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

Climate Grief — Believers mourning — It’s denial and anger (but it sure isn’t science)

Those who believe the Glorious Climate Models (GCMs) are in trouble.  Many of them have spent their entire careers soaking in dire predictions, but things are falling apart — (or rather, not falling apart) — the models don’t work, the public doesn’t care, the media are not that interested, and skeptics keep winning Bloggies awards. Spare a thought for them. It’s tough out there for unskeptical people. Children still know what snow is.

Things are unravelling in believer-land and there is pain. They are witnessing “the wholesale destruction of the planet”, or perhaps the death of a hypothesis, which is nearly as bad.

Truthout, where no conspiracy is too grand, and skeptical scientists are bastards

The headline reads:

“Mourning Our Planet: Climate Scientists Share Their Grieving Process”

The 3,000 word extravaganza of psychological pain is published by an NGO aptly called Truthout (think, “LightsOut”?)

“Climate science researchers, scientists, journalists and activists have all been struggling with grief around what we are witnessing.”

There’s an angry professor calling other scientists who disagree “greedy, lying bastards” and talking of backing “you plutocrats, denialists, fossil-fuel hacks “ against the wall. Another professor blames ACD for the driving cause of her depression.

ACD, by the way, is Anthropogenic Climate Disruption. Forget Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) — it is quietly gone, buried in the backyard, thanks to the inconvenient Pause and lack of Global Warming*.

They’re trying on a new term — Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD).

Climate Disruption is everywhere, more vague, scary and infinitely applicable for PR and media.

Here’s an angry professor:

My overwhelming emotion is anger; anger that is fuelled not so much by ignorance, but by greed and profiteering at the expense of future generations“, wrote Professor Corety Bradshaw, the director of ecological modeling at the University of Adelaide.

 ”I am not referring to some vague, existential bonding to the future human race; rather, I am speaking as a father of a seven year-old girl who loves animals and nature in general. As a biologist, I see irrefutable evidence every day that human-driven climate disruption will turn out to be one of the main drivers of the Anthropocene mass extinction event now well under way.”

My message to Prof Corety is that instead of being an angry scientist he could try being a logical one.

I’d say  “Listen to the instruments, rather than the subcommittees. The weatherballoons, satellites, and tide gauges are telling you that climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than the experts-in-unverified models are suggesting.”

Though people are stealing his daughters future, and profiteering too. I daresay they are the ones trashing the scientific method and the economy in the hope they can change the weather.

But Prof Bradshaw’s faith is as complete as his humility is completely-absent:

My frustration with these greedy, lying bastards is personal. Human-caused climate disruption is not a belief – it is one of the best-studied phenomena on Earth. Even a half-wit can understand this. [And university professors too, thinks Jo].

We can hardly argue with “science” like that, can we? The Greedy-lying-bastard Index is irrefutable.

He goes on:

As any father would, anyone threatening my family will by (sic) on the receiving end of my ire and vengeance. This anger is the manifestation of my deep love for my daughter, and the sadness I feel in my core about how others are treating her future.

He of course loves his daughter, and skeptics hate theirs dontchaknow?

Science used to be about dispassionate observations. Now, you’re a good scientist if you are  more mean and angry than the next guy:

Mark my words, you plutocrats, denialists, fossil-fuel hacks and science charlatans – your time will come when you will be backed against the wall by the full wrath of billions who have suffered from your greed and stupidity, and I’ll be first in line to put you there.

He thinks he’ll be first in line, but there’s at least a hundred haters already lined up ahead of him. And they want skeptical scientists strangled, jailed, beheaded, or on a good day, just treated as traitorous war criminals. Some fantasize about exploding skeptical kids. Get behind Greenpeace I say.

The University of Adelaide must be proud of his vocabulary-of-names. Still, it’s not like we could expect him to understand the risks involved with models. Professor Corety Bradshaw is the director of ecological modeling at the University of Adelaide.

 In a post-modern post-science world Touchy-Feely scientists are all the go

Wallowing in anger can be useful, apparently:

The practice of scientists sharing their feelings runs contrary to the dominant consumer capitalist culture of the West, which guards against – and attempts to divert attention from – the prospect of people getting in touch with feelings provoked by witnessing the wholesale destruction of the planet.

The dominant consumer capitalist culture would never make multi-million dollar movies showing emotional scientists saving the Earth. We need to get in touch with that…

In fact, Joanna Macy believes it is not in the self-perceived interest of multinational corporations, or the government and the media that serve them “for us to stop and become aware of our profound anguish with the way things are.”

The message is that the world is about to fall apart: now is not the time for calm numbers and rational thinking. Get with your profound anguish instead.

 

UPDATE: See TdeF’s comment #8 on Prof Bradshaw. His career is built on the belief in man-made climate change and he wails about “profiteers”. Thanks to TdF for the details. Apparently we’ll be hearing more from Bradshaw. I can’t wait. I think the University of Adelaide should wear every single word.  – Jo

_____________

*I’m referring to the pause in “surface” warming of the Globe, where 100.00% of humans live. There may or may not be warming in the deep oceans as recorded by one thermometer per 250,000 cubic kilometers of ocean. That’s another debate.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (184 votes cast)
Climate Grief -- Believers mourning -- It's denial and anger (but it sure isn't science), 9.5 out of 10 based on 184 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ky9jbcu

339 comments to Climate Grief — Believers mourning — It’s denial and anger (but it sure isn’t science)

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    “My overwhelming emotion is anger; anger that is fuelled not so much by ignorance, but by greed and profiteering at the expense of future generations“, wrote Professor Corety Bradshaw, the director of ecological modeling at the University of Adelaide.

    ”I am not referring to some vague, existential bonding to the future human race; rather, I am speaking as a father of a seven year-old girl who loves animals and nature in general. As a biologist, I see irrefutable evidence every day that human-driven climate disruption will turn out to be one of the main drivers of the Anthropocene mass extinction event now well under way.”

    I have a message for Professor Corety Bradshaw.

    I have never seen the slightest sign of your alarmist predictions coming true. Not a SINGLE ONE HAS COME TRUE. In the meantime I see: the world deteriorating into wanton self indulgence; religious strife so virulent that just to be anything but a believer in one particular brand of Islam should carry a death penalty; back breaking national debt and waste of the hard earned wealth of the productive people spurred on in large part by the global warming that isn’t happening; deterioration of public education into indoctrination; lying government officials; … I could go on and on.

    In March my first grandchild will be born. I fear for his future not because of climate change but because of the insanity I just recited. And frankly, if you don’t like hearing that I think you know where you can go if you want to do something about it. Enough is enough.

    1571

    • #
      the Griss

      “I am speaking as a father of a seven year-old girl who loves animals and nature in general”

      Yet he almost certainly condones, and even wants wind-turbines.
      I dare him to take his 7 year old girl out to look at the carnage those things cause to bird life.

      892

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        As the parent of a young child, I can promise them if they try and force this Grimm fairy tale nonsense on us via physical violence, they will go out backwards….

        I hope they clearly understand that.

        501

    • #
      MacSual

      Wah wah,the people won’t believe our lies boohoo sniffle sniffle ,it’s not fair.
      Mother nature why are you being so cruel to us,we worship you,we love you,why couldn’t you keep on warming,and now we have lied and lied for you we bought politicians for you and still they won’t believe not fair not fair bwaaaahhh.

      390

    • #
      stan stendera

      As a 72 year old who lives animals and nature I say the professor is full of ****.

      330

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        I say the professor is full of ****.

        Progressiveness?

        80

      • #
        Barry

        I think we’re being a bit hard on the professor. Maybe he is cleverly delivering a hidden message. Let’s look again:

        ‘My overwhelming emotion is anger; anger that is fuelled not so much by ignorance, but by greed and profiteering at the expense of future generations’, wrote Professor Corety Bradshaw, the director of ecological modeling at the University of Adelaide.

        Well, first he needs to drop in on the Linguistics faculty and ask for some tips on sentence construction. After all, whose ignorance, greed and profiteering does the clause anger that is fuelled not so much by ignorance, but by greed and profiteering suggest has fueled his anger.

        But I see a veiled meaning in the professor’s words. ‘Ignorance’ clearly refers to warmists, and the professor is rightly saying that it is not their ignorance about science that angers him; it is their greed and profiteering that comes from selling their reputations for the sake of grant money and travel allowances. He clearly is also referring to the unscrupulous people who make money from personal appearances, dvd sales and books by pushing the warming scare, and those who profiteer from renewable projects, such as the serial offenders who get government grants, make a token effort to develop a project, skim off the money in administrative expenses and then walk away from the project only to phoenix themselves and apply for another government grant.

        Yes, I think the professor is with us on this one.

        230

        • #
        • #
          Barry

          Correction:
          So that there is no doubt, I neglected to use a question mark at the end of this sentence:

          After all, whose ignorance, greed and profiteering does the clause anger that is fuelled not so much by ignorance, but by greed and profiteering suggest has fueled his anger.?

          40

    • #
    • #
      Dariusz

      ” I am speaking as a father of a seven year-old girl.”

      He is worried about his kid by creating catastrophes. I tell to my son that catastrophes are imaginary when he cries thinking that our house is just about to be flooded or burned.
      But what do I know, I am just a half-wit geologist that reconstructed and continues to reconstruct paleo climates in the last 30 years.

      201

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Oh dear, it appears the tantrums have morphed into a savior complex where only they can see the coming apocalypse but still desperately try to save us out of the goodness of their hearts, this development makes sense when no one takes you seriously but you still crave that sort of global attention, I believe many a former child star has travelled the same road.

    The Truthout website has a definite evangelistic feel to it, I actually checked to see if Brad Keys didn’t have his fingerprints on it…..

    790

    • #
      James Bradley

      Yonnie,

      … and they really don’t like ‘American Sniper’ either do they. I counted (not read – counted) 5 articles trashing it – that’s just on the first page yet other pieces seem to support violence (mainly towards anyone not disposed the Truthout POV).

      480

      • #
        Yonniestone

        American Sniper would be way too much reality for them to handle, not for the technical or artistic aspects but facing the fact that no matter how much they want to live out their ‘alternate reality dream world fantasy’ the real world comes crashing back when a movie like this exposes truth in the light of day.

        Just look at the delusional crap on this site these people are suggesting as actual valid ideas, I think ‘The little Mermaid’ would freak them out because humanoid creatures live under the sea FFS!

        132

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        These ignorant academic bedwetters make me puke because they have a negative understanding of Climate Science. Here are the facts:

        In 1981, Hansen et al invented imaginary -18 °C upper atmosphere ‘OLR’ emission over 360°. They did it because they had been taught ‘back radiation’, a ‘Radiant Emittance’, was real**. But total 571.5 W/m^2 atmospheric warming was too high to be compatible with ‘Lapse Rate’ so they introduced net downwards’ convective heat flow from equally imaginary Down |OLR| Emittance.

        The energy balance is 238.5 + 333 – 238.5 = 333 W/m^2, 40% increase partitioned between oceans and lower atmosphere. It increases lower atmosphere warming 2/3rds, upper atmosphere cooling 1/3rd and, by using 2x real low level cloud albedo in hind-casting, they purported extra evaporation. To complete the sham, they claimed extra cloud albedo from pollution, based on more bad (Sagan) physics, hid the warming. The real effect has the opposite sign.

        BOTTOM LINE: when in 1988 Hansen claimed to Congress more lower atmosphere warming, more upper atmosphere cooling, violent weather, this was based on fake science disguised by modelling complexity. Since then the focus has switched to fiddling past data to pretend these predictions are correct.

        There is no ‘missing heat’; it does not exist. Atmospheric humidity is falling as it automatically compensates for higher [CO2]. There can be NO SIGNIFICANT CO2-AGW, no effect of any other well-mixed GHG, e.g. CH3.

        TO BELIEVE ANY OF IT, YOU HAVE TO BE A GULLIBLE FOOL.

        **For ~50 years Atmospheric Science has taught uniquely that Radiant Emittance is a real energy flux when it is ‘Potential Energy’. They also transpose Emittance for Emissivity. Hansen, Lacis, Lindzen etc. were taught this by Sagan then Goody. CRU brought this nonsense to the UK in 1991. The subject is a hollow sham.

        231

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Very interesting TON!

          KK

          40

          • #
            turnedoutnice

            The Big Fraud is to hide the fact that using standard physics, which specifies that the net IR flux from any plane in Space is the vector sum of Irradiances at that plane, the local (~20m) atmosphere, which is at the same temperature as the surface, has a radiant Emittance for all self-absorbed GHG bands (Irradiance for a collimated beam) which mutually annihilates same wavelength surface Emittance.

            Hence there can be zero net mean Surface IR warming of the atmosphere. The real 63 W/m^2 goes through the lower and most of it through the upper atmosphere.

            So, no Enhanced GHE, no missing heat. increased ‘back radiation’ reduces net surface IR so in a clear atmosphere it has to heat up to increase convection and evapo-transpiration. However, the water cycle directly cools the surface thus offsetting even that warming.

            This is all common sense and correct physics. The Climate Alchemists, now many other people, are taught incorrect radiative physics, e.g. http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node134.html which wrongly teaches that the single S-B equation predicts a real energy flux instead of a Potential Energy Term. The next module transposes Emittance for Emissivity.

            BOTTOM LINE: Because Climate Alchemists have been taught incorrect Radiative Physics, they shout blue murder at real scientists and engineers, like me, who point out that they have been deceived. My aim in the UK is to allow students who have been taught, knowingly at CRU, this false physics to claim a refund of tuition fees because once the Climate Fraud stops, they will mostly be unemployable in real science.

            40

    • #
      MacSual

      We always knew that it was a religion,will they go as far as wearing “vests”to get their point across.
      But the best news of all is that we must be WINNING

      360

      • #
        Originalsteve

        Well, if the climate cult goes the same way of Jim Jones….

        They have painted themselves into a corner – they are hoping the hysterical shreiking and self mutilation ( a modern from of ancient pagan Baal worship? ) will shock people into action.

        Own goal….

        Kind of reminds me of the story of Little Black Sambo and the tigers….

        260

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        There was an occultist called Blavatski who is sort of spiritual grandmother to the UN Agenda 21.

        The general gist of it all is that the occult powers behind the UN Agenda 21 was determined that some form of artificial “crisis” would propel things into the New World Order ( NWO ). They did also specifically say that if people didnt go willingly, the gloves would come off…..I read this to mean wholesale slaughter of humans via a war or engineered biological event.

        I think what were seeing now is there are stirring sof anger and frustration that humanity hasnt taken the “bait” to go willingly.

        That leaves the bloody option remaining – and we know from past activities, they will use it.

        I think people need to stop thinking in terms of humanity. The same people who run the occult were behind hitler and all forms of evil. They view human death as “benevolent” if it means the NWO is brought in.

        Thankfully, God is in control.

        200

        • #
          jorgekafkazar

          God has no sense of urgency.

          50

        • #
          MacSual

          According to scripture the planet will return to its paradisiacal condition at the time of Adam and Eve,everyone will be vegetarian,so why aren’t the green element worshipping the God of Adam and Abraham etc,could it be that isn’t what they really want,they want total control.

          120

      • #
        aussieguy

        It would certainly appear we are winning. Simply because for far too long, they have exaggerated and conducted a mass fear mongering exercise for profit.

        Of course, this sets off a timer. The general public will wait for their bold claims to arrive. When it doesn’t, they will ignore the Climate Change movement. ie: When one cries wolf so many times, it becomes ignored.

        I wonder if Professor Corety Bradshaw has read the story of “The Boy who cried Wolf” to his daughter? It would be a learning experience for both of them!

        Regardless, the Climate Change fervour is pretty much dead as a political issue. Those who have profitted from it are now finding the well of taxpayer money is drying up.

        Hoping to relive their “hey day”, they restart the fervour with even more emotion. But it no longer works. So they get more nutty to the point it sounds like a religious cult. And this drives more people away. (This is how activism fails over time. People just get fatigued from all the “End of the World” claims, endless exaggerations, the “Someone think of the children!” tones, and the eventual “jump the shark” as it fades away.)

        Now they’re claiming one is supposed to “Feel” and “Believe” in science, or else we’ll face the wrath? LOL! …This sounds more like a cult with its obvious semi-Marxist tones. (You dirty, dirty greedy capitalists!…Now repent from your eco-sins and give them money!)


        We are winning, but it won’t be over. Because they simply won’t give up. They believe they are right, because it “feels” right…Even when they are proven wrong.

        So we have no choice but to continually expose them for who they really are. (Often by looking at their backgrounds).

        200

    • #
      Hasbeen

      It is almost funny actually.

      Once upon a time, it used to be barefoot kooks wearing long robes, & even longer unkempt beards that roamed the streets with these fool predictions.

      What I want to know is who gave those kooks the keys to our universities, Research grants, & white lab coats? They can now masquerade as sane human beings, & the media actually treat them as if it were so.

      It would really would be funny, if it weren’t so serious.

      380

      • #

        It is almost funny actually.

        Once upon a time, it used to be barefoot kooks wearing long robes, & even longer unkempt beards that roamed the streets with these fool predictions.

        What I want to know is who gave those kooks the keys to our universities, Research grants, & white lab coats? They can now masquerade as sane human beings, & the media actually treat them as if it were so.

        It is the 97% incompetent professors, staff, and administrators, The 3% competent have no chance!!

        It would really would be funny, if it weren’t so serious. The word is ludicrous!

        70

    • #

      Yonniestone,

      I’m flattered that you were reminded of me, but I can’t claim credit for this. There are limits to my comedic powers.

      60

      • #
        the Griss

        “There are limits to my comedic powers.”

        Yes, definitely! ;-)

        51

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Yes making fun of the insane might be pushing the envelope of ethical entertainment. :)

        Then again ‘Climate Change, the musical’ has a certain air to it…..

        90

        • #
          tom0mason

          “Then again ‘Climate Change, the musical’ has a certain air to it…..”

          Only if it is done as ‘Climate Change, the musical on ice’ …..

          Maybe later we could have “‘Climate Change on Ice’, by the Mime Theater of Adelaide Uni.”

          :)

          110

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Climate Change on ice, love it! :)

            Possible songs,

            - How much is that junket in the Maldives?
            - Lovelock on the rocks.
            - Ice ice baby.
            - Denier inferno (burn baby burn).
            - Chitty chitty green gang.

            Oh the recursive possibilities.

            110

        • #
          stan stendera

          Like “Springtime for Hitler and Germany” in the wonderful comic movie “The Producers”.

          40

  • #
    James Bradley

    You’d think they’d be satisfied they already beat sea level rise, halted global warming and stabalised climate change, they’ve done enough, take a well earned break, let someone else deal with ‘Climate Disruption’.

    I really hope those government employed climate scientists and modellers have a trade to fall back on or some reaLLY good PTSD counselling and other professional help to take the edge off and ensure they don’t have access to firearms.

    600

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Believers mourning — It’s denial and anger (but it sure isn’t science)

    Let’s count the anger on our side of this debate, Jo. It’s time to call a spade a spade.

    How far do we have to tolerate this climate change charade?

    700

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      When I was a kid, I used to poke sticks into ant nests to see the ants all run around in panic.

      No I am older, I no longer play those childish games. I now poke metaphorical sticks into climate alarmist bogiemen – much more satisfying.

      70

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    It’s tough out there for unskeptical people.
    Otherwise known as the gullible.

    500

    • #
      Originalsteve

      Yeah but the thing about being gullible is that it :

      (a) requires no intellectual effort ( thinking is hard work..)

      (b) It means you dont stand out of from the crowd ( security in obscurity… )

      (c) It means you dont really need to have a backbone of any sort ( standing up for an unpopular view is tough at times…)

      If you take it further, I used to wonder how normal people who lived next to Jews prior to WWII in germany, could have sold them out to the nazis…. now I know.

      340

      • #
        Rick Bradford

        I’d go further than that.

        The Green/Left regards rational thought as a hate crime; because rational thought involves making distinctions and judgments between right and wrong, good and bad, and these sort of choices are, horror of horrors, discrimination.

        Thus the only way to avoid ‘discrimination’ is to never think at all.

        The Green/Left wants to live in the Kindergarden of Eden, a thought-free paradise where problems magically vanish. We won’t let them live there, and that’s why they hate us. And they do, really.

        By the way, Kindergarden of Eden is the title of a book by Evan Sayet, which explains all this in much greater detail. Highly recommended.

        220

  • #
    Jaymez

    In his emotional ramble Prof Corety states that “Human-caused climate disruption is not a belief – it is one of the best-studied phenomena on Earth.” By ‘best’ I think he means ‘all time favourites’.

    Why wouldn’t you want to study that area? You can get published in no-time flat provided you go with the party line. Funding is flowing in almost faster than it can be lavishly spent – while real scientific research is suffering funding cuts.

    Best of all, as Prof Corety notes, ‘any half-wit can understand it’. In fact being a half-wit is an advantage because it means you will avoid asking those pesky skeptical questions and pointing out how the predictions have failed the empirical test.

    1010

  • #

    The name Truthout and the tone of the article should tell you that no amount of evidence is going to change their minds. Like many in the past, such alarmists are in a possession of the revealed Truth.
    When confronted with a real world that contradicts this truth, like many before them, the alarmists blame their perception of reality. The data is wrong (like the thermometers), or the theory needs tweaking (like the excuses for the pause).
    When confronted with people who point out the contradictions between the revealed Truth and the real world, it those people are in denial.
    The resolution to these contradictions is to perceive those who disagree lower than themselves, either intellectually, or morally.
    Like many before, such as in the Soviet Union, these believers have a new way of looking at the world, and live in ignorance of what has gone before, or other contemporary ways of looking at the world.

    560

    • #
      MudCrab

      The name Truthout and the tone of the article should tell you that no amount of evidence is going to change their minds.

      Yeap.

      Through the ‘joys’ of FaceBook, I get to keep track of numerous left leaning friends, all happy in their seas of LIKES that everyone agrees with them and only they are right.

      One posted up a nice little link on ’10 Ways to be a Better Activist’.

      About 3 on the list was, and, allowing for paraphrasing, I do kid you not, ‘Be open to new ideas’.

      REALLY?!

      Irony wasted there kids. Anyone who believes activism is anything other then shamelessly pushing your own beliefs onto others probably also believes in free education.

      200

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Saul Alynski would disagree…one of his approaches was to take an opponents weakness, freeze it in time and unmercifully attack it.

        The CAGW mob have thier own Soviet style Political Commisars, to ensure that the ideology of the communis…er….eco agenda is published correctly.

        We should use soviet terms for the CAGW mob so they can be exposed for the Commies they are….like Commisar, agitprop, etc etc

        120

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      There used to be a publication, put out by some students, at the London School of Economics, called Economic Truths. It was certainly about Economics, but we could never figure out how economical they were being with the truths, as it were.

      For example, one article, which appeared to have all the characteristics of quite a serious study, was in regard to the benefits, or otherwise, of the Government introducing a toilet flush tax. This was followed, in the next edition, by another article looking into the impacts that a toilet flush tax might have on society in general, and on hospitality in particular.

      Economists are weird people.

      130

      • #
        The Backslider

        Economists are weird people.

        I thought there was something funky about Richard Tol…. :-P

        20

        • #

          Well, Richard Tol doesn’t know how Bluetooth works.

          Things used to be simple. The Church taught how the world worked and how to behave. The positive and the normative were united. The Enlightenment put an end to that. We are supposed to follow evidence rather than dogma. In the early days, an intelligent person could comprehend all of science. Not any longer. Experts master a small subfield only.

          With which I disagree in my wizend way: Experts in subfields seem to perceive their precious field as being special. Of requiring special science and an intimate understanding of their realm. I suspect that that is due to ignorance of other fields. The wider one’s perspective, the better one’s understanding of the world within one’s expertise.

          That holds for fields outside of what is considered science. In human languages, if you acquire native language skills in a second language, you can learn better use and an appreciation of your first native language (which you learnt more by “infection” than active thought) through a deeper understanding of languages in general.

          OTOH, I agree with other things that he writes:.

          There are now elements in the environmental movement who are so worried about the state of the planet that they have lost all sense of proportion. This is alarming for those at the receiving end of their mindless wrath. It does not help to protect the environment either. Just like Boko Haram does not endear anyone to Muslims, green radicals taint all environmentalists. But whereas Islamic leaders immediately distance themselves from any new outrage, environmental leaders pretend nothing happened.

          40

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Judging by some economics screeds that sounds like a serious article, and follow up.

        I mean there are economists (I name no names) going around saying “Global warming will be disastrous and we must spend enormous sums combating it” or calling for a carbon tax or an ETS without any proof that it is needed (except by those commissioning the report). Dodgy statistics even without the “Climate Models”.

        Personally I must admit to being disappointed when I looked up Climate Models and Adaption to Rising Temperatures – not a single brief bikini in sight.

        40

        • #
          Bulldust

          Economics is a social ‘science’ at best. I say this as someone with a degree in economics. Intellectual rigor usually takes a back seat to ideology and politics. This is why I leant towards financial management classes in my particular degree…. Far more practical.

          70

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      The name Truthout and the tone of the article should tell you that no amount of evidence is going to change their minds. Like many in the past, such alarmists are in a possession of the revealed Truth.

      Cloaking oneself or one’s cause in terms of right or truthful vs. others being wrong or dishonest has gone on for centuries. It comes in all flavors from the, “God said it and that’s that,” of the religious zealot to the, “No more debate is possible,” of Al Gore and his followers. It’s been the last resort of those who have no other leg they can stand on for probably the total existence of the human race.

      It looks like their hour has arrived and they’re going to make the most of it, doing no end of harm in the process.

      As far as I can see we can only do three things in the face of it: try to expose it and change public opinion; protect ourselves as best we can; and prepare to go down fighting if it should come to that.

      I don’t relish any of that and I wish I could see better alternatives. But there is something we all can and should do — refuse to be intimidated; refuse to be silent; refuse to run from the battle; and above all else, refuse to join them.

      50

  • #
    James in Perth

    Thanks for sharing this, Joanne. It helps to know that the level of anxiety and despair has become excruciating. Keep up the good work.

    280

  • #
    BernardP

    The AGW proponents (Believers) are always finding new ways to push their propaganda. The general public discourse is ignoring the contrary information from the AGW opponents (Skeptics). The mainstream media is still widely broadcasting the message of the Believers.

    The pressure for an international treaty in Paris, at the end of 2015, is unrelenting. As explained here a few months ago by Jo, even a non-binding treaty will perpetuate the myth for years and will keep pressure to comply on politicians worldwide.

    360

    • #
      luisadownunder

      “The pressure for an international treaty in Paris, at the end of 2015, is unrelenting.”

      Absolutely BernardP, and it will require 1700 jets to fly these Believers to a wonderful spot for some well-needed R&R…..oh, and preaching doom and gloom and austerity for the rest of us. Oh, and I forgot, the whole shabang is about Global Warming er, Climate Change, er, Climate Disruption of course.

      An international treaty is sure to be on the agenda….somewhere.

      10

  • #
    James in Perth

    It looks like Truthout misspelled the good professor’s name. Here is a link to his biography on the University of Adelaide website so you can check out his credentials. And check out his photo too. Don’t miss the photo:

    http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/corey.bradshaw

    And for the record, I like the photo. It is the overwrought emotion posing as science which disturbs me.

    90

  • #
    TdeF

    star commentIs this the Professor Corey Bradshaw, lifetime professional zoologist who currently holds the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at Adelaide University and has built a spectacular career on climate change? How compromised is he to be wailing not about the end of the world but about the end of man made Climate Change? Who is he to rage against profiteers who earn nothing from debunking the myth while it is his entire income?

    This chair was established in 2007 by the South Australian Department of Premier and Cabinet under Mike Rann and specifically for Climate Change in the heyday of Labor/Green political success. It is a political chair based on the political beliefs and needs of the Green/Labor groups who control political power in South Australia. These people demand support. Professor Bradshaw himself was appointed only in December 2014, so he has been in the job a month at most and this is his novel approach, to abuse anyone who disagrees with man made Climate Change.

    He is welcome to believe whatever he likes on his public service salary, but he is the one earning the money from being a devotee and promoter of man made Climate Change and educator of a new generation of true believers. Yes like all parents he has to look after his daughter and pay for day care, private school fees and a mortgage, all from Climate Change income. He is the one who must make Climate Change happen or the central plank of his career is missing.

    Since when was a zoologist a physical scientist, computer modeler, physicist, chemist and mathematician? So he is only certain that other people are certain and cannot speak himself about his knowledge of the science which predicts global temperature rises, the hot spot and rapidly rising sea levels? All the predictions of the endless computer models have failed. It is a failed science based on a single and strongly politically motivated hypothesis which is not right but it has driven his life and career for twenty years. The profiteers are the ones who support man made climate change. Big Wind, Big Carbon are as big as Big Tobacco and as costly.

    We Australians area paying his wages, but are we Australians paying for his absurd, self justifying web site, for this abuse or our right to ask where our money is going and why? Zoology is a science which underpins our understanding of life on earth, but CO2 driven man made Global Warming is a physical science proposition which cares nothing for life on earth and blames Western governments and societies for Global Warming. If the physical science model is so obviously wrong, man made climate change is wrong and the reactions of birds and mammals and sharks responding to endlessly changing climates is a consequence, no more. He needs a new career focus.

    He does not hold the chair of Man Made Climate Change and is exceeding his authority in making it such. This is about a career, politics and money, not science.
    Thank you TdeF -Thank you. -Jo

    1552

    • #
      manalive

      Oh it’s that Corety Corey Bradshaw.

      140

      • #
        Konrad

        Now I see why the Professor of Panic and chair of rent-seeking studies at Adelaide University came across as a petulant 2 year old when typing his tripe. He forgot to wear his “thinking frog”.

        350

      • #
        TdeF

        Ha! Could be one of these

        10

        • #
          TdeF

          Cannot resist..

          The Brain Slug Political Movement

          The Brain Slug Political Movement, or Brain Slug Party, is a political party based on Earth organized by human beings who have become victims to the parasite. All representatives of the movement are usually under the control of a Brain Slug. Its main political goals include giving high subsidies to the Brain Slug Planet and attaching a brain slug to ‘the working man’, and basically every other being that inhabits Earth.

          30

    • #
      paul

      anyone remember the 3 year drought that premier rann called a 1 in a thousand year drought as he committed the state to billions to build an unused desal plant.

      I wonder what role Professor Corey Bradshaw played in that

      190

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Any role except paying for it (the useless Desal plant that is).

        40

      • #
        luisadownunder

        Yep Paul, Premier Beattie in Queensland did the same thing. Costing billions it’s now rusting away somewhere, but it’s interesting how the media barely mentions it.

        00

      • #
        StefanL

        I have to disagree with your criticism of the decision to build the Adelaide desalination plant – can’t comment on the other states.
        I still remember the near panic here after 3 years of drought and severe water restrictions.
        The government was seriously considering bringing in water by tanker ship.

        Adelaide has had long droughts many times before (pre-AGW :-) and will again in the future. Our water needs cannot be met by building more reservoirs – there aren’t suitable spots and anyway there’s not enough rainfall. We cannot continue to rely on water from the River Murray because it’s controlled by the eastern states who will look after themselves first (no matter what a piece of paper says).

        Although it’s very high, I consider the cost of the Adelaide desalination plant to be prudent, necessary insurance – even if it was urged on the government by the greenies. When (not if) the next long drought happens here, we will be very glad to have it.

        PS. In case anyone reading the above gets the wrong idea , I am a long-standing climate skeptic, definitely NOT an AGWer.

        10

        • #
          the Griss

          The real problem in 2007 was the salinity in the Murray River where the water normally gets taken from.

          They would have had to build a desalination plant somewhere.

          Reliance on Murray River flows is always going to be an issue.

          I have no issues with either the Adelaide or Perth desal plants.

          Neither location really has the terrain or rainfall for the type of large scale storage required for a major city.
          ( Yes, Adelaide is a major city, in its region anyway ;-) )

          The Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne ones, however !!!!!!!

          Dams built when they should have been, and there would never have been an issue, if there ever was one.

          10

    • #
      OzWizard

      I just added up the “Awards, Grants, Fellowships” amounts listed at ConservationBytes.com between 2000 and 2015:
      $245.00
      $510,000.00
      $405,000.00
      $50,000.00
      $1,350,000.00
      $425,000.00
      $100,000.00
      $8,000.00
      $14,000.00
      $45,000.00
      $28,000.00
      $55,000.00
      $221,000.00
      $29,000.00
      $45,000.00
      $165,000.00
      $40,000.00

      Total: $3,490,245.00

      That’s excluding 80,000 Yen from 2013 Visiting Fellowship, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

      90

      • #

        Grantsmanship is why many have tenure at Universities.

        Which touches the core of what is wrong in academia in Australia because grants are most generous to the popular topics; the political ones. Not necessarily those of the greatest potential value to society based on reality.

        90

      • #
        KenW

        climate change in his pocket
        going jing a ling a ling….

        20

    • #
      Dariusz

      Zoologists, mammalian paleotologists, rail road engineers, celebrity politicians, they all the same to me… the money sluts.

      80

  • #
    NZPete

    What a great way to start my day, reading this excellent article Jo.
    I just had to laugh; and laugh again.
    “Get with your profound anguish instead.”
    Love it; show them for what they are, and it’s not belief in the scientific method.

    471

  • #
    Hot under the collar

    My message to Prof Corety is,

    You need to get out more mate.

    310

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    My favorite is “you plutocrats” that sent me to the dictionary because I though I knew what the word means. What is it doing in this list? Well, even though I don’t consider myself well up there in the word-recognition category, I did know what plutocrat means.
    So we have a Professor and Director (of something) at a major (?) University, well paid I assume, calling average folks a name that fits him better than any skeptic that comes to mind. Actually, none do come to mind.
    Meanwhile his group includes the Prince of Wales, the guy in the White House, descendants of John D. Rockefeller, descendants of Mayer A. Rothschild, . . ., and a rich dude that was once a vice president of the US – will be remembered for the vice part.
    When Professor Corety Bradshaw goes (peacefully, I hope) to his unknown future his brain should be studied to try to explain how so much bs can fit into such a small container.

    900

    • #
      tom0mason

      Plutocrat?

      Awr shucks, I thought it was to be told what to do by the top mumbskull in Mickey, Donald, and Goofy’s catastrophic UN cli-mate chinging, aka Bankie Pluto. You know, this guy http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Pluto.

      But no, it could mean something else, heck it even has a Wiki…
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

      I’m still not convinced the grieving Professor didn’t really mean the first one.

      120

    • #
      The Backslider

      his brain should be studied to try to explain how so much bs can fit into such a small container

      Quote of the day…..!

      270

    • #
      MacSual

      Consider this,thought is matter,a very pure matter but matter all the same,and that a thought is creation at its very elementary origin,when you have enough people thinking strange thoughts then it must infect those around them which probably explains the amount of stupidity and hatred in the world.
      The scary thing is that it has been said that we will be judged by our thoughts because once created they can’t be removed except by Christ.

      20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      …you plutocrats…

      He certainly misapplied the word plutocrat. But we ought to acknowledge that in human society, wealth does confer power to obtain one’s way and conversely, power does confer ability to obtain money. We need to always be mindful of this because throughout history of civilization, the wealthy have been powerful in determining how things go and the powerful have been able to become wealthy or more wealthy because of their power.

      Only a vigilant citizenship with the right to vote for their leaders — leaders who by virtue of their position will be very powerful — and the wisdom to vote for those who will govern for the people’s benefit, stands in the way of dictatorship.

      50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        As an example I offer the founders of the United States, all of whom were fairly powerful and wealthy, even Benjamin Franklin who had been very successful in his printing business and had become influential because he cold publish his and other’s views about the situation of the colonies at his own expense.

        Had they been the average farmer or shopkeeper with a crop or business and a family to worry about every day they would not have been able to spend the time necessary to mount a successful rebellion against the king of England. Our first president was a man of considerable wealth. Were we a plutocracy? I leave you to answer. But I think money and power are not necessarily an evil thing.

        20

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Franklin’s autobiography is a very interesting read and he’s a good example to follow — except maybe his skirt chasing.

          10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Jo,

        Your moderation filter could benefit from some ability to look at the context as well as specific words that might indicate something you don’t want showing up. I’ve been put in moderation a lot lately and yet every single comment has ultimately been released. :-)

        10

  • #
    diogenese2

    Reading the comments of COREY Bradshaw (“Truthout” could not even get his name write”) I felt such a degree of anger and despair deserved closer scrutiny so I followed the links to his website. Certainly he has unshakable belief in the idea that fossil fuel use is destroying the planet, but given his deep love of ecology and the environment that is not surprising. How broad his understanding of the CAGW issue is questionable. He identifies “climate change” as “as one of the best studied phenomena on earth” – well it certainly is the best funded (some of which has come his way).
    However reading his blog another theme emerges.
    16/12/14 He co- authored, in “The Conversation”, a summary of the global energy situation which was quite fair and so balanced that I doubt Tony would find much to dispute.
    The bottom line that, without nuclear, replacement of fossil fuels is impossible economically, sociologically and politically.
    15/12/14 He organised an impressive “Open letter to environmentalists” urging the green blob to abandon their anti nuclear fetish as this is destroying all hope of progressing the cause.
    I suspect that his invective against us sceptics is displacement of the perception that his “side” have a death wish. Knowing how fundamentalists regard apostasy his fears for his daughter might be more imminent than he thinks – I pray that I’m more wrong than usual.
    In passing he publishes a brilliant cartoon about Turkey Vultures, with which he seems to identify. Whether or not this is a tribute to his birth citizenship or a comment on Aussie imbibetory customs, I would not care to speculate.

    300

  • #
    David S

    I have always been fascinated that warmists just want to feel miserable rather than celebrate the fact that if they are wrong millions / billions of people won’t die from global warming and that will happen without us having to martyr ourselves on the crusafix of AGW . What a wonderful day , the day that it was realised that we don’t have to worry about a coming doom.
    Unfortunately some people just want to stay miserable.

    471

    • #
      Manfred

      Precisely David S.

      They betray themselves at every turn.

      The trendless interval of 19 yrs in ‘global mean temperature’ should be a cause for utter rapture in the faithful.

      Doubtless they will eventually identify another perceived catastrophic threat on which to vent their existential angst and find a cause to believe in, in order to fill their inner voids.

      140

    • #
      MacSual

      If nature won’t do what they want it to do then there are other options open to them,past examples care of Messrs Attila, Genghis, Hitler ,Stalin Mao, Pol Pot,Idi and many more who were adepts at removing large numbers of people from the gene pool.

      70

  • #
    DoubtingDave

    The trouble with this professor Corety Bradshaw is that he doesn’t realise that by seeking to protect his child by taking grants and wages for supporting his alarmist cause, he has a direct effect on the ability of ordinary folk like me to raise my kids when im struggling to pay the extra taxes and levies imposed upon me in order to fund the lifestyles of him and his kind.

    640

  • #
    4TimesAYear

    These people are certifiably crazy. Bat**** crazy. Paranoid delusional crazy. Need two signatures and a bed crazy. Taken leave of their senses crazy. Blind, too. Seasons happening normally. Planet continues to tilt at appropriate times. Summer, fall, winter, spring. Altitude, latitude, longitude have not changed. Climate biomes have not changed into another. What we see is periodical cyclical changes. Thinking that CO2 drives climate = Fail; Thinking that our 4% contribution is to blame for all of it = Epic Fail

    But alas, I am preaching to the choir.

    440

    • #
      Dave N

      It used to be just heatwaves (which were nothing unusual); now it’s any weather event (which are also nothing unusual, but even if they were, they have no proven link to human activities).

      Scientists like Corety are forgetting the premise of how this whole thing started: the notion that there would be “runaway warming”; it just isn’t happening, and they’re desperately clutching to the belief that we’re “harming ourselves” by seeing anything normal, as abnormal.

      300

      • #
        tom0mason

        Dave N

        “Scientists like Corety are forgetting the premise of how this whole thing started: the notion that there would be “runaway warming””
        ¯
        Not just any “runaway warming”, no, it’s the extra nasty ‘man-made CO2 that holds the heat’ “runaway warming”.
        ¯
        Yep the warming YOU, yes and YOU, started with your vehicles, power stations, TVs, mobile phones, man-made fibers, modern concrete and glass buildings, preserved food, and technology. Yes it was YOU wanting a safe, reliable, clean place to live with personal transportation, modern medicine, and heating/cooling at the touch of a switch.
        ¯
        You, and you over there are guilty! You all have caused the professor to have a really tough time, just because you want a long, safe, and happy confortable life, instead of something more naturally nasty, brutal, and short.

        220

        • #
          The Backslider

          man-made CO2 that holds the heat

          Oh yeh…nasty man made heat trapping CO2…. that’s the one.

          Don’t you know that runaway warming is happening NOW??? Why, the HOTTEST years evah(!!!) have happened since 1998 which proves it dontcha know?? Any fool could see that… there is NO SUCH THING AS THE PAUSE!!!!! All these new records PROVE that global warming is ACCELERATING….

          90% of the earth’s energy is in THE OCEANS and dontcha know that is where all the heat is being pumped by all that NASTY CO2!!!!

          Sorry, but we happen to disagree with all the science which shows that CO2 has a net cooling effect on th ocean. You would also be surprised just how much heat can be transferred to the ocean through the few microns that IR can penetrate it. Hottest evah!! is hottest evah!!!!…. what logical fallacy???

          170

          • #
            tom0mason

            Don’t forget the hyped -

            “Man-made heat trapping CO2©….Now with extra added back-radiation™”
            “Ummm, feel the warmth.”

            130

        • #
          tom0mason

          From the Truthout link at the top of the page — there are just so many to choose from — so I thought I go with this one …
          ¯
          Dr. Helen McGregor, a research fellow at the Australian National University’s Research School of Earth Sciences, shared a very emotionally honest letter about her experience as a climate scientist. …

          “I feel perplexed at why many of our politicians, business leaders, and members of the public don’t get that increased CO2 in the Earths atmosphere is a problem. The very premise that CO2 traps heat is based on fundamental physics – the very same physics that underpins so much of modern society. The very same physics that has seen higher C02 linked with warmer periods in the geological past. And sure, there have been warm periods in the past and the Earth weathered the storm (excuse the pun) but back then there weren’t millions of people, immovable infrastructure, or entire communities in harms way….
          …I feel both exasperation and despair in equal measure, that perhaps there really is nothing I can do. I feel vulnerable, that perhaps by writing this letter I expose myself to trolling and vitriol – perhaps I’m better off just keeping quiet.

          Oh dear.

          190

          • #
            The Backslider

            The very premise that CO2 traps heat is based on fundamental physics

            I invite any warmist to explain the “fundamental physics” in support of this notion.

            I has been accepted for years now that CO2 “back radiation” has a net cooling effect on the ocean. The ocean is what percentage of the planet’s surface? Does any warmist dare deny this accepted science?

            120

          • #
            ROM

            From; tom0mason @ # 18.1.1.1.1
            .

            Quoting Dr Helen McGregor

            I feel vulnerable, that perhaps by writing this letter I expose myself to trolling and vitriol – perhaps I’m better off just keeping quiet.

            Straws in the wind of change.
            The inevitable and increasingly savage backlash is beginning to take its toll on the climate catastrophe cult believers as we see in that quote.

            The climate catastrophe fundamentalists who only a couple of short years ago believed they would control the entire climate catastrophe narrative far into the future and could enforce their own form of a climate catastrophe fundamentalism onto the entire populace are now beginning to fear the very weapon they themselves used and wielded for nearly two decades without any moral or ethical strictures, against anybody who dared to question their cult like fundamentalist climate catastrophe ideology.

            .

            The Great Wheel of History and human affairs rolls ever onward crushing for all time those who arrogantly believe they can shape future history in their own image.

            240

          • #

            Another example of 97% self announced incompetence Are the 3% competent under then bus?

            30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      4TimesAYear,

      The worst of it is that the severe winter storm now bedeviling our northeast states is being blamed on climate change (nee global warming).

      Along with that we have some who’re complaining about the weather service because the severity of the forecast didn’t come true for parts of the northeast.

      Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Go figure. :-(

      10

  • #
    Anything is possible

    This excellent essay by Richard Tol could easily have been written with Professor Corety in mind :

    http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/radical-greens.html

    Especially this :

    There are now elements in the environmental movement who are so worried about the state of the planet that they have lost all sense of proportion. This is alarming for those at the receiving end of their mindless wrath. It does not help to protect the environment either.

    470

    • #
      RB

      Written well but wrong. The kiddies are being primed to run amok. There is something wrong with these people but they’re not bat**it crazy. They want revolution. They want other people to die for the sake of their child. They’re trying to dehumanise a portion of the population (eg. They’re just zombies. Kill them).

      270

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        The Chinese Communist Party did exactly that pre 1949, in order to gain a popular uprising and hence gain control for themselves.

        80

    • #
      Peter C

      Richard Tol is on the right track. However he has a misplaced sense of proportion.

      He says

      Asking an utterly sensible question – which of the many options is the best course of action – is met with howls of derision from both sides.

      That statement is not correct. Skeptics are prepared to consider sensible courses of action. Warmitas are not.

      70

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Just a reminder — skeptics want some credible empirical evidence that something is happening and is human caused before they will consider any course of action. As Jo points out from her first edition of The Skeptic’s Handbook until now, the evidence that CO2 is doing anything harmful is questionable at the very best.

        If you haven’t read it I recommend taking a look. It cuts through all the arguments right down to the basic problem with global warming. They have no evidence to support their claim. The opening picture tells the story very graphically.

        21

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Hello little red thumb,

          Welcome to the debate.

          It’s too bad you choose not to state your objection because I would welcome some real debate with you on the relative merits of our different positions.

          Instead you’ve lost an opportunity to make your case.

          00

  • #
    Manfred

    Spare a thought for them. It’s tough out there for unskeptical people.

    No sympathy, no empathy, no forgiveness.

    The power impoverished, cold challenged told to eat cake beg to differ.
    As for the professor’s ‘children’ and their future, consider this: a future bereft of all but the most limited personal freedom where the populous are compelled to inhabit Mega-city slums to ‘save the planet’, living in giant ghettos of centralist control while the Green elite supervise from their coastal mansions and bastions of power.

    I don’t think so.

    450

    • #
      handjive

      UK gov’t launches central planning tool for climate.  Choose what everyone eats, and we’ll tell you the temperature

      We can fly, drive and prosper while avoiding dangerous global warming – but only if billions remain in poverty and huge changes are made in areas such as energy and agriculture, new analysis from Decc’s Global Calculator shows.

      Theguardian.com: Yes, we can live well and avoid climate disaster, says UK government

      50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Department of Energy and Climate Change

        There’s a surefire way to screw up the country. What on Earth connects energy with climate change? Nothing! They have no connection.

        Oops! Sorry, I forgot — it’s those fossil fuels that are causing climate change. That must be the connection. Dumb old me, always looking at the reality instead of the imaginary. :-(

        40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          And I keep remembering that the British voter has the same right to vote for the leaders of their choice as the American voter. The fact that such failed leaders as David Cameron and Barack Obama are now in the top positions in Britain and America respectively should tell us something about the state of wisdom in today’s world.

          There’s abysmal ignorance on both sides of the pond.

          30

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Love the smile on the man. He’s thinking of all the massages he can have for $90Trillion.

      40

  • #
    bemused

    And thus the true character of the believers is once again revealed and it’s never a pretty sight

    301

  • #
    Peter Miller

    I think you are all being very unfair!

    What possible use is an unemployed climate modeller?

    What could he do? Would anyone trust him, other than another climate modeller, a hardcore greenie or a lefty politician seeking to reduce unemployment numbers by boosting the population of pointless bureaucrats?

    So what is to be done?

    Answer: Stamp your little feet and throw a temper tantrum – hopefully (?) this will delay the day of reckoning of having to seek a real job for a few days longer.

    301

    • #
      the Griss

      I am trying to imagine what some of these dorks will do when it start to cool over the next few years.

      The whole farce busted wide open.

      No wonder so many of them are upset and panicking ! :-)

      322

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        Griss, my belief is that they will just shift to some other “looming catastrophe” and deny that they were ever involved in global warming. As hangers on to taxpayer money, they won’t let the new cause bother them as long as there is a new cause to keep them rich and living off the work of others.
        Remember the past looming disasters? In the 70s it was global cooling, then destruction of the rain forests, the ozone death hole, nuclear winter, alar on apples, pesticides in general, DDT in particular, genetic engineering,Y2K, and on and on.

        160

        • #
          Alen Ford

          There’s always ocean assification [sic] to fall back on. The impending dissolution of the Great Barrier Reef is always good for a rant.

          10

        • #
          A Lovell

          I think part of their problem is that, having predicted ‘The end of the world’, there is not another prediction as bad as that. The end of the world is the ultimate threat. You cannot get any worse than the end of the world. So, for example, ocean acidification is a step down. All other doomsday scenarios are bathos against ‘The end of the world’.

          Someone on these threads once declared that alarmists were going ‘Sh*t or Bust’. Now that it’s busting, they are sh*tting for all they are worth.

          20

      • #
        tom0mason

        “No wonder so many of them are upset and panicking ! “

        No, many of them are upset and angry because at heart they are Malthusian misanthropes, and hate to see the majority survive another day.

        This Professor is voicing his anger at all of us still being alive, because for him we are hurting his vision of a natural utopia.

        180

      • #
        Another Graeme

        Griss, they will say “we knew that would happen, that’s why it’s called climate change, but it won’t last so we need to fix this warming”

        20

      • #
        Another Graeme

        Or, how about “duh, that’s climate disruption dummy, its meant to be hot ’cause the models say so, so clearly the climate has been disrupted”

        40

    • #

      A short while ago, such were at the bottom of Dover Castle, shoveling [snip], Your Climate Clowns cannot pass the entrance exam for such emplotment

      10

  • #
    handjive

    Uncovered 16th Century Hallucinatory Images Suggest That Today’s Climate Science Is Nothing But A Persistent Human Mental Disorder
    (via notrickszone)
    “The images were created as Europe was in the grips of the Little ice Age, a time of bad weather, bitter cold, storms and crop failures, starvation and human misery.

    The 16th century depictions reveal images of a civilization obsessed with the end-of-the-world.

    Priests and elitists of the time conducted terrifying witch hunts to find those allegedly responsible for the black magic that cooked up the extreme weather.”
    ~ ~ ~
    This 1871 author was ridiculing climate alarmists for exactly the same behavior as the current ones.
    Exaggerating, misinterpreting data, and blaming climate change on men. (via stevegoddard)
    ~ ~ ~
    Climatedepot Flashback 1933 :
    Australia’s Chief Weather Expert: Belief In Climate Change Is An ‘Error Of Human Memory’ – ‘When people compare the present with the past, they remember only the abnormal’

    210

  • #
    David simpson

    Hello all, just wanted to comment on the ACD name change……don’t use it, don’t give them the satisfaction… Everytime I respond on some article or blog, I try to use the full name … Dangerous anthropogenic Global warming, I don’t refer to it as climate change. I also remind them that it is DAGW not climate change that is being discussed….. Unfortunately I do get moderated as not up to community standards often, LOL……yet I am not sbusive, don’t use insults and stick to the argument, unfortunately I think it is my views that get me moderated especially on any ABC site….like the one sided The Conversation…

    220

    • #
      Leo G

      Don’t use it? But surely ACD Deficit Disorder should not be ignored?

      10

    • #

      I use “global warming”. Why? Because bottom line the theory clearly states the planet is warming (it’s physics, you know). That’s what the CO2 is claimed to do—increase the amount of energy on the planet and warm it. It’s really too bad that when it snows that’s a hard sell. Not my problem. I call the theory what it is: global warming.

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Climate change, nee global warming is what I’m beginning to use more and more.

        nee — from birth or named at birth, born as, sometimes used in place of formerly, etc.

        Neat and simple.

        Of course you have to wonder if the warmists will understand a word derived from French and used in English. ;-)

        20

  • #
    the Griss

    Gees, its almost as if they WANT to be the target of ridicule.

    Well, more than happy to oblige. :-)

    210

  • #
    albert

    ”On Sunday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, amid dire forecasts, said, “This could be the biggest snowstorm in the history of this city.”
    The alarmists never admit they’re wrong and why hasn’t the sea level risen 20 metres ?

    160

    • #
      tom0mason

      And a few $billion of super-duper-computer modeling time helped them predict the great snow non-event.
      Yes, same GIGO machines, with the same al-gore-hysterical mythology programs.

      100

  • #
    The Backslider

    These people do not appear to realize that they are just as fanatical and just as much terrorists as any ISIS recruit.

    190

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      The AGW Faithful are unaware that they are victims of the longest, most expensive propaganda campaign in the history of mankind. Their reasoning abilities have been short-circuited by others, through deliberate isolation from sceptical thought and continual repetition of disinformation and illogic.

      Say “Koch Brothers,” and their brains lose all ability to process new information or seek alternative sources. They can’t see the difference between ad hominem arguments and actual logic. They actually believe that the averaged output of climate models constitutes an experiment. They need professional help.

      90

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    He’s a professor? And he wrote that?

    These people teach our teachers, you know.

    Then those teachers teach our kids.

    190

  • #
    PeterK

    ACD, by the way, is Anthropogenic Climate Disruption. Forget Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) — it is quietly gone, buried in the backyard, thanks to the inconvenient Pause and lack of Global Warming*.

    So, the religion of AGW is now gone and is now replaced by the religion of ACD. I wonder how long the religion of ACD will be with us before it too is dumped and they invent another religion. Can anybody offer a modeled projection? Just askin’.

    120

  • #
    Neville

    If this fool really believes his nonsense he should immediately take his protest to China and India etc and the rest of the non OECD.
    Since 1990 over 90% of all human emissions of co2 have come from the non OECD and this will be the case until 2040 at least. See EIA etc. Will these drongos ever wake up?

    160

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    “i have been taken in by ACD and am now spewing AC(i)D” Corety

    80

  • #
    ROM

    Yeh! Proffessor Corety. I know how you feel

    I too use to mourn for months as I watched my crops die during drought knowing that my year’s income was going to be close to zero as my income sources dried up and died.

    I too use to regularly mourn for days and weeks and months when I witnessed frost or disease or international markets had wiped out most of my income for the year.

    I too use to reckon that “somebody should do something” about Nature’s devastating droughts and diseases.

    I too was appalled at the disinterest of so many people in my problems and was very annoyed and angry that they were far more concerned with their own lives and problems instead of mine.

    Yeh! Proffssor Corety I know exactly how you feel and I feel it even worse because unlike you, I was actually producing something that was of use.

    in fact it was and is an absolutely essential item to the survival of people, an item that was called FOOD which unlike your computer generated artifacts, was real and actually grown in fields and not just some useless computer generated artifact in some obscure part of academia that was of no use to anybody anywhere.l

    To sum up Professor, you are just like all those highly destructive insect drones I had to contend with all my life who lived the grand life on the fruits of my labors.
    So just like all those insect drones, you don’t get any sympathy from me at all.

    460

  • #
    Ruairi

    Some Professors are finding it tough,
    That skeptics are calling their bluff,
    With their models derailed,
    By predictions that failed,
    They have ‘backed to the wall’;sure enough.

    270

  • #
    el gordo

    Brook should have been sacked from Adelaide University years ago for his pro nuclear outbursts.

    http://conservationbytes.com/2014/12/15/an-open-letter-to-environmentalists-on-nuclear-energy/

    Thick as thieves.

    64

  • #
    Konrad

    “Climate science researchers, scientists, journalists and activists have all been struggling with grief around what we are witnessing.”

    Not just grief at what they are witnessing, but blind panic at what the future holds.

    They went and made the inane claim that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere would reduce the planet’s radiative cooling ability. But CO2 doesn’t cause warming, not even “less than we thought”. Our radiatively cooled atmosphere is cooling our solar heated oceans. The climastrologists got it totally and utterly wrong.

    Crybaby Corey is having his tantrum because he is finally realising what he and his cronies have gone and done. It will not just be the careers and reputations of the climastrologists that get destroyed, but those of every activist, journalist and politician of the left. It’s foolish to have kept pushing the hoax after the hypothesis started to crumble, but complete inanity to have kept on in the age of the Internet, when the record is permanent and instantly accessible.

    The Internet now holds a permanent record of every public figure stupid enough to promote or profit by the CO2 scare. Bradshaw can blubber all he likes, but the shame of the climastrologists and their fellow travellers in the NGO’s, Lame Scream Meeja and politics can never be erased.

    220

  • #
    The Backslider

    Hey, at least (so far) skeptics are having a say about things on this silly Jamail blog.

    Anybody here posting there yet?

    70

  • #
    George Reagan

    OMG …. the bleeding heart elite liberals are at it …. again. first it was global warming (gw), then climate change (cc) and now it’s acd. If one doesn’t work with the main stream citizens, then another might work …. Yes, Johnny, the climate changes and every now and then it gets a tab warmer ….. but then it cools. It’s a natural occurrence. 1)there is a minor natural cycle, it’s called The Milankovitch effect (ref. astronomy 101) that deals with the Earth/Sun relative positions/seasons. 2)then there is the Suns solar variance with ~11 years cycle of varying energy out put (the Sun is a massive nuclear furnace with out a thermostat) called the solar wind/storms. 3)the earths own molten core ~at 2,000 *F, that vents through thousands of volcanoes, on land and at the ocean bottom, and geothermal zones at any one time (geology 101). These random events cause the temp to fluctuate and the massive amounts of toxic gasses (CO, CO2, NO, NO2, SO, SO2, O3, H2S, steam ….) interfere with the global weather (green house gasses). We puny humans can’t contribute to gw/cc.

    40

  • #
    manalive

    Bill McKibben, Clive Hamilton, Tim Flannery, Corey Bradshaw — I’m not suggesting that extreme male pattern baldness causes climate derangement nor am I suggesting the converse, but maybe a good head of hair provides a degree of protection (cf. Roy Spencer) and there may be something in that tinfoil hat theory.

    140

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    A few threads back, the Griss commented something to the effect that “Sometimes I wonder if there has ever been any warming at all!”
    Moi aussi, especially if you define ‘global warming’ as something other than the slight variation in temperature that is a necessary part of nature’s global temeprature control.
    Well, I came across an article that will tickle Griss’s fancy.

    90

  • #
    Ilma

    Did anyone notice the complete logical inconsistency in his statement “I see irrefutable evidence every day that human-driven climate disruption will turn out to be one of the main drivers of the Anthropocene mass extinction…”. So he IS seeing TODAY what he believes MAY happen in the FUTURE!! Huh? Complete gibberish! How did he become a professor with such irrational thinking.

    190

  • #
    Rick Will

    I followed the link to Truthout and went to the comments on the above referenced article. That provided another link to Arctic News and Dr Malcolm Light – first time I have seen the name. It gave another great prediction:
    “Twenty estimates have been made of the times of the various extinction events in the northern and southern hemispheres and these are shown on Table 1 and summarised on Figure 7 with their ranges. The absolute mean extinction time for the northern hemisphere is 2031.8 and for the southern hemisphere 2047.6 with a final mean extinction time for 3/4 of the earth’s surface of 2039.6 which is similar to the extinction time suggested previously from correlations between planetary orbital mechanics and the frequency increase of Great and Normal earthquake activity on Earth (Light, 2011). Extinction in the southern hemisphere lags the northern hemisphere by 9 to 29 years.”
    In this paper:
    http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/p/global-extinction-within-one-human.html

    Does this mean I should be glad I live in the southern hemisphere?? This question is answered in the paper:
    “This makes property on the Transantarctic mountains of premium value for those people wish to survive the coming methane firestorm for a few decades longer.”

    120

  • #

    ACD – aggressive compulsive disorder?
    The miserable mugshots of scaredscientists.com has morphed …

    90

  • #
    Richo

    Bradshaw has completely lost the plot. The University of Adelaide has a duty of care for his mental wellbeing and should be sending him home on sick leave.

    160

  • #
    macha

    With Abbott on the nose over knighthood and MSM stirring up Turnbull, we could see the return to CAGW funding via carbon taxing.

    31

    • #
      ianl8888

      As I’ve commented before, sceptics may win a few skirmishes, perhaps even some battles, but the war is lost. Irrationality, augmented by relentless MSM pressure, is ascendant

      The UK is a good example. All that is needed is for both major political parties (antagonistic to each other or not) to agree – then it simply doesn’t matter how one votes

      Turnbull/Shorten on ACD … quelle difference ?

      50

    • #
      the Griss

      If the Libs put Turnbull in, it will prove to all Liberal voters that they really are Labor not-so-lite.

      Its only the looney-far-left MSM thinking Turnbull would be a worthwhile prospect.

      I certainly hope no-one in the Liberal party is even considering it.

      Australia needs a central-right party to vote for, but all we seem to have at the moment is centre-left Libs, far-left Labor, looney-tune left Greens and a little puppy.

      80

  • #
    Hot under the collar

    Actually, reading the professor’s diatribe, they probably don’t let them out much at the University of Adelaide……..hopefully.

    50

  • #
    Bob in Castlemaine

    “Climate science researchers, scientists, journalists and activists have all been struggling with grief around what we are witnessing.”

    Sounds more like the beneficiaries of the CAGW scam wallowing in self pity to me.

    Yet another rebadging of the scam this time as Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD) this is amusing, can I suggest maybe ACDC has a better ring to it. Use your imagination regarding the trailing C, it should be easy. Furthermore just think of the great singing commercial that they could co-opt.

    50

  • #
    MudCrab

    Truthout?

    Honest question, just who are these people?

    Like Getup and the AYCC, these little groups seem to appear from nowhere, claim massive memberships and influence and become ABC media darlings whenever ‘Our’ ABC wants an ‘independent’ opinion.

    Seriously, who are these people and why are they getting so much respect and so little questioning?

    70

  • #
    ralph

    One word comes to mind, WACKOS.

    90

  • #
    warren

    Every one in the AGW debate should read Primo Levi’s short story “Carbon” from his collection of stories “The Periodic Table”. A beautiful story of the role of carbon in the existence of every living thing on this planet.

    70

    • #
      me@home

      Warren, all of Levi’s works are worth reading but especially “The Periodic Table”. Thumbs up from me.

      50

  • #
    Richo

    As the University of Adelaide have not spoken out on this matter to date, it can be presumed that they are not aware of the matter, chose to ignore the issue or condone their employees making threats of violence. Whatever, the scenario they are still accountable for Bradshaw’s comments.

    70

  • #
    Michael Whittemore

    Joanne you say

    “*I’m referring to the pause in “surface” warming of the Globe, where 100.00% of humans live. There may or may not be warming in the deep oceans as recorded by one thermometer per 250,000 cubic kilometers of ocean. That’s another debate.”

    So the models are fine and everything is on track, but Joanne thinks ARGO and sea level satellites are wrong.

    Of cause the satellite that measure surface temperatures are working fine because they don’t show as much warming as weather stations. But if a paper shows measurable amounts of sulfates in the atmosphere are causing cooling or increased trade wings are forcing extra warming into the oceans, these are all wrong as well.

    123

    • #

      I didn’t say ARGO was wrong. It reports only half the warming the models predicted. see especially http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-700m-models-argo.gif. My argument with ARGO is that the error bars are large and none of its results are statistically significant. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/
      One thermometer per 250,000 km3 is not accurate to 0.01C.

      With Sea Levels, the satellites may well be right, as they showed almost no rise in the 1990s at all in the original observations. The rise comes after their raw data results are “calibrated” against one subsiding tide gauge in Hong Kong, which is surrounded by other tide gauges that show a different trend.

      I didn’t say anything about sulphates. Please quote me exactly instead of paraphrasing and “interpreting” what I mean. Three times in one comment you got it wrong. Misquoting or misinterpreting makes for a pointless conversation (and is a standard tactic of trolls – you wouldn’t want to be mistaken for one would you?). I’m not interested in correcting your reading comprehension deficits. Please lift your standards. – Jo

      300

    • #

      How is it, Michael, that you have no problem with unmatching temperature data bases, models (what is it now—40 or more—that produce results that don’t match), yet you have problems with so much of what is presented on this blog? It looks very much like if you agree with something, you accept any flaws in it—oh, wait, that would make you projecting, wouldn’t it? Or you simply cannot see that your behaviour is the same as that you criticize. Global warming science is a mess of models, data bases and so forth. It seems like the scientists spend more time making up excuses than actually doing research. Maybe if they worked on figuring out why temperature measurements they calculate an anomaly to the tenth of a degree from don’t match and why models make even contradictory predictions, we’d actually get somewhere.

      20

  • #
    Earl

    Perhaps the new title for the the imagined disaster could be Anthropogenic Climate Disruption Catastrophe, AC/DC and a song entitled, “It’s A Long Way To The Top If You Want To Be A Troll” could be released.

    100

  • #
    Senex

    What a drama queen!

    His references to “greed”, “plutocrats” and “backed against the wall” reveal his true motivation – just another radical leftist academic wannabe revolutionary.

    80

  • #
    Robert

    ACD – Acute Cognitive Disorder?

    Works for me, seems fitting that a believer in environmental ACD has mental ACD.

    100

    • #

      Don’t they worry that ACD will get mixed up with OCD? Expecially since some of the behaviours found in ACD scientists look very much like OCD?

      20

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Understanding the occult – what drives the cult of “environmentalism”.
    =======================================================

    I cant state this clearly enough – the environment “fight” is a false crisis, designed as a Trojan horse to win a religious war.

    The religious war is – the occult ( New Age ) vs Christianity.

    Now before people poo poo this, consider this – many new age writers openly are seeking a new age “Christ” to come upon the earth, however the earth needs to be “cleansed” before they can appear. The “Age of Aquarius” is anything but fluffy “enlightenment” and “free love” hippies– its implementation mechanisms and mindsets are captured below.

    From my experience, when you see incredible irrational anger, its not a Christian characteristic – demonic possession is often signified by incredible anger and rage.

    Now see how many of these themes have been pushed through the Establishment and ask yourself – who do the Establishment have as their god?

    Some relevant quotes :

    “The incessant propaganda trumpeting that mankind’s current Industrial development is “unsustainable” is leading directly to this very point, that Mother Nature [Gaia] will have to take action through extremely powerful storms, in order to return the forces of the earth to “balance”.
    ["Herald of A New Age", Ruth Montgomery]

    “Avatars [World Teachers, like Antichrist will be] frequently create crises in order to bring an end to the old and the undesirable and make way for new and more suitable forms for the evolving life of God Immanent in Nature.” ["Reappearance of the Christ", by Foster Bailey, p. 8]

    “Today, in the midst of this devastated, chaotic, and unhappy world, mankind has a fresh opportunity to reject selfish, materialistic living and to begin to tread the Lighted Way. The moment that humanity shows its willingness to do this, then the Christ will come …Before Christ could come with his disciples, our present civilization had to die.” ["Reappearance of the Christ", by Foster Bailey, p. 21-23]

    “A new ethic in the use of material resources must be developed which will result in a style of life compatible with the coming age of scarcity.”
    (“Mankind At The Turning Point”, Club of Rome, Mesarovic and Pestal, 1974, page 147).

    “Today we are watching the death of civilisation… “Such a change is rapidly coming and is regarded by some as death — terrible and to be avoided if possible. It is indeed death, but it is benevolent and needed…For the progress of the soul of the individual and the soul of humanity, death is inevitable, good, and necessary.” (Alice Bailey, “The Externalisation of the Hierarchy”, Pages 114-115; Emphasis added).

    “This global catastrophe, the Guides claim, will cleanse the earth of pollution and evil people and will usher in the long-awaited New Age of a thousand years of peace.” (Alice Bailey, “The Externalisation of the Hierarchy”, p. 234)

    “What lies in wait for the future … is a global catastrophe that Ruth’s Guides foresee as more massive than anything this planet has undergone in many thousands of years. The long-awaited shift of the earth on its axis cannot be avoided, they stress, since natural forces that have brought about imbalances will trigger this compensating movement in order to return it to stability.”
    (Alice Bailey, “The Externalisation of the Hierarchy”, p254 )

    “The radical change in world view required to make this transition will have to be accomplished overnight. There will be no time for polite debate, subtle compromise, or monetary equivocation. To succeed will require a zealous determination, a militancy, if you will, of Herculean proportions.” (Jeremy Rifkin, “Entropy: A New World View”.1981, p.186, Emphasis added).

    ( Mods – this is a bit “out there” however CAGW at its core is a religious movement – but not the sort the white anglo-saxon Christian western world is that familiar with…. )

    90

    • #
      me@home

      Steve, I’ve been saying for some time that we have witnessed in the West a shift from (generally) Christianity to atheism to paganism in a generation or so and it aint pretty.

      130

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I’d agree. Pagans also have a very different value system to Christianity, so they will view and operate in the world differently.

        People need to also understand that paganism also encompasses witchcraft.

        Did anyone realise that witchcraft deals with manipulating what witches call “the Force”?

        I kid you not.

        Now where have I heard that before…..?

        http://www.allaboutworldview.org/new-age-theology.htm

        “The god-as-cosmic-energy concept has been popularized in George Lucas’ now classic film series, Star Wars. In a 1999 interview with Bill Moyers, Lucas explained why he made the series, “With Star Wars, I consciously set about to re-create myths and the classic mythological motifs. I wanted to use those motifs to deal with issues that exist today….I see Star Wars as taking all the issues that religion represents and trying to distill them down into a more modern and easily accessible construct….I’m telling an old myth in a new way.” What Lucas fails to mention is “the old myth” he refers to is Eastern religion, not western Christianity.

        In this way, New Age mysticism was thrust from the big screen into the consciousness of countless viewers, young and old.16

        Weaving pantheistic religion throughout Star Wars was not an accident.

        While most viewers enjoyed this film saga for its entertainment value, producer Lucas sees his role as an educator as well as entertainer.

        He notes, “I’ve always tried to be aware of what I say in my films because all of us who make motion pictures are teachers, teachers with very loud voices.”17

        Likewise, Irvin Kershner revealed his religious intention for directing The Empire Strikes Back. Kershner stated in one interview, “I wanna introduce some Zen here because I don’t want the kids to walk away just feeling that everything is shoot-em-up…but that there’s also a little something to think about here in terms of yourself and your surroundings.”18

        Just another example of how far the New Age ( occult ) has infiltrated our society.

        60

    • #
      The Backslider

      It’s quite interesting to note that once somebody goes truly down the path of “evolution” and the incredible amount of “faith” (their understanding of the term) required for it that their final outcome is pantheism (Gaia).

      70

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        The Soviet Unions official “religion” was Athiesm, however when it collapsed one thing that flourished was religion. Its proof you can be ideological, but you cant suppress the human spirits need for belief in a higher being.

        You would have thought that the USSR would have been the perfect proving ground for atheism, however it wasnt the case at all.

        Looking at things from a Christian point of view ( as I do ), the Bible clearly says mans whole purpose is to worship God.

        “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”
        (Ecc 12:13)

        71

        • #
          Winston

          Steve,

          the Bible clearly says mans whole purpose is to worship God

          And that is exactly what my scripture teacher told me at age 8, which led me to confront him about the stupidity of that belief and led me to atheism.

          If God’s only intention for man was for him to worship, then I would reject God even if I knew he existed. Does that make me Satan?

          For that would indicate that all of Creation in its complexity and wonder was nothing more than a purposeless universe, a Mobius strip of self-defeating “logic” that winds back upon itself in endless futility. How utterly mundane an ambition for a divine intelligence!

          As I stated to the scripture teacher in question (I will admit to being a somewhat precocious and impertinent child- nothing much changes, obviously), an infinitely powerful and all-knowing divinity would desire that we, his creations, should clearly explore the very limits of our conscious being, embark on a quest to understand every dark corner of the unexplored universe, for it is only through extending the limits of our conscious horizons that we can truly give homage to the gift of humanity and intelligence we have been given. A divine intelligence would not shackle us in intellectual servitude, instead set us free to give full expression to our inner divinity, if you will.

          81

          • #
            The Backslider

            If God’s only intention for man was for him to worship, then I would reject God even if I knew he existed.

            You have a very simplistic understanding of the meaning of “worship”. In the same way most people have a simplistic understanding of the meaning of “faith”.

            Through faith we understand (Hebrews 11:3) …… think about it.

            40

            • #
              Winston

              “….the whole duty of man.”

              Doesn’t leave much room for anything other than simplistic notions of worship.

              Don’t get me wrong. I have great respect for most Christians, I admire their faith and their spirituality and their tolerance of atheists or others with differing religious affiliations.

              However, I reject outright the notion of an interventionist God, I reject outright God as some kind of moral arbiter, and I certainly reject outright imbuing God with human characteristics, feelings (anger, wrath), form, or even intelligence in any way we understand it, assuming for a moment that a “God” exists at all. I also reject all forms of organised religion as nothing more than an elaborate confidence trick perpetrated by immoral people to obtain unearned power, influence, wealth or other form of advantage over or subjugation of others.

              If God exists, it is likely that it is a force beyond our capacity to comprehend or give shape or substance to ‘it’. Our intelligence and perception of it would be merely an infinitesimal subatomic particle of a greater and more substantial whole that we are not evolved enough to perceive fully or even remotely understand, and we never will. Our understanding or faith in it is irrelevant. It doesn’t “care” for our belief in it, it doesn’t ascribe merit to us on behalf of our faith in it. We are mere specks of dust in its presence, encompassed by it, filled with it, floating upon it. Or perhaps I am being too “simplistic”.

              30

          • #
            PeterK

            Winston: You state: “If God exists, it is likely that it is a force beyond our capacity to comprehend or give shape or substance to ‘it’. Our intelligence and perception of it would be merely an infinitesimal subatomic particle of a greater and more substantial whole that we are not evolved enough to perceive fully or even remotely understand…”

            “the Bible clearly says mans whole purpose is to
            worship God”

            Perhaps our whole purpose (man’s) is to worship God.

            And that is precisely what we are to achieve. However, it is your interpretation that falls short. The way I see it, it is through the things we do, learn and understand, create, how we interact with others, how we treat our domain for benefit to us and others, and so on and so. This to me is the true essence of worshiping God. He has endowed us with intellect and free will. It is up to each of us to evolve by how we use it and this then reflects on the strength of our worship to God to strive to be god-like.

            I don’t think God ever wanted us to sit around chanting, praying and singing.

            I’m almost 65 now and I still struggle with understanding God.

            40

        • #
          Dariusz

          How God and the Soviet Union are different again?
          Both subjugate the individual and kill in its name. And both of them I have experienced where fear and subjugation were dominant.
          Perhaps the only difference is the Soviet Union vanished like nazi Germany in a matter of months, but religion continues and will continue to pray on the weak and vulnerable. Despite being well educated it took me about 10 adult years to get out of guilt and stand on my own feet finally free.

          10

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            I did science at uni, and didnt become a Christian until much later in life. I disagree its about control and subjugation – God will be God whether we choose to believe or not , He doesnt force anyone to believe. My expericne with a few people from very rigid “christian” denominations ( roman catholcism is one example ) is that guilt is heavy driver in these denominations. True Christianity as was taught by the early church ( and is still the model ) is very liberating, albeit as with most things there are some ground riles, but Jesus said his yoke was light, not overbearing (

            28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” ( Matt 11:28-30 )

            What I do find interesting is how humans appear to be hard wired for some form of worship, which seems consistent with the bible. Had appeared on this planet as a species to be heavily athiestic to our core, you could perhaps argue otherwise.

            20

    • #
      Rick Will

      I am cynical about casting warmists as some sort of religious cult but here is some supporting evidence:
      http://www.partnersinfaith.ie/new/index.php/justice/climate-change
      The URL name gives a clue.

      Here is the opening statement:
      “The video below is by climate researcher Jennifer Hynes. It gives a long but detailed scientific picture of what’s going on with the earth’s climate at the moment. It’s a sobering picture. It appears we are on the edge of runaway global warming and when it is concluded human life on the planet will no longer exist. Although there is no certainty with regard to timeframe it would appear it will happen in decades rather than centuries. This is a very difficult topic to address directly. It has huge implications for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. But how, we should ask, can we best begin to serve each other at this crucial moment? Well we can start talking about it! The current blackout on the topic is not doing us any justice and will not make the unfolding future any easier. We need to talk about climate change.”

      With low literacy in maths, physics and chemistry as well as high faith in the system in western cultures it is easy to see how the momentum for these ideas builds. Enquiring minds and scepticism are no longer encouraged within the education system – Corey Bradshaw is an example of the worst sort of educator.

      70

      • #
        luisadownunder

        “With low literacy in maths, physics and chemistry as well as high faith in the system……..Enquiring minds and scepticism are no longer encouraged within the education system…”

        I nearly fell over when my son, in Year 11, came home and told me that they were forced to watch “An Inconvenient Truth”. They were taken out of a normal class, for which I paid, to watch this drivel. What surprised him most of all was that certain boys in his class, considered to be high achievers (and, therefore, intelligent :-!), were completely hoodwinked by this expurgate nonsense.

        This is a private boys high school which prides itself on EDUCATING young minds to fulfill their potential in mind and spirit. Yea, right.

        This is the future of education. Pure drivel. I really do worry about my grandchildren.

        20

  • #
    ScienceABC123

    To all you Climate Scientists out there, please identify, specifically, what observable conditions would falsify AGD? Seriously, I want to know.

    100

  • #
    WB

    O/T Jo not sure if you’ve seen this new paper from Piers Forster published in Nature (submitted Aug 2014, accepted Nov 2015, published today) but I am reeling a bit. Here’s the abstract.

    Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus. It is unclear to what extent this mismatch is caused by incorrect model forcing, by incorrect model response to forcing or by random factors. Using a multiple regression approach that is physically motivated by surface energy balance, we isolate the impact of radiative forcing, climate feedback and ocean heat uptake on GMST—with the regression residual interpreted as internal variability—and assess all possible 15- and 62-year trends. The differences between simulated and observed trends are dominated by random internal variability over the shorter timescale and by variations in the radiative forcings used to drive models over the longer timescale. For either trend length, spread in simulated climate feedback leaves no traceable imprint on GMST trends or, consequently, on the difference between simulations and observations. The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded.

    Here’s what it actually means:

    Global-mean surface temperature (GMST) records since 1998 show no increase but most climate models simulate an increase. There is therefore a mismatch or credibility gap between models and factual records. A growing amount of scientific research concludes the gap is caused by models systematically overestimating the response of surface temperature to greenhouse gas concentrations and the sensitivity of the climate to C02. For this analysis we assume the gap is instead caused by one or more of the following: 1) incorrect model of radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, 2) incorrect model response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations; 3) random factors (i.e natural, not man-made greenhouse gas concentrations). We analyse models against GMST in short and long term trend periods to identify which of the 3 causes has contributed to the gap and in what proportion. We find random natural variation (3) is the main cause of the gap between models and GMST over the short term and unmodelled variations in radiative forcing (1 and 2) is the main cause over the long term. Our assumed causes for the model/GMST gap are our found causes.

    They have made an a prior decision to find that sensitivity to C02 is not the reason for models running hot. Their opaque form of expression can’t hide their circular reasoning. I think it’s just appalling.

    140

    • #
      The Backslider

      I think it’s just appalling.

      But of course, we are not at all surprised.

      This is the thing with modelling – you can make a model show anything you want, even to go so far as to show that what appeared to be completely wrong or what empirical evidence showed to be completely wrong was in fact correct.

      80

      • #
        Robert

        I don’t program as much as I used to but I’m confident that if you tell me the outcome you want I can write some code that will produce just that.

        80

  • #
    Sonny

    “ACD” – very stupid move by the climate doom cult.

    “OCD” – obsessive compulsive disorder.

    “ACDC” – dirty deeds done dirt cheap.

    Global warming –> Climate Change –> Climate Disruption.

    Each successive name sounds less scary and more abstract.

    If I was there I’d be renaming it something like:

    “Imminent Climate Annihilation”
    “Impending Climate Oblivion”
    “Climate Ground Zero”
    “Climate Genocide”
    “Death, death and more death”

    Cannot wait to see their next “move”.

    130

    • #
      MacSual

      “Imminent Climate Annihilation”
      “Impending Climate Oblivion”
      “Climate Ground Zero”
      “Climate Genocide”
      “Death, death and more death”

      Sounds like the titles of the next thrash metal album releases from Anthrax and Megadeth.

      90

      • #
        Yonniestone

        I don’t think you can beat ‘Recursive Fury’ as thrash metal band name, the satire and irony is priceless.

        40

    • #
      StefanL

      Their cleverest move, by far, was to drop the “anthropogenic” word.

      Now we skeptics have to introduce the word into the debate and refute it at the same time.

      20

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    The practice of scientists sharing their feelings runs contrary to the dominant consumer capitalist culture of the West, which guards against – and attempts to divert attention from – the prospect of people getting in touch with feelings provoked by witnessing the wholesale destruction of the planet.

    A bit of a tough sentence to get through. I’ve tried to identify the heart of the issue here.

    “The practice of scientists sharing their feelings runs contrary to the dominant” scientific method.

    “the prospect of people getting in touch with feelings…” demonstrates that they believe emotional content is greater than rational content, and will win the argument.

    80

    • #
      Yonniestone

      An interesting observation Greg, I see the term Cult used a lot for this CAGW movement and found a site called Cult Education that has good information on Defining a Cult that runs true with the mindset ideals of Truthout, I actually knew someone though work involved with the Avatar cult that’s listed on the site I linked, they went to see a Richard Branson talk and raved about how the future will be powered with biofuels, when I explained how inefficient that would be, food etc..he still wouldn’t believe me, not because I was wrong but Branson had said so and he was obviously more impressive, he was a nice guy but easily led.

      40

  • #
    David M

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahr_Jamail

    Truthout is written by Dahr Jamail a journalist with no science degree

    (David – his quals are not relevant. What matters are the arguments. – Jo)

    10

  • #
    Michael Webster

    “the models don’t work”

    Of course they don’t – they keep predicting the Earth is getting hotter, and yet 2014 was only the hottest year on record. But I forgot – apparently thermometers don’t work when it comes to climate.

    Pathetic and demented, the lot of you. Of course people are angry given that the science is conclusive that the Earth is warming due to emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, and yet there are so many cabals of the uneducated like Jo Nova and her dittoheads, who actively seek to prevent action.

    Mind you, the appropriate emotion for dealing with people like you isn’t anger, it’s disgust and incredulity.

    234

    • #

      Michael, I know numbers are difficult, but “getting hotter” and “hottest year” is kindergarten reasoning. After 300 years of warming we’re in a hot flat patch where noise will generate a meaningless “record” but the trends that matter show the models were wrong. – Jo

      322

      • #
        Michael Webster

        300 years of warming? Right – and there I was thinking that all the temperature records showing warming were fabricated – at least that’s what I learned from your blog.

        322

        • #
          the Griss

          “at least that’s what I learned from your blog.”

          I don’t believe you have ‘learnt” anything.

          Yes, recent warming has been exaggerated by data manipulations. !

          The past is a lot cooler than it used to be.

          Where is that “inconvenient 1940′s peak”, that Tom Wiggly told the guys they had to get rid of. Gone !!! Adjusted.. Flattened like roadkill !!

          And we can be VERY thankful for the slow warming that has bought us from the VERY BOTTOM of temperatures in the Holocene.. Very thankful indeed.

          A bit more warming, plus raised CO2 levels, would do the world a great deal of benefit !!

          141

          • #
            Michael Webster

            But Nova just agreed that it is warming – in fact she agreed with the BEST results below, and claimed that you (so called) skeptics, had always agreed that it was warming.

            BEST of course, used raw data, and as has been done so many times, completely debunked the slanders about modifications to the record having any kind of significant impact on the results.

            010

            • #
              the Griss

              “BEST of course, used raw data,”

              Then that scrabble it, poach it, fry it, and cook it any other way they can think of.

              Of course it ends up warming. !

              30

            • #
              Rod Stuart

              You can determine whether or not BEST has any credibility if you watch the pea.

              10

            • #
              StefanL

              Michael: Skeptics agree that there has been a 300 year warming trend since the Little Ice Age. What we don’t accept is that this warming is mainly caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

              20

        • #

          If you had been reading Michael, you’d have read that there is no such thing as a global temperature. That it is a meaningless term. What is documented can be flatteringly described as an “index”. It’s just a number.

          A number that, for every year, is determined from things measured differently to the year before. That means that the index from one year isn’t really comparable to the index from any other year because different things were being measured differently.

          It’s rubbish. It’s an enormous waste of resources because it can only yield essentially useless numbers. Useless because they don’t consistently measure the same thing so comparisons aren’t valid.

          The few running records over any period that “do not change” are the satellite based ones. But they also get changed after the fact as previous readings are adjusted to compensate for errors subsequently recognized in how things were measured.

          120

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Michael,

          At what time in history, was the global temperature ideal, and what event or series of events occurred to change that?

          172

        • #
          luisadownunder

          Actually Michael, would you like to tell us what ideal climate you would like the earth to have?

          Would that be a median climate or an average climate?

          Would that be similar at different times of the year or is this a climate that would remain steady for 5 or 10 years?

          Would the climate differ much between the northern and the southern hemisphere?

          We would really love to know because the current climate has you in complete anguish, and we want to really please you and make you better.

          10

      • #
        FIN

        After 300 years of warming…

        Can I quote you on that? Most interesting, I’m sure old Monkers will be fascinated to read about this. I thought it stopped in 1998.

        216

        • #
          the Griss

          “I thought it stopped in 1998.’

          OMG! The 300 or so year BEFORE that, dopey !!

          Keep posting Fin, you are showing just how brainless the average warmist troll is. !!! :-)

          111

    • #
      MacSual

      Michael,Thank you for coming your input is vital and much appreciated ,do you mind if we go away and spend some time in deep thought over your exceptional argument and get back to you later,cheers.

      171

    • #
      the Griss

      “and yet 2014 was only the hottest year on record”

      NO, IT WASN’T.

      The GISS/Hadcrut value was fabricated specifically to come in just above the 1998 value.

      Gavin has been “tilting” the temperatures in many countries over the last year or so to try to CREATE this result, yet STILL could only manage it by a MEANINGLESS and INSIGNIFICANT 0.02°C or something.

      Trust the satellite data..

      DO NOT trust the manic activist in control of the GISS data.

      161

      • #
        Michael Webster

        How about the BEST data – one of your side’s projects – made the mistake of looking at the actual science:

        http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf?/2014

        1998, at the height of an extreme El Nino is now relegated to 9th in the list.

        613

        • #

          Not my “side”.

          Elizabeth Muller (Director of BEST) ran a “Green government” consultancy. Just how impartial was BEST?

          Elizabeth Muller is listed as “Founder and Executive Director” of the Berkeley Earth Team along with her father Richard Muller. But since 2008 it appears she’s been earning money as a consultant telling governments how to implement green policies, how to reduce their carbon footprint and how to pick “the right technologies” …

          Mullers Daughter Elizabeth registered “GreenGov” in 2008.
          Muller and Associates helps investors profit from investments in alternative energy.

          BEST showed the Earth warmed, which skeptics have always agreed with. They pretended that mattered though they didn’t look for and didn’t find a cause and effect link to CO2. Correlation is not causation. The correlation is weak anyhow.

          They pretended to be skeptics, which they weren’t.

          But gullible fools bought the PR.

          231

          • #
            Michael Webster

            “BEST showed the Earth warmed, which skeptics have always agreed with.”

            So let me get this straight … you agree that the Earth has warmed by around 1.0C since the 1950s which is what BEST found.

            No. Quote me. – Jo

            In fact they were set up because of deniers/skeptics claiming that all the other temperature records and reconstructions had been fabricated, or poorly conducted, the tested Anthony Watt’s urban heat island effect, and they eventually confirmed the veracity of the warming trend that had been discovered. This was absolutely what the skeptics including you were arguing at the time. Now that you’ve been proven wrong, you claim you never denied the Earth was warming.

            No – Quote me. You are spouting conjecture. Don’t bother. You apparently have no idea what our core arguments are. – Jo

            So, having proved causation, what will you start arguing then – yes’ it’s warming, and it’s warming due to increased concentrations of CO2, but….

            You proved nothing. – Jo

            Correlation is certainly not causation, which is why experimental knowledge of the warming effects of CO2, and direct observation of it’s effect in reduced OLR, and increased back radiation is very relevant. Of course those who point these things out just get more claims about corruption, or instruments that don’t work, or satellites being unreliable.. ad infinitum.

            Congrats. Direct greenhouse warming of CO2 is at most 1.2C per doubling (Hansen 1984, Bony 2006, IPCC AR4). The IPCC speculates that positive feedback makes that 3C. 28 million weather balloons show they were wrong, feedbacks are negative. Warming will be less than 1.2C. The IPCC want gullible fools to believe “its’ simple physics”. – Jo

            Elizabeth Muller is also CEO of a shale oil company – hardly a bleeding heart liberal. Mind you, people who live in glass houses, and take Heritage Foundation funds, shouldn’t be commenting about other’s conflicts of interest.

            You started the ad hom argument saying that BEST were “skeptics”. I made no ad hom. I merely pointed out you were wrong. Read my links. -Jo

            04

            • #

              Michael Webster
              In your false accusation you say

              the Earth has warmed by around 1.0C since the 1950s which is what BEST found.

              This is incorrect. The BEST land data found this level of warming. The BEST global surface temperature data set shows nearer 0.7C of warming.
              Also, saying “the Earth has warmed by around 1.0C” is nonsense. The change in the average temperature of the earth – a solid object with a very hot core – is not calculated. It is the average surface temperatures of the Earth that are calculated.

              10

        • #
          the Griss

          “one of your side’s projects’

          ROFLMAO !!!!

          BEST is mangled by Muller, a never-was-sceptic, and his daughter, a rabid warmist.

          You really haven’t gone any research at all have you.. just swallowed the climate cool-aid..

          so funny !!

          121

          • #
            Michael Webster

            Muller certainly was a skeptic, and so was another member, Judith Curry. So much so that Anthony Watts, on the basis of their methodology, made this statement:

            … I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.

            Of course, the results weren’t what he, or you, or any of the deniers involved wanted – once again, stay away from science if you want to maintain your deluded denial.

            [Muller was never a skeptic - read this: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/muller-the-pretend-skeptic-makes-three-claims-hes-half-right-on-one/ p Mod]

            03

      • #

        Griss,
        Do not be so hard on Gaven, He is even more ugly than Michael Mann.

        10

    • #
      the Griss

      PS, We are currently at the peak of the CSWP (Current Slightly Warm Period), and only about half way between the temps of the LIA and the MWP.

      The RWP, and Minoan Optimum where warmer again, and the Holocene Optimum, even warmer.

      We are actually in the BOTTOM 3% of Holocene temperatures.

      171

      • #
        Michael Webster

        We’re far above the MWP – without any solar variation being able to explain our current temperatures. We’re also now above the Holcene Optimum. We are close to 1.0C above the climatic optimum of 6000 years ago.

        019

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          We’re far above the MWP – without any solar variation being able to explain our current temperatures.

          The fact that you cannot find a causal mechanism, does not mean their isn’t one.

          Or are you a Solar Variation Denier, who believes that the Sun never varies? Or are you saying that it hasn’t varied since the MWP? Or are you saying that there is some counter influence that is negating any variance in the Sun?
          [You know the rules, please do not use the D-word. -Fly]

          80

          • #
            Michael Webster

            The sun’s output varies, and the distance of the Earth from the sun also varies. Neither of those variations which can be observed explain the current warming.

            09

            • #
              the Griss

              There is no current warming.. hasn’t been for 18 or so years.

              The series of solar peaks in the latter part of last century and the variations of UV frequency from those peaks is more than enough to have caused the very small amount of warming that occurred.

              But the sun is now having a snooze, and looks like it will be for a few decades to come.

              The AGW farce will shortly have to mutate its name yet again.

              They are actually trying it on already (ACD or something like that), because they can see that “global warming” is being laughed at. :-)

              40

        • #
          the Griss

          “We’re far above the MWP “

          NO, we are not. We are still very obviously below that temperature level.

          And they has been a large series of strong solar peak, which some solar scientists have called a period of Solar Grand Maxima, through the latter half of last century.

          I’m surprised we didn’t get warmer. Thus is the controlling of the Earth’s atmospheric pressure gradient.

          But those maxima have gone, expect cooling to gradually set in over the next several years, then for a at least a couple of decades afterwards..

          Hopefully it will not drop down to the temps of the LIA, that would be disastrous for food supplies.

          MWP temps would be soooo much better for all life on Earth.

          71

          • #
            Michael Webster

            I’m sure MWP temperatures would be much better for human and other life, given that they’re so much lower than what we’re experiencing now.

            Solar grand maxima? How’d you make up that one. The Sun has been particularly inactive of late, and in no way does it’s changes in activity in any way explain the observed temperature changes – which isn’t surprising, because we know that increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing them.

            011

        • #
          the Griss

          “We are close to 1.0C above the climatic optimum of 6000 years ago.”

          RUBBISH !!!!

          71

          • #
            the Griss

            Let me guess, you get you faux-facts from Mickey Mouse Mann.

            Upside down trees and all.

            roflmao !!

            How many gallons of climate cool-aid have you actually sozzled?

            71

          • #
            Michael Webster

            Maybe you’re thinking of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere – global averages are thought to lower than today – around the same as the 20th century average which is about 1.0C under todays.

            I have no idea where you got your facts, but I’m damn sure it wasn’t anything like a scientific paper.

            011

            • #
              the Griss

              Again, total rubbish !

              30

            • #

              Interesting thing about global phenomena: The Medieval Warming period wasn’t global because the scientists said so. There were hotter places and colder places. It was not world-wide. I have no idea how this is known from a few ice cores and tree rings. That’s actually probably impossible—no, wait, it IS impossible.

              Why when it’s freezing in North America now, and in Europe and snowing in places where it hasn’t snowed in decades, is there global warming? I mean, sure, it’s maybe hot in Australia, but Australia isn’t the globe. Same argument used in removing the MWP. Precisely the same argument. And why is it we are not using ice cores and tree rings to verify this today? If the proxies are so exact and can be so easily extrapolated from, why bother with thermometers at all? No reason I can see. Global warming science just ignores or “adjusts” inconvenient data anyway.

              Fact: There is no way a global mean temperature can be calculated to the hundredth of a degree (which is what the current standard is and what the “warmest” is based on) using tree rings and ice cores. You might as well use goat entrails because you’re so far into the psychic scene you may never return.

              20

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                maybe hot in Australia

                Actually, Sheri, It’s not. This has all the hallmarks of a year without a summer. Tim Flannery the Flim Flam man is mysteriously very quiet.

                20

              • #

                You mean they made this up? http://dailysurge.com/2015/01/hot-australia-people-actually-frying-eggs-sidewalks/#

                Actually, about 20 years ago, my brother melted the bottom off his Nike tennis shoe while attempting car repair roadside in Arizona. People have been frying eggs on the sidewalk (though we never used a pan…..) for decades also.

                Don’t know if you like hot weather or not. I’d be happy to have no summer and a lot more winter (it’s up in the 40 to 50F here, 5 to 10C, if my converter is right)! However, right now, something like 82% of the USA is below average even though we are not. I certainly must have missed something in math classes on averaging. Cold in USA, cold in Europe, cooler than usual in Australia but it averages out to “hottest year ever”? I’m not buying it. :)

                20

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                That “Surge” article is an excellent example of propaganda. While it is not an outright untruth, its implications are very misleading. When I said it is not a hot summer, it is not because I have been paying any attention to the falsified temperatures reported by our met people, but because it is so common this year for folks to comment “When is summer going to start? It is midsummer and the weather is like autumn”. The truth of the matter is that is some parts of Oz you could fry eggs on the sidewalk some days, especially in the North. The article mentions 44 degrees, which is not at all unusual. It IS unusual that it has been that hot in Tasmania, in early February of 2009. In Western Australia, in regions such as the Pindan, the Pilbara, and the Kimberleys 44 degrees is considered typical summer weather, since some days the temperature reaches 50 and beyond. The early explorers reported such temperatures in the nineteenth century. I doubt that any of the other regulars on here such as Kinky Keith, The Backslider, Tony from Oz, or TdeF would dispute what I have told you. You might have seen the name Tom Hartley on this blog. He is quite prolific on his pindanpost.com. Tom is a horticulturalist in Broome, WA. He posts a great many photos which may be of interest to you. Many of his posts this summer are with regard to the unusually early appearance of “the wet”; a period of monsoon conditions that always follow the hot dry days of summer. Even though I don’t like hot either, my wife and I relaxed for a fortnight over Christmas in Tropical North Queensland north of Cairns. This year the weather was quite pleasant with long summer days in the 30′s.

                30

        • #
          The Backslider

          We’re far above the MWP – without any solar variation being able to explain our current temperatures. We’re also now above the Holcene Optimum.

          You are just a [snip] LIAR. [snip]**¨OFF!!!!!

          80

        • #
          Robert

          Really, and who decided it was “optimum?”

          Tell us, where should we set the thermostat to? Are you sure everyone on the planet wants that particular temperature? How about “climate?” More snow, less snow, more rain, less rain, what should it be? What is “normal?”

          Give it a rest, you have no arguments only emotional appeals.

          30

    • #
      the Griss

      “science is conclusive that the Earth is warming due to emissions from the burning of fossil fuels”

      No it isn’t. Who told you that, you gullible little schoolchild?

      In fact, most real science points to the fact that it has very little or ZERO effect of CO2 warming in the Earth’s atmosphere.

      But I seriously doubt you have EVER looked at any real science.

      152

      • #
        Michael Webster

        “In fact, most real science points to the fact that it has very little or ZERO effect of CO2 warming in the Earth’s atmosphere.”

        A demonstrably false statement. [Snip - I will not tolerate personal ad hominem comments -Fly]

        114

        • #
          the Griss

          No, it is a demonstrably TRUE statement

          Produce proof otherwise.

          I have asked many warmist trolls to produce a paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

          nothing, nada… ZIP !!!

          110

        • #
          Michael Webster

          It seems I’m being moderated for saying the “denier” word and ad-homs. That’s a bit rich in the context of people calling me a warmist troll, and a gullible little schoolchild.

          Michael, it’s about accurate English. Words need agreed definitions. This is a science blog, if we are deniers, what observation do we deny? Since you claim the evidence is overwhelming, you won’t have any trouble. Right? What evidence shows that CO2 causes catastrophic warming (more than 1.2C in direct warming ie positive feedbacks). IF you can’t name any then “denier” is mere namecalling, a political tool to silence debate by a team that can’t win a fair fight. — Jo

          As to the meaning of denier – Jo Nova, and the people on this site deny Anthropogenic Global Warming in the face of the giant mountain of evidence that supports it, and without a sensible or rational argument against it. You might as well be skeptical about the effects of gravity – but if you are, you’d rightly be called a denier, because you simply deny what is beyond argument.

          [I'm going to make it very easy for you Michael. If you use the word denier or it's variants I'll throw your whole post in the trash. No snipping no editing. Simple eh?] ED

          [As you may guess, you have not made a good impression on the moderators of this site. So let me make a few points:
          1. Nobody here questions the fact that climate changes, or that it gets colder and warmer in a complex cyclic fashion.
          2. Nobody here doubts that the climate is slowly getting warmer, and has done so, on aggregate, since the earth started emerging from the Little Ice Age.
          3. We generally accept that burning fossil fuels will release some sequestered carbon to the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.
          4. Where we disagree, is over the proportion of the carbon dioxide that is anthropogenic, in aggregate, and the proportion that is natural, in aggregate.
          5. Where we also disagree, is over the length of time that each molecule of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere before being absorbed by the ocean or by plant respiration, both of which are significant carbon dioxide sinks.
          6. We also disagree with the position, taken by some climate scientists, that other natural events, such as volcanic eruptions, should be ignored, as a source, when attributing increases in carbon dioxide.

          So you see, the science is far from settled, and we still have many outstanding questions to answer. What we do deny, to quote Al Gore, is that "The science is settled, and the jury is in". -Fly]

          00

          • #

            While it’s rather juvenile to do so, I think you could probably call skeptics “gullible little schoolchildren” and not get moderated (yes, skeptics who do that are juvenile, too). You might have an argument with “warmist”, since that is derogatory term skeptics use for global warming advocates. Except you are talking warming, so probably not.

            I will note that there are posters on this blog that do no believe CO2 has anything to do with warming and are very vocal about it. However, since most CO2 theories are based on blackbox and thought experiments and correlation on a graph, I doubt you can use the d word even for them. You could argue against the science, but I have not seen you do so yet.

            You’re still on an old thread, which is very common among global warming advocates. It cuts the number of people you have to deal with. You do a great deal of whining about what people call you, yet you are on the side of individuals calling for children to kill their parents if they don’t agree with the political interpretation of a theory. Maybe check out the neighborhood a bit—skeptics don’t often jump to death threats. If you are going to whine so much, maybe this is not the place for you to be. Try a blog where people agree with you and post a newer thread.

            20

      • #
        Michael Webster

        Do you really want me to do your research for you? There are many papers showing direct measurement of reduced OLR in the CO2 absorption bands. If you’re not aware of them, you have no business pretending you can reasonably debate CO2′s effect on global temperatures.

        114

    • #
      Robert

      Sorry bubba, it isn’t “the science” that is conclusive. It would be the data, observations, and evidence that would be “conclusive” if anything was. Unfortunately for you the data, observations, and evidence don’t support the models conclusions.

      191

      • #
        Michael Webster

        The vast majority of climate science is empirical, based solely in vast numbers of observations. As to models, they are not important to determining that the Earth is warming, but they are to projecting the impacts of climate change into the future – so long as the Earth remains in a fairly stable climate state.

        Models against observations are compared all over the place. Here’s the BEST page on model comparisons:
        http://static.berkeleyearth.org/graphics/figure9.pdf

        010

        • #
          the Griss

          Again the link to BEST, seriously ????

          next you will be linking to SkS or something even more ridiculous. (is there?)

          They surely had the hose on full-bore when they brain-washed you.

          All the grey matter.. gone !!

          40

    • #
      the Griss

      Something for you to read, if you have the comprehension skills.

      Its from one of the world’s foremost atmospheric physicists (ex-NASA)

      I doubt you have the ability to get past the abstract, so here is the last two sentences of that abstract….

      “Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible“.

      171

      • #
        the Griss

        I like this quote from the conclusion.

        “Unfortunately the Nobel Laureate IPCC is not a scientific authority,

        and their claim of the consensus and the settled greenhouse science is meaningless.

        The quantitative results of this paper massively contradict the CO2 greenhouse effect based AGW hypothesis of IPCC.”

        161

      • #
        Michael Webster

        I did read that, I understood it – and it’s nonsense.


        The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible“

        How can it be impossible? If CO2 is a greenhouse gas – which of course it is – even scientists on your side dispute that, increasing it’s concentration has a warming effect. That’s pretty simple stuff. I can’t even begin to imagine the kind of intellectual contortions the author had to go through to come up with the such a logically fallacious arguments.

        012

        • #
          the Griss

          I give the paper link below.

          You haven’t read it. It is way beyond your capability.

          You should stick to your ‘simple’ stuff. The stuff they force fed you.

          Do not under any circumstance engage your brain and think. !!

          Yes CO2 is a radiative gas. They use it in greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

          But there is no mechanism that can cause it to “trap” heat in the atmosphere.

          Atmospheric energy is controlled by the pressure gradient. The atmosphere can only hold as much as that pressure gradient will allow. Basic physics, which you obviously missed out on. Perhaps if you hadn’t left in year 10 ?

          Did you know that Venus which is around 97% CO3 is almost EXACTLY the temperature it should be at equivalent atmospheric pressure to Earth.

          All that CO2 on Venus has ZERO warming effect.

          And the tiny, tiny amount in our atmosphere has zero warming effect here, either.

          Get used to the idea. :-)

          60

        • #
          the Griss

          “I can’t even begin to imagine the kind of intellectual ….. “

          No, I can see you can’t imagine anything intellectual.

          Parrots don’t think, they regurgitate.

          20

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            In the warmist spirit of using correlation to imply causation, I have an observation to make.
            All trolls appear to be “Michael”. (Unless occasionally they use pseudonym like “Silly Filly”).
            Therefore there is only one troll with several names.

            40

      • #
        the Griss

        darn , forgot the link !!

        20

    • #
      Manfred

      …and yet 2014 was only the hottest year on record.

      0.02ºC ±0.1ºC

      I spy with my little eye…

      110

      • #
        the Griss

        After upward adjustments of some +0.5°C in many places around the world.

        140

        • #
          Michael Webster

          Oh – adjustments again – that would be part of the communist conspiracy to create a world Government I take it?

          Pretty dumb way to do it – Let’s take over the world by infiltrating all Weather stations and climate science departments around the world…

          [No one is claiming it is a conspiracy, communist or otherwise, but certainly Chinese and Russian temperature measurements don't seem to suffer the same adjustment frenzy achieved in the West. Confirmation bias, group think and theory fitting are real issues though. And if everything was readily explained, then just release the station by station adjustment details for public scrutiny surely? - Mod]

          08

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      they keep predicting the Earth is getting hotter, and yet 2014 was only the hottest year on record.

      The claim of hottest year for 2014 can only be based on the rolling 12 month average for HadleySST3 at December 31st being A WHOPPING 0.0059° warmer than the 12 months preceding 31 July 1998.
      What do you want, a Nobel Peace Prize?

      There are just no definite answers there. The sea and land temperature records are too sparse to be an accurate measure of the planet, but at least the sea surface temperature is the most relevant quantity for catastrophic global warming.
      The satellites are much more reliable, but they are measuring tropospheric air temperature, not surface temperature. What’s relevant isn’t very accurate and what’s accurate isn’t very relevant. But you want to pick one hot year in the less reliable data set and claim it is total proof of disastrous future warming. Now that’s a hot whopper.

      Jo Nova and her dittoheads, who actively seek to prevent action.

      Really? I thought I had been sitting on my buttocks on this chair doing nothing but grumbling for the last 5 years of the climate debate. I had no idea the Green Progressive standard of activity was so low. :)

      And this coming from the crowd that organises Walk Against Warming, which actively seeks to exhale more CO2 than normal.

      50

      • #
        the Griss

        “Jo Nova and her dittoheads, who actively seek to prevent action”

        Hey, we just shine a light on the cockroaches.. and they scurry into the dark.

        No action we take will stop the coming cooling trend.

        All going towards non-alternative, non-energy source will do is make it harder for many parts of the world to cope during that cooling period.

        And lets not forget the 1700 “alarmist glitterati” private jets that went to Davos for their little gathering to try to figure out how next to fleece the general public.

        No hypocrisy there at all ;-)

        80

  • #

    Sonny – “Cannot wait to see their next “move””
    Greg – “they believe emotional content is greater than rational content, and will win the argument”
    Is narcissistic misery a recognised psychopathological state?
    What do they do next is certainly a puzzle. Do they self-harm, or harm others? Oh – wait – they’ve already done the latter …

    120

  • #
    Margaret Smith

    If this man really believes what he is saying he is very nasty indeed.
    I heard recently that Abbott is very unpopular and will lose the next election. Is this true or propaganda?
    If the loonies get back in power the outlook for Australia would be catastrophic!
    Here in the UK Russian oil money is funding anti fracking operations.
    They all do work hard at the propaganda.

    110

  • #
    handjive

    ABC 1 hour ago:

    The Bureau of Meteorology says large parts of Queensland, northern New South Wales, western Victoria and Western Australia can expect drier than normal weather from February to April, and temperatures will be warmer than average for much of Australia.

    Unexpected January rain

    The bureau’s previous outlook had predicted a dry start to the year, yet early January rain drenched many areas of central Australia and the country’s east.

    Dr Watkins says those bursts of heavy rain can be difficult to predict in a long-term outlook.
    ~ ~ ~
    > BoM short term predictions aren’t any better:

    SMH Feb, 2014

    “The Bureau of Meteorology is bracing for criticism for not warning of a “super cell” storm that dumped 49 millimetres of rain in 20 minutes on Geelong late on Wednesday afternoon.”
    ~ ~ ~
    27 January 2015, the conversation:

    “Australia is on track for up to 1.7C of warming this century if the world curbs its greenhouse emissions, but under a worst-case scenario could see anything from 2.8C to 5.1C of warming by 2090, according to new climate change projections released by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.

    While reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions would increase the chance of slowing climate change …”
    . . .
    Based on that evidence, it would be lunacy to accept advice on how to run an economy in 70 90 years from the BoM/CSIRO/UN-IPCC.

    180

    • #
      Glen Michel

      If it’s any help the next week seems to be quite stable over much of our beloved country, but one can’t be too certain……arrrr there be dragons and slithering serpents and all types of weather green lies to confound our much esteemed BoM.

      80

    • #
      el gordo

      Anecdotal evidence suggests this January has been cooler in south east Australia, there is bound to be a headline in the MSM reporting this anomaly. Or perhaps the adjustments have worked like a charm and the anecdotal evidence would appear to be wrong. ;-)

      The formation of this East Coast Low feels novel for this time of year and the attached cold air outbreak (CAO), but its too early to call it a regional cooling signal.

      90

  • #
    Glen Michel

    Funny green lies meant to be greeblies.

    40

  • #
    pat

    this could have been written by the self-proclaimed “earth doctor” reese halter, who was on ABC Overnights this week, especially the repeated memes of “disruption” “children” “grand-children”.

    post-Climategate, it makes more sense to be furious that CAGW “science” has so distorted the scientific method that it will be difficult for children/grandchildren to make any sense whatsoever out of the history of climate change on our planet.

    one comment directs people to the following article, which features Australian Glenn Albrecht, “a former professor who taught philosophy, sustainability, and environmental studies at the University of Newcastle and at Murdoch University”:

    2010: NYT: Daniel B. Smith: Is There an Ecological Unconscious?
    (Daniel B. Smith holds the Critchlow Chair in English at the College of New Rochelle)
    (Glenn) Albrecht’s philosophical attempt to trace a direct line between the health of the natural world and the health of the mind has a growing partner in a subfield of psychology. Last August, the American Psychological Association released a 230-page report titled “Interface Between Psychology and Global Climate Change.” News-media coverage of the report concentrated on the habits of human behavior and the habits of thought that contribute to global warming. This emphasis reflected the intellectual dispositions of the task-force members who wrote the document — seven out of eight were scientists who specialize in decision research and environmental-risk management — as well as the document’s stated purpose. “We must look at the reasons people are not acting,” Janet Swim, a Penn State psychologist and the chairwoman of the task force, said, “in order to understand how to get people to act.”
    Yet all the attention paid to the behavioral and cognitive barriers to safeguarding the environment — topics of acute interest to policy makers and activists — disguised the fact that a significant portion of the document addressed the supposed emotional costs of ecological decline: anxiety, despair, numbness, “a sense of being overwhelmed or powerless,” grief…
    Recently, a number of psychiatrically inflected coinages have sprung up to represent people’s growing unease over the state of the planet — “nature-deficit disorder,” “ecoanxiety,” “ecoparalysis.” The terms have multiplied so quickly that Albrecht has proposed instituting an entire class of “psycho­terratic syndromes”: mental-health issues attributable to the degraded state of one’s physical surroundings…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/magazine/31ecopsych-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Silber funded by Pulitzer to push the mental health meme, featuring Albrecht & other Aussies who apparently at the forefront of this meme:

    July 2014: Grist: Joanne Silber: What is climate change doing to our mental health?
    (Reporting for this story was supported by the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.)
    I checked the most recent IPCC report. Nothing on mental health. I checked news articles. Nada. I checked the scientific literature, and found a few things, mostly from Australian scientists…
    Research on mental health and climate change in Australia pretty much starts and ends with a very modest and soft-spoken psychiatric epidemiologist, Helen Berry of the University of Canberra. She’s responsible for 27 papers and book chapters published on the subject since 2011…
    Berry is also working on a study whose early results suggest that a hot spell of even a few days can have effects that last up to a year — it attacks men’s sense of being capable and strong and competent, and women’s emotional functioning…
    Berry’s mentor, Tony McMichael, recently retired from Australian National University and generally credited as the father of climate change and health research, told me that epidemiologists “by and large prefer to work with health outcomes that are readily measurable and quantifiable, and that’s never easy with mental disorders.”
    Both Berry and McMichael say one of the biggest challenges is research funding, especially government funding. The best thing that can be said about the Australian government’s approach to climate change is that it’s crazy…
    New problems, new words
    As for the new vocabulary, that comes from another Aussie, Glenn Albrecht, a former professor who taught philosophy, sustainability, and environmental studies at the University of Newcastle and at Murdoch University. “A genuine philosopher,” he said with a wink, since he has a doctorate in philosophy. His big contribution to the field: solastalgia. That’s “the homesickness when you’re still at home and your home environment is changing around you in ways that you find negative, and that you have very little power over.”…
    In the few months since my visit, Australia stopped being such a lonely outpost for people studying the mental health effects of climate change. The new IPCC report has a health chapter that deals with the issue ***(Berry and McMichael were among the authors). The American Psychological Association and ecoAmerica recently released a report on the broad psychological effects of climate change.
    So chalk one more health challenge up to climate change…
    (Correction: This post originally identified Glenn Albrecht as a professor at the University of Newcastle. In fact, he most recently taught at Murdoch University, and he recently retired from there)
    http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-is-climate-change-doing-to-our-mental-health/

    what a depressing lot they are.

    50

    • #
      Len

      All working to the socialists’ cause of bringing totalitarianism. Useful idiots all.

      20

    • #
      PeterK

      solastalgia. That’s “the homesickness when you’re still at home and your home environment is changing around you in ways that you find negative, and that you have very little power over.”…

      Kinda reminds me of my younger days when I had one too many and everything was changing around me in my home environment which lead to my falling asleep for which I had very little power to overcome before I finally drifted off.

      30

  • #
    pat

    from Glenn Albrecht’s website:

    Jan 2014: HealthEarthBlog: Eco-Evil
    The ethics are crystal clear, global warming and consequent climate chaos has the demonstrable potential to smash our culture, agriculture and the industrial-technological foundation of our current society. It will render our species hugely less populous and culturally depauperate. It will also take global biodiversity into a period of mass extinction that has no precedence in history … as this time it will be ‘us’ that will be the certain cause. To not recognise this, given the advanced state of scientific consensus about knowledge on this issue, is to engage the capacity for evil. Evil is the deliberate (wicked) continuance of actions that we know will seriously adversely affect others, particularly the innocent, into the future…
    What I am suggesting is that ‘we’ take over ownership of the moral high ground and demonstrate to the public that the position of global warming denialists and sceptics is Evil. From every perspective possible (including religion) their position is one where a huge ethical issue is ignored and a values diversion (e.g., religious education) is put front and centre. Since ‘they’ ignore facts, the only argument that can hurt them is one they claim to have a vested interest in. We need to hit them hard with a values argument that questions their priorities and foundations…
    http://healthearth.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/eco-evil.html

    not a comment in sight. go to the bottom of the righthand column – About me – & click on “View my complete profile”.

    ask yourself – how does this guy, whose websites attract no-one, end up in the NYT or on ABC or Forbes, etc, when Joanne Nova is barely acknowledged by the MSM!!!

    Aug 3, 2014 – ABC – Landcare volunteers wonder if they’ll be marched out by Green Army … Dr Glenn Albrecht, has similar concerns, calling the Green Army a ‘bandaid’ that doesn’t replace the professional and qualified people who are required to do landscape and environmental conservation…

    Is Climate Change a Mental Health Emergency?
    Forbes-31 Mar 2012
    The report referenced the mental state of “solastalgia,” a term coined by Australian philosopher Glenn Albrecht in 2003…

    60

  • #

    I’ll contribute 5 cents towards a box of tissues for the anguished Professor. Black&Gold or No-Frills are $1/box. Can somebody in Adelaide deliver?

    110

  • #
    mark

    ‘your time will come when you will be backed against the wall by the full wrath of billions who have suffered from your greed and stupidity, and I’ll be first in line to put you there.’

    I wonder if the University of Adelaide has a policy regarding Professors threatening their fellow citizens? It would be interesting to know what the University has to say about this declaration. The University is substantially diminished by the statement.

    160

    • #
      Yonniestone

      A major delusion of grandeur, he’s a professor so his threats are justified by his superior knowledge and insight?

      This is how leaders turn into dictators, governments turn into despotism, gatherings into mobs, all started by people with massive personal issues morphing into a lust for power to act out the vilification of the original cause without addressing the symptom.

      100

  • #
    Faye

    The real criminals are the politicians. Without the politicians, the CAGW crowd couldn’t function.

    All that is needed now is a political leader to have the fortitude to debunk climate change and everything connected to it by stopping all public money availability including wages. Without public money the whole thing collapses.

    Seeing how much money is saved will prompt other countries to follow.

    120

    • #
      Michael Webster

      Pardon me, but I’m pretty much sure that debunking the science of climate change would require some kind of scientific argument and proof. And we all know what happens when d[snip] try science, they get very angry because it never matches their ideological beliefs.
      [This comment has also been moderated. Do not use the word "denier", until you can explain what it is that people deny. -Fly]

      014

      • #
        the Griss

        “science of climate change would require some kind of scientific argument and proof”

        Yes, the non-science of “climate change™ ” DOES requires some proof.

        There has been NONE so far,

        ….. just failed models and failed hypotheses.

        You have shown that you are totally unable to produce one bit of science to back up the most basic hypothesis of CO2 warming the atmosphere.

        Nothing but empty rhetoric.

        20

  • #
    markx

    Good grief! Have those climate scientists never heard the phrase; “Over-egging the pudding”?

    These descriptions of their ‘grieving’ are surely one of the best examples out there.

    40

  • #
    markx

    Good grief! Have those climate scientists never heard the phrase; “Over-egging the pudding”?

    These descriptions of their ‘grieving’ are surely some of the best examples of it.

    30

  • #
    RoHa

    OK, so now it’s Anthropogenic Climate Disruption..

    Does that mean we are:

    (1) slightly doomed
    (2) moderately doomed
    (3) very doomed
    (4) totally, hopelessly, apocalyptically, run-screaming-through-the-streets-while-civilization-collapses-around-you doomed?

    We really ought to be told.

    90

    • #
      the Griss

      Actually, all indicators show that “the climate” is actually becoming more benign.

      But I’m sure the alarmista and their lap-dog, the MSM, won’t let that fact get in the way of a few gaudy newspaper headlines for the alarmist gullibles to lap up.

      81

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      For a completely rational assessment of the scientific basis of global warming by people who have no activist biases or dogmatic beliefs, just go to this web site.
      http://www.arrcc.org.au/

      I might be joking.

      20

  • #
  • #
    Richard111

    Some amazing theories and ideas in the above comments; here’s another–the cold IS coming. How do you feed 8 billion people with horse and cart technology and only renewable energy supplies?

    100

  • #
    pat

    ***the changing of the seasons may be lost forever!

    29 Jan: Guardian: Global Development: Carla Kweifio-Okai: Climate change on Valentine’s Day: what might you lose that you love?
    Share what treasured things in your community could be affected by climate change or something you love about the planet that may be lost forever
    (Guardian Global development is supported by: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation)
    (Carla Kweifio-Okai is community coordinator for the Guardian’s Global development site)
    Environmental campaigners are calling for people to declare their love for the planet on 14 February – Valentine’s Day.
    The Climate Coalition, made up of more than 100 UK organisations campaigning for action on climate change, is asking people to submit photos of things they love that they fear losing due to the effects of climate change. Submissions so far include photos of rivers, coral reefs, wildlife and ***“the changing of the seasons”…
    “The campaign aims to show politicians who are embarking on a general election campaign that tackling climate change is important to us because it will affect the things we love most, like our lifestyles, our children’s futures, our hobbies, passions, safety and wellbeing, both here and globally.”…
    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/29/climate-change-guardianwitness-valentines-day

    LA Times Geoffrey suggests he “listens” to CC sceptics – whatever that is – but doesn’t bother to publish a response by one to the following!

    28 Jan: LA Times: Geoffrey Mohan: Climate models don’t over-predict warming, study shows
    If you listen to climate change skeptics, Earth’s surface hasn’t warmed appreciably in the last 15 years, and any “record” set last year is just the result of the planet doing what the planet naturally does.
    It turns out they’re right, but for the wrong reasons, according to a study published online Wednesday in the journal Nature…
    “Cherry picking” the most recent 15-year interval to refute climate change modeling is misleading and obscures the long-term agreement between the models and measurements, according to study co-author Piers Forster, an atmospheric physicist from the University of Leeds, England.
    A study that combined 114 possible 15-year trends since 1900 found that there was nothing statistically biased in the ways model-generated data differed from actual measurements of global mean surface temperatures. These short trends cannot predict “chaotic” fluctuations in such factors as ocean currents, according to the study.
    A similar analysis of every possible 62-year trend was much better at picking up the effects of human activity on rising global temperatures, the study found…
    The researchers chose the 15- and 62-year intervals because they are the durations referenced most often by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which focuses particularly on accelerated warming in the 1950-2012 period…
    http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-models-predict-warming-20150128-story.html

    20

  • #
    pat

    not CAGW, of course, but CC. MSM not interested in linking to the poll itself:

    29 Jan: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: British belief in climate change on the rise, research finds
    Poll finds 15% say climate change is major threat in next two decades, jumping to 29% for people with direct recent experience of flooding
    When asked to name major threats to the UK in the next two decades, 15% of those polled listed climate change without prompting, putting it in fourth position behind immigration, the economy and health. But among people who had direct recent experience of flooding, the number nearly doubled, to 29%.
    Nick Pidgeon, professor at Cardiff University, who co-authored the research, said this showed that there was a clear link between last year’s severe flooding incidents, which left thousands homeless, and the perception of global warming…
    This link should be used by scientists and politicians to reinforce their message that action on carbon emissions is vital, he added…
    The science of climate change “attribution” – linking specific extreme weather events to the effects of global warming –*** is making substantial progress, so it is becoming increasingly possible for scientists to tie particular weather patterns to climate change…
    Most people are also willing to take action on greenhouse gas emissions, and to have the government and businesses take action, the Cardiff poll found. More than eight in 10 said they would buy more energy-efficient appliances and cut down on energy use at home, while 53% said they would be willing to make significant lifestyle changes to address climate change. Four in 10 said they would reduce the amount they travel by car…
    On subsidies for wind farms and other renewables, people are split down the middle: four in 10 people support tax increases to pay for more renewable energy, with a similar number opposed and a further fifth neutral. Nearly half support road pricing schemes, with 18% neutral and a third opposed…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/29/british-belief-in-climate-change-at-highest-level-in-past-decade-survey

    ***the substantial progress in linking specific extreme weather events to the effects of global warming links to a Guardian article which states “Myles Allen and Peter Stott say prime minister right to make connection between recent weather and global warming”. that’s it.

    another view:

    29 Jan: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Britons believe in climate change… but do they care?
    Survey shows 88 per cent of public believe climate is changing yet a record low of just 18 per cent are “very concerned” about it
    Despite warnings from UN scientists, politiciansand even Prince Charles that time is running out to avoid catastrophic global warming, the number of people describing themselves as “very concerned” has more than halved over the past decade…
    Yet the number describing themselves as “very concerned” fell to just 18 per cent, the survey shows. That was down from 44 per cent in 2005…
    Severe flooding that hit the Somerset Levels in winter 2013-14 – which David Cameron linked to climate change – may have influenced opinion, the researchers suggested…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11375124/Britons-believe-in-climate-change…-but-do-they-care.html

    20

  • #
    Robinson

    Less Climate Grief and more Climate, Good Grief in my view Ms Nova. Yes, feelings are more important than facts (apparently).

    20

  • #
    pat

    no MSM mention Nick Pidgeon is Professor of Social & Environmental Psychology. no doubt they prefer to give the impression he is a “climate expert”:

    29 Jan: BBC: Helen Briggs: Climate concern ‘linked to floods’
    Britons named climate change as a major issue facing the UK alongside crime and education in a national survey…
    Professor Nick Pidgeon of the University of Cardiff, who led the research, said it was clear that people had begun to make links between flooding and climate change, particularly among those with direct experience.
    “We have found, although we could only partly attribute that potentially to the flooding, that belief in climate change has gone up in this particular survey compared to surveys we’ve done over the last five years or so, and that is a particularly significant result.”…
    “Effectively, people are joining the dots between the evidence they’re getting – they’re starting to construct a narrative which links extreme weather to climate change in the future.”
    Commenting on the report, Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey said: “The UK public are rightly concerned about climate change and clearly want us to take action.
    “We are leading the world on tackling climate change, attracting billions of new investment to move to a low carbon economy at home and pushing on the global stage for ambitious carbon cuts in Paris this year, including successfully championing at least a 40% reduction in EU emissions by 2030.”…
    Prof Myles Allen of Oxford University is part of the ***climateprediction.net. project working on attribution of extreme weather to climate change.
    “When an event has been made more likely by climate change, but still had some chance of occurring anyway (as seems to have been the case for last winter’s floods), then is it right to say it was caused by climate change?” he asked.
    “Not in the sense that climate change was the only thing that mattered, but yes in the sense that climate change was a factor.
    “Attribution matters because if we’re going to ask members of the public to do something about climate change, then the least we can do is be clear about what climate change is doing to them.
    “And many of the most serious impacts of climate change today are only manifest through changing probabilities of extreme weather events. ”
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31024149

    ***the insane world of climateprediction.net:

    climateprediction.net: Welcome to the world’s largest climate modelling experiment
    We run climate models on people’s home computers to help answer questions about how climate change is affecting our world, now and in the future –
    Sign up now and help us predict the climate.
    Evidence of how our climate is changing is vital to encourage investment in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as coping with inevitable change…
    http://www.climateprediction.net/

    20

  • #
    pat

    Cardiff Uni doesn’t believe in linking to any questionnaire:

    29 Jan: Cardiff Uni: Report reveals public attitudes to climate change
    The research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) with additional support from the Climate Change Consortium of Wales and the Cardiff University Institute of Sustainable Places. It was carried out by researchers at Cardiff University’s School of Psychology, and at The University of Nottingham’s School of Psychology, with fieldwork undertaken by ***Ipsos MORI.
    http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/articles/report-reveals-public-attitudes-to-climate-change-14060.html

    ***Ipsos MORI has nothing up on their site on the various pages i’ve checked.

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/

    10

  • #
    William Astley

    The ‘Environmental’ movement and a segment of the ‘Liberal’ movement have removed logic (facts/limitations), reason, and personal/group responsibility from a host of issues/policies. Advocating mandatory spending of trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work to address a problem that does not exist is irresponsible, destructive, not win/win.

    They either have no concept (of economic reality, what happens when a country runs out of deficit money or quantitative easing ‘new’ money to spend) or irresponsibly ignore the fact there is a fixed amount of money/GDP to spend on everything, schools, roads, parks, climate change scientists, police, health care, developing world support, bridges, arts program, child care, Ebola, and so on. They also do not understand that we are competing with Asia. Purposeless regulations kills jobs. Less jobs, less GDP to spend on everything. Purposeless regulations is not win/win.

    Analysis and observations supports the assertion that there is no AGW problem to solve, the CO2 increase is significantly net beneficial to the biosphere.

    It is a fact the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (positive feedback), which partially explains (it appears in addition to negative feedback there are fundamental factors/mechanisms in the upper troposphere which reduce green house gas forcing) why there has been no warming for 18 years and why there is no tropical tropospheric hot spot, and almost no tropical warming.

    Regardless, of whether there is or is not a AGW problem to solve, the green scams do not work (significantly reduce CO2 emissions), the only viable solution if CO2 emissions where a problem which it is not, is nuclear power. The only thing the environmentalists hate more than CO2 is nuclear power.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/?_r=1#more-50930

    To Those Influencing Environmental Policy But Opposed to Nuclear Power
    While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.

    30

  • #
    The Backslider

    Having fun over at Judith Curry’s blog

    30

  • #
    ObserverPA

    Great article exposing both the pecuniary interest and the willingness of many alarmist “scientists” to abandon the most basic tenets of scientific inquiry and reasoned debate. Is there a type of parasite which mimics the appearance of its host to resist being cast off? That’s the “climate change-disruption etc” relationship to actual environmental issues. Pointing out the highly disputable or outright false factual bases of alarmist constant pronouncements of imminent doom often provokes a buckshot response citing everything from asbestos to zebra mussels purportedly dismissed by climate “deniers” along with the “settled science” they can’t isolate for discussion.

    20

  • #
    Gbees

    I worry about my Mum and Dad both in their 80s who cannot afford to keep the air-con going on very hot days or very cold days. All due to people like the good Prof. and a word to the Prof. Try and put me up against a wall and see how far you get.

    50

  • #
    pat

    read all…

    2 pages: 29 Jan: UK Register: Lewis Page: ‘LOOK into my EYES: You are feeling very worried about the climate … SO worried’
    Psychohistory prof Pidgeon strikes again
    Comment A trick-cyclist who promised several years ago to use a new form of mass hypnosis to get the public motivated to fight climate change claims that he’s done it. In fact the claim is bogus: it is itself part of his attempt to carry out his plan of manipulating public opinion.
    The trick-cyclist is, as regular readers of these pages will have guessed, Professor Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff uni. Several years ago, the prof (a specialist in “social and decision sciences”) stated publicly that he and his fellow soft-studies academics should develop a new method of manipulating public opinion, one that would work better than normal advertising or propaganda. This new and more powerful discipline of mass hypnosis should be used to condition the public into a state where they would support drastic action against the perceived dangers of man-made climate change.
    At the time, we compared Pidgeon’s proposed new methods to Isaac Asimov’s science-fictional discipline of “psychohistory”, a set of methods which could be used to manipulate the behaviour of large populations without their knowledge…
    Skipping over Pidgeon’s waffley advertorial propaganda “research paper” (it’s not a peer-reviewed publication or anything, just a lengthy pseudoscientific polemic written by the prof and some pals*) to the actual survey results, we find out the following things…READ ON
    Bootnote
    *It’s not available online as this is written: the link at the bottom of the press release which ought to take you to it actually goes somewhere else. But we got hold of a copy by asking for one, and lots of pre-selected journalists were sent it well in advance of today’s announcement.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/29/look_into_my_eyes_you_are_feeling_ivery_worriedi_about_the_climate_so_worried/

    10

  • #
    sophocles

    Well, that’s all good. All the “hit hardest”s have ignored NZ. With total “global warming” of only 0.28 degrees C over the twentieth century, (De Freitas et al, 2014) and sea level rise less than 150mm per century with no acceleration, it’s sitting pretty.

    The temperatures are still hitting the middle to high twenties in mid summer, and shrinking to single figures in winter as it has in the past. Relative humidity ranges from 30% to 90% from week to week, just as it has in the past. But that’s all purely seasonal. There are wet times, dry times and inbetween times, as there always has been. No CAGW in there.

    The Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers shrink, pause, advance, pause and shrink in their stately dance.

    Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions keep life exciting, from time to time.

    Life in NZ ia just ao boringly normal. Long may it continue so.

    40

  • #
    Aaron M

    This guy has all the hallmarks of a radicalised zealot.

    20

  • #

    While the following excerpts are from a paper to a Science and Religion discussion by the late Geoffrey Dobbs I thought you might find them of interest within the current discussion.
    Dr. Geoffrey Dobbs was a biologist. You will find the full paper here…
    http://alor.org/Library/Dobbs%20G%20-%20Religation.pdf

    “… Science shares with religion another dimension, beyond the cerebro-verbal plane of academic philosophy, namely that of the external world, in that its thoughts and symbols must be ‘bound back’, in detail, to an external, non-cerebral, non-verbal, reality. It is of the essence of the scientific method that theory must constantly be checked by observation and experiment. It is of the essence of religion that the professed faith must be put to the test of practice, both on the individual scale, and on the more visible, general, social scale. It is of the essence of words and of symbols of all sorts, that their connection with the referent is indirect – entirely through the human mind, and hence easily confused or diverted or even inverted. Hence it is natural enough that a scientist should view with some skepticism and distrust any lengthy or complex verbal process which is not constantly tied back to some observable reality, and to demand of it: “What does this mean in practice?” And in so far as one applies this to the current state of the world and of our society, it would seem apparent that the currently fashionable and accepted philosophy is widely at variance with reality, and that, wherever else we may look for a correct viewpoint, it cannot be in a direction which could be welcome or acceptable to those who lead the intellectual fashion….

    And ‘sigh’ on Evolution:
    “By the 1930’s the dead hand of evolutionism had been, to a great extent, lifted, and most people had, by then, accommodated the facts of evolution in their religion, so that the biological sciences were able to expand, diversify, and explore their subject matter more freely and directly, especially in the fields of physiology and ecology; also in cytology and genetics, although it was a curious fact that, at this period, nearly all the more eminent geneticists were outspoken Marxist-materialists. It was during this period that the ‘New Soviet Genetics’ of Hichurin and Lysenko, made its appearance in the U.S.S.R., and drew attention to the power of political ‘religion’, commonly called ‘ideology’ to impose its nature upon science. ‘Western’ Genetics, condemned as ‘Mendelist-Morganist-Weissmannite-bourgeois-reactionary deviationism’, was ‘anti- dialectical’ because of its insistence on the definiteness and relative immutability of the physical basis of heredity, which would impose unacceptable limits on the power of Man, the Supreme Being, to change ‘Nature’ as he wishes. As the following statement by the Praesidium of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences (quoted from Julian Huxley’s Soviet Genetics and World Science, 1949) put it:
    Michurin’s materialist direction in biology is the only acceptable form of science, because it is based … on the revolutionary principle of changing Nature for the benefit of the people. Weissmannite-Morganist idealist teaching is pseudo-scientific, because it is founded on the notion of the divine origin of the world and assumes eternal and unalterable scientific laws. The struggle between the two ideas has taken the form of the ideological class-struggle between socialism and capitalism.

    ….In the end, even in the U.S.S.R., ideological genetics, which could maintain itself only by the brute force of the state, had to yield to the greater realism of the monk Mendel, though not until it had imposed imprisonment and martyrdom upon the great geneticist N. I. Vavilov and many of his followers.
    It may be that the brutal farce of Lysenkoism did something to postpone the dominance, in biology, of the evolutionary religion; but, in any case, the breakthrough into molecular biology initiated by the elucidation of the DNA molecule by Watson, Wilkins and Crick in the 1950’s, plus the invention of the electron microscope revealing a whole new world of fine structure in the cell, resulted in a sweeping ‘religious’ revival which has transformed many biological Departments, especially those with younger and more ‘withitist’ Heads, into chapels of evolutionary humanism, in which the traditional Christian is made to feel that he is under suspicion of ‘heresy’ or ‘scientific deviationism’, since, by now the evolutionist has lost the power to distinguish between his science and his faith…”

    20

  • #

    [...] also Joanne Nova’s recent post about the disquieting remarks made by some other climate [...]

    10

  • #
    Keith

    If the question has not been asked already, it would be good to know how the Professor delivers his beloved daughter to school, or her after-school activities? There is a fair chance that a fossil-fuel-fired transport system is involved.

    20