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

Be afraid for your red wine and steak now!

Extra carbon dioxide is the wonder fertilizer that has greened deserts and created a global crop boom, but don’t think for a moment that just because plants love CO2 that more of it won’t be an utter disaster come to wreck your dinner!  Yet again, we are at the tipping point, and everything is just about to fall apart. How unlucky can one planet be! “There are few winners”.

Wouldn’t you know it –  the current rainfall and frost patterns are perfect? But soon you will sweat like a pig, have poorer bread, and heat stressed steak. Worse, you may have to eat more olives and mangoes and drink Merlot from … a different region. This is serious, folks: when a cyclone hits the North West of Australia, some West Australians may even have to eat Queensland bananas.

Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald, “investigates” the news that another government agency has written another long, dire report with prophecies of doom. But unlike the past incompetent exaggerated beat-ups, this one (finally) is going to be right, so he doesn’t bother asking hard questions, or interviewing other experts, or even doing a Google search.

“Hotter, harder times forecast for the farm as climate changes food production”

Australia’s agricultural sector faces profound challenges from climate change over coming decades forcing the migration of some crops and the use of new varieties of others, a new report by the University of Melbourne researchers.

After all, the Earth is a lot like a factory farm with not much natural air flow:

Belying the phrase, “sweating like a pig”, these animals don’t have sweat glands are particularly sensitive to heat. As evidence of their vulnerability, about 500 pigs reportedly died at a piggery near the NSW Riverina town of Grong Grong one weekend last month when a ventilation system failed.

Weak wheat is coming:

Whereas rising carbon dioxide levels assists plant growth – the so-called fertilisation effect – the benefits are curtailed if there is insufficient water, phosphorous, nitrogen and other nutrients. Wheat, for instance, may increase in quantity but have lower levels of protein.

Effectively CO2 fertilizer produces slightly more carbohydrate in your carbohydrate foods. In the West, hardly anyone eats wheat for its protein content, because we have beef, KFC, and fish and chips instead. I calculated the effects of low protein wheat and rice on the world’s poor  and showed that to compensate for 100 g of “diluted” rice, they would need to eat one whole extra 2.6g chick pea.

Peter Hannam dishes up the big insights of Prof Eckard.

“The federal government’s really behind the eight-ball on this because they are playing politics,” Professor Eckard said.

Golly. Imagine politicians playing politics.

I guess we need our pollies to do science instead, because some government scientists don’t seem to be very good at it.

Eckard goes on:

“If you can disentangle climate change from the politics, we’d be so much better off.”

Exactly. Let’s get the political activists out of science and out of the media. No more junk journalists who cheer on illogical, deficient predictions from witchdoctors of doom.

 John McLean writes to me:

Hannan says “Australia’s average temperatures have increased 0.9 degrees since 1910, with the rise of greenhouse gases contributing to the warming, the CSIRO and the bureau said. By 2030, temperatures will increase by 0.6-1.3 degrees on 1986-2005 averages, and as much as 5.1 degrees by 2090 if emissions remain on a high trajectory of growth.”

Hasn’t he looked at the latest CSIRO report and realised that 39 of the 40 CIMP5 climate models that it relied upon are all in the list of models in the latest IPCC report and about which the IPCC said (in the WGI Summary for Policymakers and elsewhere ) …

- 111 of 114 climate models runs predicted greater warming for the period 1998 to 2012 than the temperature data indicates
- “some” models “over-estimate” the influence of greenhouse gases
- the exact reasons for the flawed predictions are unknown.

 

But I’d like to thank the SMH for reminding me that  Earth Hour is coming next Sunday at 8.30pm to Australia.

Think about how you can use the Power Hour to celebrate electricity.

Plan now for your 5000W BBQ!

h/t Pat in comments and Mike S and John McLean

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (59 votes cast)
Be afraid for your red wine and steak now!, 9.7 out of 10 based on 59 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/lnxec4c

60 comments to Be afraid for your red wine and steak now!

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    There is, of course the possibility of feeding the diluted wheat to livestock and letting the World’s poor have a piece of chicken every now and then, However, actually improving the diet of the World’s poor is contrary to the ideals of the paternalistic, neo-colonial casual racism endemic in the Left. Follow Golden Rice Now and support it’s aims.
    https://www.facebook.com/goldenricenow/posts/870148749709288?fref=nf

    2310

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      No rebuttals, just the impression I’ve passed wind in the Church of Climate. Priceless!

      160

      • #
        Annie

        Oh boy! The old red thumbs are out in force Kevin! You must have struck a nerve.

        40

      • #
        tom0mason

        Kevin
        .
        If your red thumbs follow the usual pattern it’s about the person (you) or your use of the English language, and as such says nothing about your intent communicated within the comment.
        So Kevin I should ignore them as they add zero to the discussion.

        20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Heaps of Sunday night sarc there but how else could you reply this latest straw clutch?, love it :)

    One question though, where CO2 is concerned I’ve heard the terms ‘food’ and ‘fertilizer’ used to describe the plant absorption of CO2 during photosynthesis, I’ve searched but there seems to be some debate as to which is correct or are they just two ways of saying the same thing?

    40

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      As a gardener, Fertiliser = Food.” A fertilizer is any material of natural or synthetic origin that is applied to soils or to plant tissues to supply one or more plant nutrients essential to the growth of plants.” Wiki is your friend.

      60

  • #
    Popeye26

    As hard evidence of the BS scare they say this:

    “As evidence of their vulnerability, about 500 pigs reportedly died at a piggery near the NSW Riverina town of Grong Grong one weekend last month when a ventilation system failed.”

    So it wasn’t really global warming OR climate change that killed the pigs?

    It was a ventilation failure!

    I wonder if the DOPEY reporter bothered to ask the obvious question about the ventilation system. Was it being run by solar power and the clouds covered the panels OR maybe it was wind powered and the wind stopped blowing?

    These “reporters” need to quit working for newspapers and other media outlets and become sanitary specialists! :-)

    Cheers,

    360

    • #
      aussieguy


      These types of “reporters” are activists at heart. Activists NEVER ask obvious questions that will result in a story which runs in complete contradiction to the narrative they are in favour of.

      Asking questions and reporting what is actually happening is not the purpose of an activist. Mindlessly pushing a political narrative is. Even if they have to manipulate data or leave out details of a story/report/study. Its all about an agenda to them and finding something, anything to support it.


      The question for us is: What else are these “reporters”, “scientists”, etc NOT reporting for the ‘greater good’ of environmentalism?

      80

  • #
    Robert

    So while most of us try and take care of our little corner of the world on a daily basis leave it to the left to come up with a feel good hour where they can make a fashion statement by turning off their lights while the other 8764.81 hours of the year they just leave the messes behind for others to clean up like we see at all of their rallies and gatherings.

    Between this article, the prior one on the “anthropocene”, and all the data fiddling it is becoming obvious that the only way they will make their CAGW become a reality is by doctoring the past and claiming that everything that happens is a result of our use of fossil fuels by which they can claim that no matter what happens it is our fault.

    In a way they are correct in that everything that happens as far as advancements in technology, medicine, housing, agriculture, and so on has been the result of our use of fossil fuels to provide reliable energy to power the machinery, the lights, the equipment, the means of transport, and so on. That they think that is a bad thing is very curious indeed.

    111

  • #
    Peter Miller

    The term ‘junk journalism’ clearly applies here.

    At the end of the day, I believe we should all be worried about future climate if CAGW really existed. However, there is absolutely no possibility it exists as: i) it would be clearly seen in the geological record, and ii) we, and all other life, would not exist today.

    CAGW exists only in dodgy, politically motivated, computer climate models and nowhere else.

    ‘Climate change’ is the normal state of things and has been for the past four billion years. We are in the Holocene Era , which began circa 10,000 years, which in turn is part of the Pleistocene ice age, which began circa 2.65 billion years. This has been a period of unprecedented climate change.

    You cannot fix the climate; this is the central theme of climate alarmism and it is utterly false.

    Increased CO2 levels has led to a greening of our planet, which greenies strangely seem to find offensive.

    Throughout most of the Holocene Era, the global temperature has been significantly higher than it is today. Somehow our cows and pigs survived these warmer days with their taste still intact.

    192

  • #
    RoHa

    I’m sure many of the world’s poor would be happy to eat an extra 2.6 g of chick peas, if they could get the chickpeas.

    90

    • #
      Winston

      RoHa,
      When all of their arable lands are requisitioned for carbon offsets by genocidal fascists masquerading as the environmentally conscious, I suspect chickpeas will be the least of their problems.

      131

  • #
    handjive

    So much climate mis-information.

    July 4, 2012: Rising ocean temperatures have tide turning in favour of scorching sibling El Nino

    “After two consecutive years of record rainfall and devastating floods brought on by La Nina, the Bureau of Meteorology warned yesterday that climate indicators show a shift towards drier weather patterns, and a potential swing to the opposite phenomenon, El Nino.”
    . . .
    But where is the follow-up article questioning the failure?

    132

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘But where is the follow-up article questioning the failure?’

      Not much chance of that, its not in BoM’s brief. Nevertheless, moving right along with their inexact science.

      ‘March to May is likely to be wetter than normal over central parts of WA and central Australia. Elsewhere, the chances of a wetter or drier season are roughly equal.

      ‘For March, the Top End of the NT and areas near the Queensland-NSW border have an increased chance of above average rainfall.

      ‘For March to May, warmer than normal days are likely over western and southern WA, much of northern Australia, and southeast Australia.’

      ———-

      My prediction, for what its worth, cooler than average temperatures to be felt across most of Australia and rainfall will be average.

      82

  • #
    Dariusz

    So after spending 1 bil $ per day we ended up in the kitchen followed soon by the the lavatory release where the whole GW crap should be in the first place.

    80

  • #
    pat

    MUST READ ALL

    15 March: Michael Kelly: Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world’s leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows
    The Royal Society’s motto is ‘Nullius in verba’ or don’t take another’s word
    It is the world’s first scientific organisation in the world
    Prof Michael Kelly fears that on climate change, it is ignoring the science
    He accuses the organisation of becoming dogmatic about climate change
    Five years ago, I was one of 43 Fellows of the Royal Society – the first and arguably still the most prestigious scientific organisation in the world – who wrote to our then-president about its approach to climate change. We warned that the Society was in danger of violating its founding principle, summed up in its famous motto ‘Nullius in verba’ – or ‘Don’t take another’s word for it; check it out for yourself’…
    Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995239/Why-Royal-Society-wrong-climate-change-devastating-critique-world-s-leading-scientific-organisation-one-Fellows.html

    151

    • #
      Joe V.

      Right up there, the 5th highest rated comment out of over 400, from ‘our very own’ Scottish Sceptic:-
      ” Mike Haseler, Lenzie, about 16 hours ago
      Thank you prof Kelly. The original Latin for “Nullius in Verba” is “Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri” which means “be sceptical of the experts”, because science is not a beauty contest where we judge people, nor is it democracy where we vote for ideas we like. No Science is a dictatorship of the facts. And the fact is that it has not warmed as predicted and no matter who dismisses that or how many people rach a “consensus”, the scientific fact is the models that failed to predict the pause are scientifically invalid unless or until they are able to predict the climate.”

      120

  • #
    ROM

    Yonnie Stone @ #2

    One question though, where CO2 is concerned I’ve heard the terms ‘food’ and ‘fertilizer’ used to describe the plant absorption of CO2 during photosynthesis, I’ve searched but there seems to be some debate as to which is correct or are they just two ways of saying the same thing?

    OK bear with me and this following article might go some way towards answering a lot of questions that have remained unasked because few people wish to be seen as not knowing much about something which has been very extensively discussed and debated such as CO2 and it’s role in life on earth.

    Some of this sounds complicated and is as not all the detail of the processes such as the way in which photosynthesis actually works to break down CO2 and convert it into useable plant elements such as sugars for energy through the use of the light spectrum and chlorophyll are not yet fully understood.

    In the end it is one of the most basic processes upon which all life bar for some species of primitive bacteria on this earth depends in one way or another.

    *****************

    Quoted from the Biology Cabinet;

    CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) AND LIFE

    Carbon Dioxide is an organic compound formed by one atom of Carbon and two atoms of Oxygen (O=C=O).

    Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural constituent of the atmosphere with a density of 747 mg per cubic meter of air. Its concentration in the composition of air is roughly 0.032%; however, of all the organic compounds, carbon dioxide is by far the most important one for the sustainability of the biosphere (the whole of life on Earth).

    Without CO2 the life of photosynthetic organisms and animals would be impossible, given that CO2 provides the basis for the synthesis of organic compounds that provide nutrients for plants and animals.

    Through photosynthesis, organisms with chlorophyll take in atmospheric CO2 or dissolve CO2 in water to form more complex molecules, such as carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acids. The general formula of photosynthesis is as follows:

    6CO2 + 6H2O + Light = C6H12O6 (Glucose) + 6O2

    _—————

    A grosso modo, photosynthesis consists of two reactions, light reaction and light-independent reaction.

    During light reaction, molecules of chlorophyll and other pigments absorb energy from photons. As photons strike on those molecules, the energy of those photons is absorbed by photosynthetic pigments and transformed into potential energy of electrons which is raised from a fundamental state (also called ground state) to an excited state. The excited state is metastable, i.e. the molecule is hot, so that, the excited electrons return to their fundamental state in about 1 nanosecond, emitting the excess of absorbed energy as heat, or thermal radiation, if you prefer.

    In this process, light is converted into dynamic energy and stationary energy as it is transferred to molecules of Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP), after which the light-independent process continues until the production of food (carbohydrates); consequently, visible light is thermal radiation because it can be exerted as work and transformed into heat. Any expenditure of work produces heat, i.e. dynamic energy that cannot be transformed into static energy. From this fact, the first law of thermodynamics was established.

    Thermal radiation covers the range of wavelengths from 0.1 to 100 μm of the electromagnetic spectrum. Visible light covers from 0.39 to 0.75 μm; consequently, visible light is identified as thermal radiation; in this case –i.e. photosynthesis, a portion of visible light is exerted as work (process function) that makes the electrons to raise from fundamental microstates to higher microstates, and an equal portion is transformed into heat (process function). Actually, when visible light is in transit, before it is absorbed, reflected, and/or transmitted, it does not relies on any state function; it would go over and over, and over, until it stumbles upon obstructive particles.

    Carbon Dioxide is fixed in the chloroplast stroma. Thus fixed, carbon dioxide is then used by cytoplasm to synthesize sucrose. (See a Graphic Outline of Photosynthesis Here).

    An organism with chlorophyll absorbs light, CO2 and water from its surrounding environment. The water molecule is broken and the Hydrogen molecule bonds with carbon dioxide molecules to form glucose. Oxygen from the water molecule is released to the atmosphere, whereas the energy provided by photons is stored in the bonds of the glucose molecule.

    Any nutritional chain begins with producer organisms; that is, with those organisms that produce their own food. These organisms are called autotrophs. Plants are autotrophs because they produce their own food; the raw materials for photosynthesis are water, carbon dioxide and light.

    It has been determined experimentally that the density of carbon dioxide needed for the optimal development of all kinds of plants is 895 mg per cubic meter of air (about 500 ppmv).

    Certain plants grow much better in atmospheres with very high densities of carbon dioxide; for example, the pteridophyte [ ferns ] and certain species of conifers develop more successfully in humid atmospheres with 5000 ppmv of carbon dioxide.

    Carbon Dioxide is not an environmental polluting agent because it is not detrimental or poisonous to life. Carbon dioxide cannot kill living cells by altering their structure or physiology in the same way, for example, as a snake venom will. It can only suffocate an organism when Oxygen is not present at a sufficient concentration to sustain life.

    The difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide is one less oxygen atom in the molecule of carbon monoxide. This small difference renders carbon monoxide toxic and carbon dioxide vital.

    [ Illustrated; "Graphical outline of Photosynthesis" ]

    ——————–

    CARBON DIOXIDE AND HUMAN HEALTH
    By Nasif Nahle

    Pollutants are dangerous compounds for living beings.

    Like water, CO2 is vital for life on Earth; thus, CO2 is not a pollutant or contaminant.

    The specific heat of CO2 is 850 J/Kg K, which means carbon dioxide is able to absorb, store and emit heat. However, we cannot take this property into account when considering if CO2 is a pollutant because Water has a specific heat of 1,996 J/kg K, which means it is more efficient than CO2 at absorbing, emitting and storing heat. Water, like CO2, is vital for living beings.

    CO2 densities have increased to more than 4000 ppmv in some geological eras, for example, during the Ordovician Period (Scotesse; 2002. Avildsen et al; 1998). When CO2 in the terrestrial atmosphere has reached densities this high in the past, life flourished abundantly. Consequently, we cannot consider such a high concentration of atmospheric CO2 as “pollution”.

    CO2 is the basic nutrient for plants and other photosynthetic organisms. Plants form the base of every food chain. Thus, the greater the density of CO2 in a given environment, the greater will be the production of food for plants and of the animals that feed on them.

    In recent times it has become fashionable to relate CO2 to global warming, but water in its liquid or gaseous phase absorbs, stores and emits heat 4 times (400%) more efficiently than CO2. If, therefore, by this property water is not considered a pollutant, CO2 then cannot be considered a pollutant either.

    Carbon Dioxide cannot intoxicate because it is a non-poisonous non-toxic substance. The data for CO2 related to human health are next:

    The density of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.000747 Kg per cubic meter of air.

    Normal CO2 Levels. The effects of an increased level of CO2 on an adult person in good health can be summarized as:

    Normal outside levels: 350 – 600 ppmv.

    Acceptable levels: up to 600 ppmv.

    Stiffness and odors: 600 – 1000 ppmv.

    Data provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA):

    Standards: 1000 ppmv.

    Stupor: 1000 – 2500 ppm.

    Maximum allowed concentration in an 8 hour working period: 5,000 ppmv.

    Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels:

    Nausea and increase of the cardiac and respiratory frequencies (from oxygen deficiency): 30,000 ppmv.

    The above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppmv.

    Unconsciousness and death: 100,000 ppmv (OSHA).

    As you can see, Carbon Dioxide does not intoxicate — it suffocates. All of the effects listed above correspond to asphyxia, not to poisoning; however, water and sand also asphyxiate and they are not considered pollutants either. Consequently, CO2 cannot be considered a pollutant merely because it asphyxiates.

    Many have tried to tag CO2 as a pollutant simply because it is a product of fossil fuel combustion. However, CO2 is also a product of respiration, fermentation and putrefaction. In any case, the CO2 released by combustion of fossil fuels had previously been taken from the atmosphere by photosynthetic organisms and converted into organic compounds to be used in their metabolic functions as structures for reproduction, etc. When those photosynthetic organisms later died, their remains were subjected to strong geological processes that convert organic matter into oil, coal and methane. (Reccommended reading: The Holocene CO2 Rise: Anthropogenic or Natural?)

    Those products are the fossil fuels that we use today to power our industries and vehicles; therefore, we are only returning CO2 to the place it once occupied during the Carboniferous Period. CO2 cannot then be considered a pollutant just because it is released back into the atmosphere by combustion of organic fuels and from many other natural processes unrelated with life.
    [ / ]

    202

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Thanks ROM, greatly appreciate your time and effort. :)

      60

      • #
        ROM

        Well I find it very hard to believe but I got a red thumb for my post @ # 10 which had a minimum of propaganda that I could detect and dealt solely with the science of photosynthesis and it’s role in using CO2 as one of the mainstays of life on this planet plus a few home truths on that same CO2′s role in the global climate.

        I really have to laugh in almost total disbelief at the red thumbing, branch swinging, gibbering midget mentalities that seem unable to even mentally take on board an extremely well and long and intensively researched piece of very basic science of the role of CO2 and photosynthesis in the sustaining of all life on this planet without getting their knickers in a knot over something in the post and / or in the very well researched science of CO2 and plant photosynthesis as outlined above.

        My Red Thumber above in “its” total apparent ignorance typifies the mentalities in all their pure unadulterated imbecility that seemingly hold to the ideology and religion that CO2 is somehow a pollutant and poison that will destroy all life on this planet.

        If it wasn’t so utterly and incredibly stupid and in a way so very sad from humanity’s supposed superior intelligence angle, it would be quite funny.

        82

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Don’t take it to heart ROM, I actually don’t care about red thumbs as I figure with all human interactions in life it’s guaranteed you’ll come across someone that will dislike you for no particular reason and considering the anonymity given by the internet it’s no surprise all the bug squasher’s develop enough courage to actually engage others even though it’s just a red thumb, maybe it’s better they red thumb instead of shouting fire in a large crowd? ;)

          It’s a good post ROM and I’m not scared of admitting I don’t know or have forgotten something, how else can you learn?

          20

        • #
          tom0mason

          ROM
          .
          If your red thumbs follow the usual pattern it’s about the person (you) or your use of the English language, and as such says nothing about your intent communicated within the comment.
          So ROM I should ignore them as they add zero to the discussion.

          10

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Great Stuff, Rom. Hi-jacked and posted on my FB page.

      30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Be afraid for your red wine and steak now!

    Well, my doctors (and my government) don’t want me eating steak or drinking wine anyway. So maybe it’s not all bad. More veggies I guess. :-(

    60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      A big part of the climate change problem seems to be that there are thousands of scientist types with no useful job to do. I can’t think of any other explanation.

      90

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        “Useful” is not relevant here, Roy. Any job’ll do.

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Ted,

          I beg to differ with you a little. In this context I get to define useful. So I can say useful is a job that actually creates a product or service beneficial to others and for which they pay voluntarily — emphasis on voluntarily. Anything else better have the justification of a government service we cannot do without, such as national defense.

          But of course, the big problem is that they don’t consider the useful question one way or another. It never tickles anything between their ears.

          00

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Your government exists to make everyone’s life as miserable as it can. Rebel a little!

      50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        And the Constitution was carefully designed to give the people the power to prevent government’s excesses and abuses. But we haven’t taken our part of the responsibility seriously enough. If we ever do, there’ll be a lot of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth in the halls of government. I can promise you that.

        My problem is how to wake up the dim bulbs who’re asleep all the time.

        20

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Perhaps you need to change doctors? Just sayin’. Wasting time.

      I can guess the red wine affected your heart. If you had lived an hour out of town on a rough road you might have got another ten years of it before getting a diagnosis. I had to wait ten years until I had one of my “laziness events” (after red wine) while visiting friends in the city, where prompt medical attention was available.

      However, many years ago when we were young and strong, we had a heat wave, a real one. Day after day over 40 degrees, and reports of 47 degrees “out west”.

      My hard working, athletic dearly beloved got awful internal pains. So off to the doctor we went, an hour’s trip, she distressed. The doctor promptly said :”You haven’t been drinking enough. Crystals in the urine! You need a few beers!”

      So we stopped at all the pubs on the way home, including a deviation off the regular route, and fixed the problem.

      And I consulted that doctor until he retired.

      70

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Actually I know of no problem that either steak or red wine (or any wine) has ever caused me. But I still get the same old one size fits all advice from the federal government’s healthy eating guidelines on down to my cardiologist. The only doctor who doesn’t hand out such advice is my GI who gave me very simple advice — if it doesn’t bother me, eat it.

        After heart surgery in 2003 I pinned the cardiologist (who is very good by the way) down about salt and cholesterol and he finally had to say two things.

        1. The only thing salt could do is raise my blood pressure slightly.

        2. Cholesterol isn’t the culprit in the first place. The problem is inflammation. Cholesterol is just a handy substance inflammation uses to do it’s dirty work. People with “correct” cholesterol numbers have heart attacks and people with “bad” numbers don’t. My numbers were good when I had trouble. So go figure.

        I have blood pressure many men my age would kill to get. So why worry about salt? My primary doctor tells me my cholesterol readings are good, going so far as to circle the numbers on the pathologist’s report and writing, “Good,” beside them.

        The lesson is obvious. People are as unique as snowflakes. So I eat steak, eggs and hash browns too. If I want a glass of wine II have one. Know your limitations and live within them. I’ve been symptom free for 12 years following that heart surgery. I’m very grateful.

        Now if my back would only behave as well… :-(

        10

  • #
    Tim

    - “some” models “over-estimate” the influence of greenhouse gases”

    I’m still waiting to hear about all those models that have “under-estimated” the influence.

    They seem to be in short supply.

    90

  • #
    Thejoker

    Looks like Jo nova and hubby’s brief foray into the world of real science is over now that the prediction of the “notch filter” for years of cooling couldn’t cut the mustard – blown out of the water by immediate registering of the highest global temperature for centuries followed by the onset of El Niño. Never mind – back to mindless, cartoonish heckling and mockery, which is all she ever had.

    Of course, she’ll be returning all the money that was raised off the back of the notch filter modellng fiasco….

    225

    • #

      Joker, don’t lay on the mindless hate quite so thickly, OK? People might guess that I pay you to turn up with your inane teenage taunting. ;-) Otherwise, good job, fencesitting readers can clearly see who has references and reasons, and who is full of puffed up bluster.

      202

      • #
        Thejoker

        So, when’s the infamous notch filter paper coming out, then? It was a couple of months ago you were promising big news on it?

        And it is a perfectly valid question – will you pay back the money you took from your backers if it has been proven to be the crock it looked?

        You’re always accusing other scientists of being on the take – and yet you’re the one on the record saying you that you wanted to see if you could make a killing from this GW caper.

        Doesn’t look good.

        [One wonders what you do for a living? Are you paid to come here with off-topic comments? Are you a scientist perhaps? And if so, can you always correctly estimate how long it will take to complete some research? Do you know anybody who gives their salary back, if what they are working on, gets delayed. You make very weak arguments, with no basis whatsoever.] Fly

        06

        • #

          Joker, I see u are worried. :-) Indeed the notch is doing Excellently well. Thanks for asking. More news soon.

          The people who give us small donations to write and research know this is science, they don’t expect any particular outcome in advance (that’s what your “scientists” do). What they want is insight and brutal honesty. David has already proved he does that.

          Keep dropping in your petty ill-willed anonymous hate though. Your religious fervor is showing… thank you.

          90

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            Most of those who supported you with their widow’s mites knew perfectly well that your research might well come to nothing positive. What bigots like the joker don’t recognise is that in real science a negative result is as important as a positive result. Climastrology, however, must reveal positive results all the time, like the Communist era’s 5 year plans.

            60

    • #
      James Bradley

      Thejoker,

      As one of those readers my appraisal of you is as follows:

      Someone semi-credentialled who is afraid that debate and an opposing theory will destroy their academic credibility, probably have some ‘skin in the game’, but offended that you have to continually go ‘tin cupping’ for tax payer handouts like a common beggar, jealous of voluntary donations by the independant thinking public that promote an alternative view.

      Geez, Tim, if you’re that hard up I could stand the Climate Council a couple of ‘bob’ for a coffee.

      121

      • #
        James Bradley

        P.S.

        Your claim that a decimal point below the margin of error is “registering highest global temperature for centuries” gave you away.

        131

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      Thejoker (o, what a laughable name!): Jo and her hubby (David?) are considerably more scientific than you; they presented a theory with full information of the idea and figures to support them. That the theory might be flawed was accepted (as should be for all theories) but its initial elements seemed to be fully supported by observations – something that few, if any, of the much-acclaimed models can say. Yet you choose to parody and pillory them; odd how the childish mind can act.

      82

    • #
      Mac551

      Does it really matter what Jo Nova or husband do or say,in the end it is the facts that speak for themselves not who is putting the facts forth.

      If there was something to this CAGW then the various weather/climate/scientific bodies wouldn’t have to resort to chicanery nor shut down debate to put forward their cause,but it is plainly evident that there is a lot of lying and altering of data by the pro-CAGW crowd that leads us to question its validity and veracity.

      BTW you put forward no argument,diatribe is not debate!

      40

    • #
      Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

      Joker wrote, “Looks like Jo nova and hubby’s …” Joker you sound like you are against normal relationships. What’s the chip on your shoulder?

      20

    • #
      farmerbraun

      I just love the way that you ooze venom and bile: it makes me feel really good.
      Like that’s all you’ve got maybe.
      Do you think?

      30

  • #

    I am still waiting for the actual evidence of “tipping points”. For instance, a major paper on tipping points was Lenton et al 2007. Major items highlighted included.
    - Acceleration in the melt rate of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets.
    - Arctic Sea-Ice. As sea-ice melts, it exposes a much darker ocean surface, which absorbs more radiation–amplifying the warming.
    - Extension of the Sahara/Sahel due to a shutdown of the West African Monsoon.
    - Collapse of the Amazon rainforest due to a collapse in recycled precipitation.
    - Collapse of the Indian Summer Monsoon

    Eight years on and we do not hear much about any of these.

    90

  • #

    Another example of a tipping point failing to materialize – and relevent to this article is this comment from the 2007 UNIPCC AR4

    By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%.

    Turns out is was based on a non-peer reviewed study of just three African countries – Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. The information was from 2001 reports each country created for the UNIPCC. Only the Moroccan report made the claim, and that was based on extreme climate assumptions along with strong growth in irrigated agriculture without increased water provision.
    The other reports are here and here.

    Yet a peer-reviewed paper specially-written for the IPCC by leading experts in the field – Climate change, global food supply and risk of hunger – (and funded by the UK Government) was not used. Presumably because this was not alarming enough.

    I would suggest that projected collapse of Australian agriculture is based on similar nonsense as that of Africa.

    100

  • #
    Ruairi

    Some journalists easily fell,
    Right under a climate-change spell,
    Warned,the future of farming,
    Would be very alarming,
    As production would all go to hell.

    100

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Any time an excitable type like Hannam cries doom for winemaking I link them to the winery in Tahiti:

    Vin de Tahiti: French Polynesia’s Only Wine Label

    It was set up by a French vigneron on the tropical atoll of Rangiroa. They get two vintages per year.

    40

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    “Australia’s agricultural sector faces profound challenges”. More than Peter Hannam could ever know. And they have been meeting those challenges for two hundred years. However the political challenge of AGW is the daddy of them all.

    “Weak wheat”?

    Most wheat becomes weak after a small number of years, as mutating diseases catch up with the science which keeps the crop in the lead in this ongoing battle to the death. At the same time that science has for more than 100 years been working on the very problem Peter Hannam worries about, the adaptation of crops to climate conditions. Agriculture is way ahead of Peter Hannam on this issue.

    The greatest advances in agriculture over the past 150 years have been in plant breeding. This is an ongoing process. The world’s population depends on it. With wheat, one of our main staple foods, the plant breeders are only one or two steps ahead of the diseases. The Peter Hannams would be shocked by their own ignorance if they saw the advances that have already been made in adaptation science.

    There is a danger that the diseases might leapfrog the science and wipe out sufficient of the world’s wheat production to cause severe famine. This danger would apply for other crops too.

    If the Peter Hannams want to make a useful contribution, they would investigate “Peak Phosphorus”, a much more immediate problem facing agriculture. And they would promote research into marine aquaculture, seeking to truncate the process by which we get our phosphorus by a factor of millions.

    60

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    —”Climate change to make steak and chicken taste worse, ruining barbecues for future Aussies” This storyline from News.com.au, 15th March last, based on ‘research’ by University of Melbourne associate professor Richard Eckard who said “It makes you appreciate that global warming is not a distant phenomenon but a very real occurrence that is already affecting the things we enjoy in our everyday lives

    Just when Aussies thought that the good old barbie was a refuge from angst where they could retreat from world weariness along comes the the climate change police advising that barbie food enjoyment will be curtailed.

    The standard formula for climate change Nostradamuses seems to be: find out what people enjoy then prophecy a climate change curse on it.

    40

    • #

      The standard formula for climate change Nostradamuses seems to be: find out what people enjoy then prophecy a climate change curse on it.

      It works quite often. People can be quite insecure unless – or until – they’re informed.

      Here’s an example: fewer football games due to global warming! Because of water shortages and excess heat, half of Victoria’s football ovals will have to be abandoned. The other half will have to be converted to indoor stadiums with astroturf to replace real grass. Also, there will be fewer games, as this will reduce each team’s carbon footprint.

      I reckon you could pass that off as a real story, too, and some people will be sucked in, hook, line and sinker.

      40

  • #
    mmxx

    Life during the Little Ice Age must have been near to perfect if one extrapolates the logic in Eckard’s hypothesis. No nasty hot climate, abundant food of such quality we can only dream of today, minor pestilence and disease threatening crops and animal life.

    Hang on! He seems to be saying that today’s life is really good but it is all down-hill from now due to CAGW.

    Perhaps he didn’t explore biological adaptability and continued advancement of science and technology in order not to confuse his audience.

    I think, I’ll keep my lights on!

    50

  • #

    Worse, you may have to eat more olives and mangoes and drink Merlot from … a different region. This is serious, folks: when a cyclone hits the North West of Australia, some West Australians may even have to eat Queensland bananas.

    This reads more like a South Park script than a real life warning! When there is no real crisis, a fake one has to be invented.

    50

  • #
    Mac551

    Lack of P (phosphorus)in wheat is a problem for flour millers and bakers but that is to do with soil conditions not the climate.
    As for beef,well there is a lot of it grown up in Nth Territory WA and Qld,not exactly places known for their cool climates.
    Wine is only good for cooking with it does make great vinegar.

    10

  • #
    michael hart

    “If you can disentangle climate change from the politics, we’d be so much better off.”

    Not knowing what he said, he said it.

    10

  • #
    Skeptik

    - the exact reasons for the flawed predictions are unknown.

    I know why,

    Crappy computer models.

    10

  • #
    Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

    What can one say about the Fairfax press and its readership? I’ll leave it for them to speak for themselves. Here is a smattering of their headlines today:

    “All Female Ghostbusters Backlash…”
    “There Must be a Better Label than ‘Partner’.”
    “Elton John to #BoycottDolceGabbana”

    The Fairfax crowd are the inner city green elite hand-wringers that Jo wrote about in her recent article of March 10.

    10

  • #
    Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

    What can one say about the Fairfax press and its readership? I’ll leave it for them to speak for themselves. Here is a smattering of their headlines today:

    “All Female Ghostbusters Backlash…”
    “There Must be a Better Label than ‘Partner’.”
    “Elton John to #BoycottDolceGabbana”

    The Fairfax crowd are the inner city green elite hand-wringers that Jo wrote about in her recent article of March 10.

    00

  • #
    Robber

    “Journalists” and “Reporters”. Understand how they get their kicks – it’s all about getting a headline.
    So catastrophic warming, disasters, doomsday predictions, climate disruption, we are all guilty for enjoying our current lifestyle by burning coal and hydrocarbons and therefore killing the planet, will all be welcomed by their editors.
    But facts about no global warming, no crisis, it’s just normal climate variations, will be sent back to the journo “REJECTED”.
    So Jo’s headline for this blog: “Be Afraid for your Red Wine and Steak Now” will be guaranteed front page news. Contrast that with “Quality of red wine and steak will continue to improve through the application of smart technologies to manage variations in weather” might get a brief mention in the food and wine section on page 99.

    So we are reliant on the people calling BS on all the scare headlines and when Chicken Little keeps screaming that the sky is falling they look around them and say “don’t be silly”.

    00

  • #
    Tim

    Roughly seven of every hundred Australians now buy a metropolitan daily newspaper. In 1947 it was 38.

    If you’re slowly going broke, I guess you would not be too proud to take ‘donations’ from wherever and whoever. It might even just have an influence your editorial policies.

    00