra after a government-run auction finished with some power companies winning subsidies of between £15 and £20 per kilowatt of generating plant. This was significantly lower than the £75-per-kW price level that opened the bidding sessions on Tuesday but could still leave ministers being asked to justify why such “capacity payments” are being made at all…
    “This low price is better for consumers but it looks like it is being used just to keep existing coal, nuclear and gas-fired plants running. You have to wonder whether these plants would have remained open anyway and really need these capacity payments,” said one analyst. …
    The capacity mechanism is just one of a number of measures being implemented by the government to keep the lights on…
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/18/consumers-subsidy-scheme-bill-energy-companies-government-capacity-market-auction

    20

    • #
      Paul in Sweden

      The world needs examples of the very real dangers of Global Warming Climate Change Policies which are already detrimentally effecting the environment, as well as each and every one of us but disproportionately hard on the poor. The UK has pushed Denmark, Germany and Spain out of the way on this fools venture and has chosen to be the Crash Test Dummy of Climate Change Policies.

      60

  • #
    DoubtingDave

    I think the authors of this rubbish have missed a trick, they havent realised that they’ve discovered a real positive feedback loop!!!. Plants love C02 so when small fury animals release more C02 they help increase the greening of the planet ,increasing the range of habitat for small fury animals ,increasing their numbers and then releasing more C02 into the atmosphere and so on and so on. by the year 2100 there will be a squirrel climbing up the north pole to get at the birdfeeder!! we’re all doomed

    40

    • #
      the Griss

      All part of the carbon cycle of ALL life on Earth.

      The small amount we have de-sequestered as fossil fuels is working MIRACLES for the world environment. !

      30

  • #
    Robert

    So that “whack a mole” game was really a training tool for would be saviors of the world.

    60

  • #
    sophocles

    I smell a rat …
    I see him forming in the air and darkening the sky!
    I shall nip it in the bud!

    Baronet Sir Boyle Roche … MP (Grattan Parliament 1775-1800)

    The Rodentia have been blamed for many things including spreading bubonic plague, but this is a startling revelation of their climatic impact. Must be all their gnawing …

    30

  • #
    ROM

    Is this now the fate of Climate science and all it’s vacuous scientific off shoots ?

    From Plumbago Quotes;

    The juvenile seasquirt wanders through the sea searching for a suitable rock or coral to cling to and make its home for life.
    For this task it has a rudimentary nervous system.
    When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn’t need its brain anymore so it eats it.
    It’s rather like getting tenure.

    - Warren C. Lathe II (netperson)

    100

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      LOL!!

      30

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      ROM. Bravo! Best real world analogy I have seen to those who get tenure and then gouge the system for salary and perks the rest of their lives while working a few hours a week when the wish to work. Many days and weeks, and months they do not wish.

      10

  • #
    Dave

    Well
    Tim Flannery has beaten the squirrel story on ABC Radio

    You have to go to the audio link after this

    Don’t listen to all of it but if you do, the whole thing is full of alarmist garbage
    Amazing there are no comments even though it was recorded 4 days ago.

    At 6.10 minutes in
    Tim says he was in Western Victoria and:

    “Some of his mates used to get around in GUM BOOTS in the 1970′s all Winter”

    A worry is – he was born in 1956 – so he talked to western Victorian farmers when he was between the age of 14 to 24?

    But NOW:

    “They growing crops now, acres of canola crops, that’s a big change”

    “It’s been decades since I had to knock the ice off my razor cup” another tool of a comment.

    He is now the biggest JOKE in AUSTRALIA
    Unbelievable that the ABC still give him mileage?

    He’s running out of money quickly, he’s after a new job.

    But his record is so BAD, he’s unemployable.

    Good bye Tim Flannery

    60

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      That post warms the cockles of my heart!

      Thank you.

      40

    • #
      the Griss

      ““It’s been decades since I had to knock the ice off my razor cup””

      ummm.. I thought he now lived on the Hawkesbury River. !

      DOH !!! Maybe he should consider that a change of location might have something to do with it.. !

      50

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Haha.. Gumboots were a fashion statement in the 70′s. As a kid I remember it being pretty wet in Victoria for some years. We often wore gumboots to school, but only in winter. I loved those stormy winter nights, heavy rain lashing the roof for days and nights on end.

      Since then the oceans have turned and things have changed a little, but they’ll change back again. It’s always winter after summer.

      50

      • #
        Annie

        Actually, it was pretty wet around this part of Victoria this winter just gone. Our paddocks were extremely soggy for weeks.

        30

  • #
    Richard Hill

    Jo,
    Are you aware of Dec 16 release…
    http://www.antarctica.gov.au/news/2014/antarctic-ice-cores-tell-1000-year-australian-drought-story
    Curious people might like to get your opinion.
    Clearly little link from CO2 to drought.
    (Sorry about OT comment, I couldnt find a better way to contact you)

    20

  • #
    pat

    very odd piece:

    18 Dec: Uni of Qld: The Great Barrier Reef should not be listed as ‘in danger’
    By Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and Justine Bell
    The Australian government has stepped up its campaign this month to prevent the Great Barrier Reef being listed as a World Heritage site “in danger” at international meetings next year.
    The World Heritage Committee — the international body that oversees World Heritage sites — has shown increasing concern about the future of the reef over the past three years, and in response has threatened to list the reef as a World Heritage site “in danger”…
    While there has been legitimate criticisms from the expert community (including the authors) of the plan given it is vague on quantitative targets and specific strategies, and strangely silent on the implications of a growing climate crisis for the Great Barrier Reef, many of the efforts of state and federal governments have gone a long way to meeting the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee.
    With this in mind, there is an argument to say that the World Heritage Committee should not re-list the reef as “in danger”. After all Australia appears to have met most of the recommendations and should, on the face of it, be recognised as such – perhaps with the caveat that it has much more to do…
    And lastly, it would seem ill-advised that the World Heritage committee remove one of the only levers it currently has over the treatment of the World Heritage listed GBR. The threat of an “in danger” listing is a major incentive for Australia to improve its game, and has already prompted some reform. With this lever gone, the influence of UNESCO would largely disappear along with, most probably, any political will to prevent the further decline of the once-pristine reef.
    The devil is in the detail…
    http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/12/great-barrier-reef-should-not-be-listed-danger%E2%80%99

    10

  • #
    Popeye26

    A bit off topic BUT:

    Greenpeace HYPOCRITES strike again.

    What is it with the left and their hypocrisy?

    Cheers,

    10

  • #
    speedy

    That was a parody – right???

    10

  • #
    David S

    KILLER SQUIRRELS DESTROY THE WORLD !

    At least us humans are off the hook.

    10

  • #
    Climate Researcher 

    KK @ 10-5-3 said “It is almost certain that processes of orbital mechanics of the solar system control the approx 100,000 year cycle of freezing and heating undergone by Earth over the last couple of million years.”

    Yes – Jupiter affects the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit causing that to vary in a cycle of about 100,000 years. The variation in eccentricity leads to variation in the annual mean distance of Earth from the Sun, and thus affects climate.

    Planetary orbits also affect the shorter climate cycles, probably due to their magnetic field affecting the Sun. Earth climate is compellingly well correlated with the 934-year and superimposed 60-year cycles in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets. See this paper which I first linked over three years ago.

    11

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Good item.

      There are bigger things affecting our planet that human derived atmospheric CO2.

      KK

      20

    • #
      Dorian

      Orbital mechanics of our Solar System are not enough to discribe our climate.

      Take note of our Ice Ages. Our present cycle of Ice Ages have only lasted the last 1,000,000 years. From 1 million years ago to nearly 300 million years ago there have been NO Ice Ages; this clearly understands the orbital dynamics argument.

      Something did change 1 million years ago. But what isn’t clear. Could it be our sun, Sol, that has changed? Our could it be something cosmological, like the number the neutrino hitting Earth where some sort of super nova, neutron star collapse occurred. You see the problem is this, there have been ONLY two periods of ice ages in the last 500 million years. The last one lasted for about 50 million years, continuous, that is not like the present ice age period we are in now, where it cycles from cold to warm for over the last 1 million years. Is there a cycle that is 300 million years old? Could be. Could be also as I said that some has changed out there in the Cosmos and we are feeling the effects.

      One thing is for sure, our ice ages are not made by orbital mechanics of the planets, or because of changes of the Earth’s thermodynamic processes. Or at least, the evidence is very much to contrary. The only way will know what it could be, is that we do ice cores analyzes on other planets or moons, like Mars, or Saturn’s or Jupiters moons. If we see the same sort of variances there as we do on Earth, then we will know for sure that our ice-ages are cosmic in origin, which I’m quite sure they are.

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        “Orbital mechanics of our Solar System are not enough to discribe our climate.”"

        ?

        My very general comment naturally included the possibility of our system passing through regions where Galactic fields might periodically react with the Suns activity.

        That our Climate is generated and determined by something off the planet, is inescapable in the 100,000 year time frame and obviously includes the 24 hour cycle not mentioned much by warmers; you can just average that out..

        Man made CO2 sure didn’t do it.

        KK

        00

  • #
    pasinby

    Wow, just WOW !

    00

  • #
    Sam Pyeatte

    The only good thing about these ridiculous claims from the far-left eco-freaks is it completely discredits them. Life is biochemistry and the climate on the Earth supports it completely – sort of like it was designed that way… Who knew?

    10

  • #
  • #

    [...] beavers and ground squirrels are Bad for “climate change”. The obvious solution is to kill them in order to reduce nature caused changes to the climate. Now, myself and Jo Nova are being [...]

    00

  • #
    BruceC

    Frank; This was not properly answered and instead I got criticism of the peer review process and the scientific world in general, suggesting it was corrupted, thereby further supporting my CT assertion

    LOL, peer-review in todays science means nothing. Anybody can get a paper ‘peer-reviewed’…….even Maggie Simpson, Edna Krabappel, and Kim Jong Fun from a non-existent affiliation (“Belford University”);

    http://www.vox.com/2014/12/7/7339587/simpsons-science-paper

    Even though I’m nothing but a retired motor-mechanic, I might even join the PNAS where I can write 4 papers/studies a year….and get to choose my own reviewers;

    http://www.vox.com/cards/savvy-science-reader/peer-review

    00

  • #

    [...] that beavers and ground squirrels are Bad for “climate change”. The obvious solution is to kill them in order to reduce nature caused changes to the climate. Now, myself and Jo Nova are being [...]

    00

  • #

    No surprise that the awesome conservative like (independent, takes responsibility for itself, etc. ;-) ) creature known as the “beaver” should basically end up on the hit-list of the collectivist victim mentality perpetually dependent perpetual hand-wringers.

    As far as they are concerned, anything that builds a dam is evil and Must Be Stopped, yes ?

    As for the squirrels, James Lee springs to mind. As per: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/09/and_of_course_the_squirrels.html

    Ah the irony …

    00

  • #

    Climate “science” is considered a “science.” If it is in fact a “science,” you would expect them to publish articles that rely on the scientific method, not computer models and political agenda reports. If this were a true science the most basic of all evidence the “scientists” would present is evidence that the climate/temperature over the past 50 to 150 years is statistically different from the previous 15 or 20,000 years, or basically since the end of the last ice age. Man is accused of being the sole cause of the increase in CO2 over the past 150 years. While I think the sun warming the oceans and Henry’s Law may explain the increase in CO2 better than Man, In will accept the claim the man made CO2 is driving the climate/temperature change. That is an embarrassingly easy hypothesis to test, and yet you won’t find it published anywhere. Why? Because the data simply doesn’t support the conclusion that man is causing climate/temperature change. This experiment should be taught in every classroom in America:

    Null Hypothesis: Man-made CO2 is NOT causing climate/temperature change over the past 50 to 150 years.

    Data collection: grab any ice core data sent and select out the last 15,000 years or the data representing the post-ice age/Holocene period.
    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/greenlandtemperatures.jpg

    Test the Date: 1) What is the max and min over the past 15,000 year 2) Where do current temperatures fall within that range 3) how much has the temperature changed over the past 50 and 150 years 4) what is the mean temperature over the past 15,000 years 5) is the current temperature 2 standard deviations outside the mean for temperatures? 6) is the rate of change over the past 50 and 150 years outside 2 standard deviations of the rates of change over the previous 15,000 years?

    Reach a conclusion: Does the ice core data demonstrate that the temperature and rate of change in temperature over the past 50 and 150 years is statistically different from the past 15,000 years? Absolutely not, the Null Hypothesis is not rejected, not even close. Don’t take my word for it, test the data yourself. There is absolutely no data supporting this theory that is supported by even the most basic of scientific analysis. This is nothing more than a political movement being led by political activists masquerading at “scientists.”

    00