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

Beautiful to watch: Davies UK M.P. quotes IPCC in Parliament as a reason to be skeptical

This video gives me hope. Finally we are starting to see more sane commentary in western parliaments. David TC Davies MP shows how politicians can master enough of the scientific details on this debate to crush the usual bumper-sticker trite “consensus” hogwash. He talks of Roman warming, the Medieval Warm Period, the Younger Dryas, the age of the Earth. It’s high school science type level, but more than enough to expose some of the silliness. He also counters the “climate change denier” tag. He cites just enough key numbers to back up each of his points. His skill here is in prioritizing the numbers that matter. Here’s hoping a few of the silent political skeptics will feel more confident to speak out. The bullying and namecalling breaks when enough people stand up to it. That’s coming.

No one I’ve ever met has ever suggested the climate never changes…

Even the IPCC is not saying that most of the warming [since industrialisation] is caused by humans …

It is absolutely certain that the more we rely on renewable energy the more we have to pay for it. No politician from any party should be running away from this. They should be willing to go out and make the argument if they think we should be paying more … but none of them are. Nobody thinks it’s a good idea to increase energy bills…

Mr Davies is a former worker at a Steel Works, and a former Special Police Constable.

The official David Davies MP webpage and Davies personal website. 

h/t Willie Soon, and Lou M.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (142 votes cast)
Beautiful to watch: Davies UK M.P. quotes IPCC in Parliament as a reason to be skeptical, 9.2 out of 10 based on 142 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/otsqp3z

149 comments to Beautiful to watch: Davies UK M.P. quotes IPCC in Parliament as a reason to be skeptical

  • #
    AndyG55

    Sorry, but he starts off really badly.

    There is absolutely NO CO2 WARMING signal in the whole of the satellite temperature data

    There is absolutely NO PROOF that CO2 causes any atmospheric warming.

    502

    • #
      mikerestin

      He’s doing what David Evans did.
      Start by accepting IPCC statements like the bit about ‘half of the warming being caused by CO2′ then we can ask…

      What caused the other half since CO2 didn’t?
      How did it happen?
      What caused the LIA?
      How did it happen?
      What caused the warming during the ’30s?
      How did it happen?

      Since ice ages are killers and life does better during interglacials…
      What drives earth into interglacials and
      What causes interglacials to end?

      Finally, can we stay out of another interglacial?

      270

      • #
        Matty

        Solum argumentum as it were, to humour the brainwashed until their brains begin to show signs of working again.

        160

    • #
      PeterS

      All true AndyG55. Tell that to the Western leaders of the world, such as Obama, Turnbull and others. They will say otherwise and will continue to do so no matter what we say or do. The reality is they have won the battle of the AGW scam. They have the guns so to speak and we don’t. The “guns” are the scientists who have betrayed our trust and dishonored their profession like no other. If I had my way I would strip off their PdD titles and give them the option to go back to school or find another job.

      100

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Yes well a comment I made a while back is that CAGW is a middle class burdern.

        The working class know its complete nonsense – see the UK MPs background in question. I also have quite a few mates who are tradies who think its complete hogwash – I guess fi youcve been on open air building sites for 30+ years you’d have an idea.
        The middle classes have just enough knowledge and “education” to tie them selves in knots – a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. I find it instructive many people who didnt do the uni thing became wealthy becasue they didnt construct nonsense out of thin air ( bad pun…). Yes i realise many middle class people know its rot too, but I find it interesting that the middle classes seem to be able to delude themselves through thinking that they know everything cos they are “educated”. You get the idea…..

        The elite are busy milking the middle class dry by preying on their lack of critical thinking.

        I bet if you looked at most cars working class people drive you’d find few Priuses.

        I remember a Goon Show entitled “Insurance – the white mans burden”…. tongue in cheek, but still…

        I’m not having a pop at the middle class at all ( I am middle class ), however its not until you see a scam of such magnitude, you see the social dynamics and fault lines for what they are…..

        Now imagine if you could promote a decent size war …..”Daddy, what did you do in the war?”

        Nuff said….

        40

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I don’t see it as a burden. I see it as a fashion.

          The one thing that epitomizes the “middle class” is an inbuilt set of rules regarding how the world is run; or if you are a Retired Major, “How it should be run, by Jove”.

          The Middle Class, at least in the Western world, wants security, and to get that, they want rules for society, that everybody should adhere to.

          Find some people with apparent authority, get them to lay down the rules, and the whole middle class will willingly go along, for the sake of stability.

          Some will not agree with the rules, and see them as a nuisance, but they will still put up with them, for the sake of conforming with the general view.

          But wait! Eventually, those who do not agree will reach a critical mass, will start pointing out that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes at all, at which time the rest of the middle class will change their opinions and swing in the other direction.

          Make sure that you are not in the way, when the switch occurs, because it will be swift and dramatic.

          30

    • #
      dp

      There is an abundance of proof that many people don’t need any proof to forward the human-caused climate warming agenda so it solves nothing to ignore the claim. It is ever helpful to include it in any rational take-down of the concept. Among those who need no proof is the [Snip] in the Whitehouse but look at all the damage he’s about to do, by going around the now dead-in-the water checks and balances of our three branches of government. It never occurred to our founding fathers that all three branches of government would collude in a [Snip] against mankind that is so easily discounted as manufactured in computer models.
      [dp, please avoid using the words I have snipped. You know which ones I mean] Fly

      10

  • #
    RoHa

    Conservative Margaret Thatcher pushed the idea In politics. Let’s hope Conservative David Davies can take it out.

    150

    • #
      Iren

      She also recanted, but no one seems to remember that.

      390

      • #
        RoHa

        David Davies does. He mentioned it. But it was too late. The damage was done. The issue had been put onto the stage of international politics by a politician who was supposed to know something about science.

        120

      • #
        Spetzer86

        He did. It’s at the end of the video.

        40

        • #
          Fred Harwood

          “She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the “doomsters”, she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of “costly and economically damaging” schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.
          In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology.”

          Christopher Booker5:24PM BST 12 Jun 2010

          211

          • #
            James

            Margaret Thatcher is one of the main climate scare perpetrators. This is a quote from her UN speech:

            “More than anything, our environment is threatened by the sheer numbers of people and the plants and animals which go with them. [...] Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities [...] But the problem of global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level [...] Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases [...] the United Kingdom will be establishing a new centre for the prediction of climate change, which will lead the effort to improve our prophetic capacity [...] We can then agree to targets to reduce the greenhouse gases, and how much individual countries should contribute to their achievement.”

            This one suggests nations should be forced to cooperate:

            “These protocols must be binding and there must be effective regimes to supervise and monitor their application. Otherwise those nations which accept and abide by environmental agreements, thus adding to their industrial costs, will lose out competitively to those who do not.”

            http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817

            63

            • #
              Owen Morgan

              What you carefully don’t point out is that Margaret Thatcher delivered that speech all the way back in 1989 and subsequently recanted.

              91

            • #
              david smith

              And then she later changed her mind after reviewing more of the evidence and become a sceptic. In other words, she took the route that the majority of us here took, including our host Jo.
              What’s the problem? We’re all allowed to change, just like the climate.

              82

              • #
                RoHa

                The problem is that she wasn’t like the rest of us. She was a major world figure, and she was the one who pushed the idea of man-made global warming into international politics. It is her fault that it is now a big political issue.

                She was (and I grind my teeth admitting it) admired and even respected in international circles. People paid attention to her. (Gore had tried peddling the idea to the US Congress a bit earlier, but no-one outside the US – and hardly anyone in it – pays any attention to them.) And she more or less founded the Hadley Research Centre, and supported the IPCC.

                Thus, it became one of the official ideas, part of the mush of fashionable ideas that slosh around the media, the politicians, and the artsy-fartsy chattering classes. People accept these ideas as being respectable positions to take, even though they may be (and usually are) unsupported by, or even contrary to, evidence, logic, or basic human decency.

                And Thatcher’s subsequent recantation did very little to stop it.

                I know that the Thatcher admirers hate to think about this. It spoils the story that the AGW scam is a crypto-Marxist conspiracy.

                Well, tough.

                As an unreconstructed old socialist I hate to see that AGW has become a shibboleth among what passes for the left these days.

                But reality does not care for my feelings or those of anyone else.

                52

  • #
    RoHa

    Into politics.

    20

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Good speech, terrible suit.

    69

  • #
    matthu

    Davies talks about rates of up to £150 per MWh for wind energy, but earlier this week one of our major power operators was buying in emergency supplies at £2500 per MWh – 40x the usual going rate. And that is before any cold weather.

    And the more wind turbines you install, the more expensive backup you require.

    290

    • #
      clive

      I think that was when S A Lost power.You only have to look at what happens when you rely on”Renewables”South Aust.had a major power failure last week ,when an “Inter-connector”sh–t itself.For those who don’t know,they rely on “Renewables”for their power,plus some power from Victoria as backup,which is most of the time.”Left Wingers”strike again.

      40

  • #
    martin

    If you want to find the text for his quote….
    ITS NOT PAGE 17.
    Its on page 15
    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf
    I found a new fun way to mess with alarmists. Instead of making a point in your own words, simply quote the IPCC without them knowing. When they call you a denier, and other vile names, simply cite the quote with a link.
    I am now finding that most skeptics arguments are actually found in the alarmists science. Its just the “rest of the story” that gets no print.

    261

    • #
      craig

      All I read in the summary was heaps of ‘likely’, ‘very likely’ without being able to finger co2 as the culprit. ‘Natural variation’ seems to be another word that was frequently used as well.

      30

    • #
      William

      I have quoted the IPCC a number of times over at Fairfax and you are right Martin it is great fun watching them condemn me as a denier. The backpedaling is like watching a blind contortionist ride a unicycle backwards over a waterfall.

      60

  • #
    Bribiejohn

    At last, a politician who reads and thinks. A rare breed!

    402

    • #
      AndyG55

      That’s my red thumb.

      212

    • #
      climateskeptic

      I’m confused, is climate change the world biggest scam ever or is at least half of it caused by human CO2 emission?

      01

      • #
        Angry

        Yes……

        Global warming is the greatest SCAM/FRAUD in the history of civilization.

        No ifs, no buts !

        112

      • #
        David, UK

        Either you haven’t read the IPCC report, or you didn’t watch the video, or neither. So I’ll clarify. The report states that humans are “very likely” to have contributed a little more than half the warming “since 1951.” Remember, prior to that date there wasn’t enough influence from humans to have made a detectable difference, so all the warming prior to then was natural in origin. Anyway, this equates to 0.26 or so Celcius caused by humans, if you believe the IPCC’s figures.

        And for this you want to destroy the Western economies.

        Note: there has been no acceleration in sea level rise in the last 100 years.
        Hurricanes and typhoons are at a record low.
        Life expectancy is at a record high.
        Not one fraction of a fraction of a degree of cooling has resulted from the trillions spent on climate change policies to date, although thousands have died from starvation as a result of the now-discontinued policy of converting food crops to biofuel crops.

        And you are not sceptical of climate change policies? Not even a bit?

        60

  • #

    The truth always hurts.

    70

  • #
    TdeF

    So a steel worker and policeman, a man who understands that Britain without a steel industry is like Australia without sheep.

    Davis says the IPCC argue only half of the temperature increase in the second half of the 20th century is due to man. Interesting. So what do they say produces the other half?

    Do they say the entire increase is due to CO2 but man only produces half the increase in CO2? Or are they saying the other half is not due to CO2?

    You see as Davis points out, temperatures go up and down. Why, no one knows, but it was clearly not industrialization so we should not be surprised and not assume CO2 is solely responsible.

    Finally by what logic do the IPCC project that man made increase to 4C by 2100? (we are already at 2015 and the temperature has not changed)

    Also, I am surprised that the opposition protest. It is not about logic or the facts, anthropogenic global warming is a political issue of the left of politics where party policy tramples logic and truth. It is becoming embarassing to defend AGW when even the IPCC are in full retreat on paper but somehow in full attack mode publicly. Science is becoming detached from rhetoric, even with the IPCC.

    I am finding the twisted logic of the IPCC is not even making sense even if you accepted the unlikely premise that CO2 and CO2 alone controls the planet’s temperature. Are they saying CO2 is responsible for half the rise or that man is responsible for only half the CO2? Or something else again? Can anyone explain?

    183

    • #
      dp

      The other half is natural meaning that no matter what we do the level of CO2 is beyond our ability to manage. Nature is slow but relentless. That said, we must all realize it is her world, not ours, to manage.

      140

      • #
        TdeF

        Thanks, but are they saying half of the CO2 increase is not man made? Or are they saying half of the increase in temperature is not man made? Or both?

        40

    • #
      Yonniestone

      ‘Surprised that the opposition protest’ I know it was rhetorical but this sums up a large reason of why the climate zombie won’t die easily.

      Warmists oppose scepticism because,

      - It’s my official party line and I have to follow script.
      - Our union supports it and dissention won’t be tolerated.
      - My boss and super is heavily invested in renewables.
      - I have business connections in, BBC, Universities, Council.
      - I never grew out of my ‘Vive la revolution’ school days.
      - I’ve always been a spineless twerp without any original thoughts.
      - Because of shut up!

      It would be an endless list, if one could bear to delve into such insipidness.

      262

      • #
        James Murphy

        You’re onto something here. However, I like to think that being a sceptic inherently involves some sort of ‘vive la revolution’ spirit. It means being unafraid to ask questions, unafraid to speak out when the evidence does not support the conclusions, and maintaining the ability to think for ones self.

        80

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          In a word – being a sceptic requires *backbone*

          Any weenie can go along with the crowd – handling the backlash whne you tactfully point out a lot of people are gullible does take resilience….

          The other problem is that life is hectic and finely balanced these days – it doesnt take much to knock everything off balance.

          Then add to the fact the sheeple all have “smart” phones so therefore know everything ( and as I like to say, people these days are only as smart as their internet connection… ) which also implies people dont actually acquire a decent classical education, which also means they arent deep thinkers. The problem with the majority being in the shallow end of the academic pool is that its easy to sway them with a blitzkrieg of “popular opinion” ……

          I wince when I see the ads for the early morning tv shows…who in their right mind is watching tv in the morning…it rots your brain….and dont get me started on “The Pro….t”

          No wonder the CAGW are drooling – if the majority of people are fish in a barrel…

          10

          • #

            OriginalSteve, you mention here:

            Then add to the fact the sheeple all have “smart” phones so therefore know everything…..

            I disagree with you here.

            Smart phones, and pads and all those other things are not being used to make people smarter, probably the opposite in fact. They are dumbing down everyone.

            No one is looking for information, and quite literally no one.

            All they are doing is texting useless things, and checking facebook, twitter etc, again not for information, but to see that they are not missing out.

            That’s why there are so many phone service providers, because there’s a fortune to be made there. New mobile phones are released even before the earlier model is even a few seconds towards obsolescence, and people just HAVE to get hold of it.

            I’m certain people know less now than they did when I was their age.

            They quite literally do not care, as long as they have it.

            Tony.

            10

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              Hi Tony,

              Sorry, I should have included a “Sarc” tag in my post , my fault….the reference to smart phones was that people believe they are smarter because they can look everything up….

              I agree with you 100% – I work in the knowledge industries and still own an older phone, people cant understand why I dont have a smart phone.

              My reasons are straight forward:

              (1) They dont add value to my life – i am desk bound most days, and i have internet connectivity laid on.

              (2) Smart phones make people lazy – smart phones encourage lack of planning and poor organization due to immediate ability to be able to pull stuff together at last moment.

              (3) Smart phone smake people think they ar eclever because they can access tuff or find a petrol station. Big deal – a map and a bit of planning and situational awareness goes a lot further.

              (4) I dont have social media – who cares what people think anyway…..

              (5) And dont need to repsond to 50 emails or SMS’s every day.

              (6) I like my priavcy

              (7) I like quiet for thinking.

              (8) I communicate when I want to , how I want to.

              (9) I refuse to follwo the herd.

              ( climbs off soap box )

              10

              • #
                Annie

                I agree with both of you, except that I do like my smartphone. I don’t use FB but I do use WhatsApp in a strictly limited fashion to remain in easy touch with my widely distributed family members. WA makes it very easy to exchange family ‘snaps’ and news. Otherwise I can’t be bothered with what the sheeple use theirs for. I am assuming using it to read Jo’s blog, WUWT and Notrickszone doesn’t make me a member of the sheeple!

                00

    • #
      lemiere jacques

      i thinks what ipcc says is 100% of warming since 1950 is man made in models, but ,because of the spread of models results ,this gives 95% sure that 50% of warming is man made..

      40

    • #
      Ross

      Bishop Hill had a quote from Bryony Worthington ( the author of the UK Climate Change Act) a few days ago. I think chickens are coming home to roost in the UK and this winter could see some real practical energy problems.

      Bryony Worthington seems to want to reverse the tide of deindustrialisation her Climate Change Act has brought about.

      “[T]he Redcar situation… illustrates how important it is that we get our energy and industrial strategy right. There is a risk to dragging our feet and there is an urgency involved in sorting out our policies on how we are going to not just maintain but actively attract industrial players back to the UK to reindustrialise our nation.”

      I wonder if she goes to sleep at night thinking that all she has achieved in her life is to put thousands of productive people on the scrapheap.

      61

      • #
        John B

        I’m very mush afraid you’ve got this all wrong. If you read further in her speech her solution is to reverse the tide of deindustrialisation by building more wind turbines.

        41

    • #
      Bulldust

      The bigger problem for the steel industry is that China is vastly over capacity and flooding world markets with cheap steel. The same story for several other commodities.

      10

  • #
    dp

    I wish he were running for president of the US.

    112

    • #
      AndyG55

      Why? he seems almost as scientifically illiterate as the present pres.

      The first few statements are a brain-washed acceptance of all the lies and misinformation that CAGW is based on.

      69

      • #
        ralph ellis

        >>The first few statements are a brain-washed acceptance of
        >>all the lies and misinformation that CAGW is based on.

        You are not a politician are you? Unfortunately, he has to do that otherwise there will just be cat-calling and they will all walk out. The cry would be: “Are you a scientist now? Ha, ha, ha…” So he has to use the ‘science’, such that it is, to knock them down.

        Ralph

        251

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Ralph is correct.

          You have to speak the language of your audience or you will be ignored, and as a consequence ineffective.

          It is the correct approach.

          This also goes to David Evan’s new model – it begins with the current MMGW paradigm. It is the only way to reach people who are inside the current paradigm.

          If you want to lead someone who is lost inside a forest – you must begin where they are standing. Calling to them from outside the forest does not help.

          80

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘It is the correct approach.’

            Prove to me in 300 words (in language I can understand) that CO2 causes global warming, otherwise I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with Andy.

            Warmist sceptics are pathetic.

            61

            • #
              gai

              As much as I would like to….. (Self snip)

              I am afraid it is the right approach. This is one of the Lemmings tippy toeing back from the edge of the cliff.

              As Oliver Manuel keeps saying we have to leave them an out. A way to save face. We are talking politics and you can never get away with making politicians look like the fools they actually are. Just be glad one of them is edging back from the cliff they are so darn intent on dragging us all over.

              120

            • #
              ralph ellis

              .
              >>Prove to me in 300 words that CO2 causes global warming

              Gordy, you clearly have a problem with comprehending simple energy transfers.

              Go out on a night with a thin cloud layer, and it will be reasonably warm. Wait until the clouds clear and the temperature might drop by 10ºc. Why? Because the clouds act as an opaque ‘insulating’ ‘greenhouse’ (simplistic terminology, but you get the idea).

              Now imagine a special type of cloud that can allow sunlight though them, but still have the same ‘insulating’ property. That is water vapour or CO2.

              .

              You know I have seen Gordy types around the web. Most of them are uber-warmist agitators, who are trying to spread confusion withing the Climate Realist world. What they want is a politician like David Davis here to stand up in Parliament and say ‘the greenhouse effect does not exist’. And then all the ‘scientists’ would fall about laughing and the Climate Realist cause would be badly holed under the waterline.

              People like Gordy are truly devious and truly dangerous people.

              Ralph

              32

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘…trying to spread confusion withing the Climate Realist world.’

                Are you aware that global cooling has begun?

                ‘And then all the ‘scientists’ would fall about laughing and the Climate Realist cause would be badly holed under the waterline.’

                I think you’ll find the plateau in temps proves beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 does not cause global warming.

                ‘People like Gordy are truly devious and truly dangerous people.’

                That’s rich coming from you.

                41

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                The logical fallacy you used there is Affirming the Consequent. i.e.-

                IF increasing CO2 cannot cause any warming THEN an increase in CO2 will be accompanied by no change in temperature.
                There was an increase in CO2 accompanied by no change in temperature.
                Therefore increasing CO2 cannot cause any warming.

                It’s a fallacious argument.
                To believe that argument would require believing what the warmists say, which is that nothing other than CO2 has significantly affected climate in the last 20 years. So, gordo, why are you talking like a warmist?

                00

              • #
                ralph ellis

                Gordy, you appear to be saying that CO2 causes NO warming feedbacks, like several other posters on the net. This is clearly untrue. If you mean to say that CO2 causes LESS warming feedbacks than advertised, then you should say so.

                The fact that CO2 causes LESS warming feedbacks than assumed is proven in this paper:

                https://www.academia.edu/16866736/Albedo_regulation_of_Ice_Ages_with_no_CO2_feedbacks

                22

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘If you mean to say that CO2 causes LESS warming feedbacks than advertised, then you should say so.’

                I’m not a CO2 lukewarmer.

                “Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,” Professor Lu said.

                “My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline.”

                Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html#jCp

                20

              • #
                ralph ellis

                >>What’s striking is that since 2002, global
                >>temperatures have actually declined

                What is ‘striking’ is that global temperatures have mostly been following the PDO and AMO oceanic cycles. Actually, that is not very striking at all.

                But that does not mean that there cannot be a slight CO2 signal on top of that. Nor does it preclude an element of albedo feedbacks either.

                In fact, what is truly ‘striking’ is your simplistic view of climate feedback mechanisms, which is almost as simplistic and naive as the warmist view.

                Ralph

                10

            • #
              Andrew McRae

              Only 145 words needed, of you don’t count the content of the supporting hyperlinks:
              —8<——–8<——–8<——–8<——–8<—

              1. Radiative transfer models of the atmosphere under clear-sky conditions have been proven correct by radiation measurements in every clear sky location and direction in which they have been tested.
              ↪ http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/11/01/theory-and-experiment-atmospheric-radiation/
              2. At any moment, at least 44% of the world’s skies are clear-sky condition.
              ↪ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cover
              3. When a simulation of downwards long wave IR that does not include CO2 is subtracted from actual spectrometer measurements of DWLWIR, the remainder is at CO2 emission lines only and is seen to grow over time proportional to atmospheric CO2.
              ↪ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
              4. Basic radiation theory says the receiving object will rise in temperature until its outgoing radiation matches the new higher power of incoming radiation.

              00

              • #
                el gordo

                That’s terrific Andrew, what do you make of the massive model failure?

                http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/updated-list-of-64-excuses-for-18-26.html

                00

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                That’s two logical fallacies you’ve used there gordo.

                1. You cannot establish your own innocence by proving the guilt of others.
                You tried to claim CO2 cannot cause any warming and challenged anyone to show that it can.
                You’ve been given the observational proof that increasing CO2 causes warming to some extent, which was the challenge you issued. Asking others to explain why alarmist warming models have failed to predict actual temperatures does not in any way override the facts that answered your challenge.

                2. Affirming the Consequent, same fallacy as I just highlighted above at 4:26pm. Possibly an Excluded-Middle fallacy.
                As long as there is more than one driver of climate change, one of them can overpower the other. That is particularly easy in the case of CO2 as on a 30 year time scale it is weak in comparison to the AMO oscillation (or whatever really causes the AMO) and solar activity (regardless of whether it’s Wilde, Lu, Svensmark, or a combination of all three, that is right about the mechanism in the atmosphere). Actual temperature is mostly natural variability, which the model authors admitted they haven’t modelled very well.

                Warmists tell us we are supposed to take the IPCC-style model authors on faith that even though their predictions have not matched average temperatures over the last 10 years, that somehow their longer term trend will still be correct and therefore temperatures will begin to rise to historically superlative levels over the rest of the century. I don’t believe that and even if I took that on faith it still doesn’t make their argument valid, because the theoretical impacts of global warming are from absolute temperature, not from the trend or temperature difference since 1970. Models have to predict actual temperatures to establish whether adverse temperature would ever occur. They are unable to do that.

                As an aside, it’s also somewhat amusing that the theory of global warming that you advocated (8:00am), CFCs, is on that same list of “excuses for the Pause” – but it has not been listed as “Debunked” yet. How is it merely an “excuse” if it hasn’t been debunked? What if it is a real explanation and not an excuse?
                The Montreal protocol cut the supply of CFCs, so it should follow that as those molecules are broken down, the activity of cosmic rays (or UV) will become further focused on ozone instead, leading to loss of the ozone GHG and cooling in one or more layers of the atmosphere.

                Your own stated beliefs imply that there is another climate driver working in opposition to the CO2-warming hypothesis. If CFCs were the only cause then we should have had surface cooling by now as CFCs declined. But there has been no clear sign of surface cooling so far, and even the UAH v6 trend of the troposphere is not statistically significant yet. (No, I don’t think -0.021°/decade is significantly different from zero. It’s not a Pause, it’s a Plateau, and it’s not yet Cooling.) Well if CFC reduction should lead to cooling but there isn’t any cooling, then either Option A) CFCs have no greenhouse effect at all, or else option B) at least one more factor must be working against the CFC reduction to turn cooling into a Plateau. You believe in a GHE from CFCs, that leaves Option B. The other opposing factor doesn’t have to be CO2, but you can’t say it isn’t either, not on the basis of the temperature trend alone. You need more observational data than just the global average temperature trend to diagnose the causes of previous warming.

                00

              • #
                el gordo

                Apologies for the logical fallacies, its a minefield out there. I’ll try and avoid them in future.

                ‘… there has been no clear sign of surface cooling so far, and even the UAH v6 trend of the troposphere is not statistically significant yet.’

                True, the best way might be to ignore world temps altogether and concentrate on a couple of areas like Europe and south-east Australia, to pick up any signs of cooling.

                Years ago Mann and Schmidt coauthored a paper suggested the LIA began regionally, the idea has merit.

                ‘Actual temperature is mostly natural variability, which the model authors admitted they haven’t modelled very well.’

                Yep, they put too much faith in CO2 and I’m not overly excited by the CFC theory either.

                The stratosphere is cooling, according to some pundits, but I have been reliably informed that its only a plateau in temperatures.

                00

              • #
                ralph ellis

                Nice posting Andrew.

                Can I summarise, so that we can all sing from the same hymn-sheet. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes positive temperature feedbacks. But it is much weaker than the Warmists claim, ans is easily countered and drowned-out by the effects of cloud albedo, ice albedo, the AMO and the PDO and possibly by solar effects.

                Ralph

                10

              • #
                el gordo

                Andrew makes a strong argument, but I will not recant.

                If we go down the ‘sensitivity’ track the warmists get an escape clause, splitting hairs over the degree of effect.

                Its an academic exercise which we’ll have plenty of time to discuss after the cooling begins.

                Ralph do you think abrupt climate change is a thing of the past?

                10

              • #
                ralph ellis

                >>Ralph do you think abrupt climate change is a thing of the past?

                No.

                But if it is going to happen, my bet is that it will be albedo that causes it. And since albedo is already at a minimum (no ice sheets, not much cloud cover), the abrupt change can only really go to increasing albedo and cooler conditions. And there are many things that can cause the Earth to have a higher albedo, from ice to clouds to dust.

                Ralph

                10

          • #
            ralph ellis

            .
            >>You have to speak the language of your audience or you
            >>will be ignored, and as a consequence ineffective.

            This video is a good demonstration of what happens if a parliamentarian take it a ‘step too far’. (Actually, I don’t think this was a step too far, but he still got the same reaction. So you can imagine what would happen if he was being really controversial.)

            This is the speech by Vacav Claus, the Czech president, in the EU parliament. He was calling for greater democracy, greater accountability to the electorate, and a willingness by the EU to accept criticism. And he was also calling for a viable opposition within the EU parliament, because a parliament without an opposition is a tyranny. As he said, he had lived under the Soviet one-party ‘parliament’, and it was a dictatorship.

            And the reaction of EU parliamentarians to these pearls of wisdom? The booed him and walked out. Yes, just like the Greens, the EU parliament wants a one-party state. We will be liberal and free, but only if you do as we say….

            The first booing is at : 2:00, and then at 4:50.

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

            .

            30

  • #
    Niff

    Well said that man. One wonders why given the simple logic of it all it takes so ling for the other side to get it. The clot from the other side who was prepared to get up on his hind legs and assert that mankind is responsible for ALL of it just demonstrates how low information they are.

    152

  • #
    AndyG55

    First statement.

    “nobody has ever denied that CO2 is a global warming gas”

    PROVE IT.

    This one statement is the ERRONEOUS basis of the whole CAGW scam. !

    Yet, from the comments above, you are all accepting it !!!!

    Seriously ???????????

    123

    • #
      TdeF

      Technically CO2 will warm the planet slightly. It is a greenhouse gas. The question is, how much effect it has.

      The problem when first proposed and now is that calculations show CO2 on its own is an insignificant warming gas at 0.04%. No one seriously proposes CO2 has the ability to warm the planet at this tiny concentration. Water is by far the greater greenhouse gas. Clouds.

      So a second idea was postulated where CO2 produced just enough warming to warm the oceans, producing warm wet air, effectively warm mist over the equator which stopped the heat escaping, the famous hot spot. The fact that the hot spot is completely missing not just another failed prediction, it is the total collapse of any expectation that CO2 can warm the planet.

      Davis was good enough to skirt all this and say, so what? The alleged warming is now infintesimal, less than 0.26C in 250 years as alleged by the very champions of man made global warming, the IPCC.

      As for sceptical, Davis says there is not even a reasonable case being made for any action, which is a long way from denier.

      123

      • #
        AndyG55

        You are STILL buying into the LIE.

        CO2 is just another conduit for energy transfer.

        In the lower atmosphere it absorbs then releases energy by conduction to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere.

        The whole is balanced and regulated by the temperature pressure gradient.

        Adding any amount of CO2 has absolutely no effect on atmospheric temperature.

        212

        • #
          TdeF

          Sorry, I am not following. If the energy is not radiated into space but absorbed by CO2 and released by conduction as you say, it still does not leave the planet. Surely that is the entire point. Stopping the normal exit of radiant heat with CO2 makes it a greenhouse gas. That is not a lie.

          60

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi TdeF

            What Andy is saying is that while CO2 (and water) may preferentially absorb ground origin IR in the first 30 metres above ground, it

            cannot hold onto it in the presence of all the other nearby gas molecules: H2, N2 and O2.

            It must come to equilibrium immediately. It does this by collision.

            That “warmed” parcel of air has expanded compared to nearby air and so must rise with the buoyancy effect.

            At altitude, the parcel gets rid of its energy by radiative process, release of LHV from any water which may condense out etc.

            Adding more CO2 simply means that ALL ground origin IR that hasn’t been absorbed by H2O is absorbed by CO2 in LESS THAN 30 metres. This makes no difference to the process:

            1. Get the low grade enrgy IR into the gas via CO2 as a transfer agent

            2. Gas expands relative to other gas at same level and is less dense

            3. Buoyancy effect sees warmed gas ris to

            4. Discharge energy to higher level and eventually to

            5. That big heat sink in the sky at 1.6 above Absolute Zero.

            The warmers have no case.

            KK

            131

          • #
            AndyG55

            No it makes it a radiative absorption molecule.

            It releases the energy immediately to the rest of the atmosphere.

            It does not retain it like H2O does through its changes of state.

            Once that energy is handed to the majority of the atmosphere, the general actions of convection and conduction must take place.

            The loss of heat to the upper atmosphere is then controlled by the general temperature/pressure gradient.

            William Happer estimates that a CO2 molecule in the lower atmosphere would collide with millions (or was it billions) of other molecules in the time it takes to organise itself to re-radiate.

            It has been shown that CO2 does not radiate much below the 15km height mark.
            ie. well above the tropopause once convection ceases and conduction become much more difficult.

            10

        • #
          lemiere jacques

          so in such a temperature gradient pression model, radiative transfert and conduction must ne taken into account when it pleases you?
          and you can calculate a température gradient..from a ground “temperature”… from my point of view, the simple fact to use such a temperaure averaging is weird if not non sense.
          if you admit that convection does so job you must admit above the ground level the air must be warm by some means..so ok for radiative transfert from ground to above the ground there ..then it doesn’t work any more and you ignore “direct” tranfert from soil to space .. then the warm air goes up and id cooled by radiative emission there at top of troposphere…..and so on…

          well too simplistic to me too…

          CO2 is infra red emitter and absorber : it changes the radiatives transferts in climate system for sure.

          41

        • #
          gai

          Actually Andy, TdeF, you are both correct.

          What every one leaves out is the amount of TINE a CO2 molecule hangs onto the IR energy and it is not long at all.

          I think of it as a very tilted pinball machine with the CO2 handing off the energy almost instantaneously to the rest of the atmosphere and thereby aiding convection.

          40

        • #
          James

          AndyG55, sorry, but you have no clue. Just look into the IPCC reports and learn directly from the source, how THEY describe their “greenhouse effect”, it is an obvious nonsense. You do not need to counter their nonsense with yours about pressure gradient. You even do not know if CO2 really absorbs IR or not. We know however that CO2 slightly changes the heat capacity of the air, but this is absolutely negligible.

          21

          • #
            AndyG55

            Seriously James? What an incoherent load of hogwash.

            Please learn to string two coherent sentences together before commenting further.

            00

          • #
            AndyG55

            Yes, increasing CO2 reduces the energy capacity of air, by a tiny insignificant amount, especially at the trace amounts it currently exists.

            00

    • #
      lemiere jacques

      it depends on what you define as a global warming gas…
      it is an infra red absorber and emitter..

      what we can easily see from radiative calcuation is changing CO2 concentration will change at leat radiative transfert.. or in other words it can’t be the same climate if CO2 concentration doubles in atmosphere… that s all, and it is in fact very modest result.

      If you want to know the actual effect…huge work.

      61

    • #
      dp

      Nutter alert.

      30

    • #
      ralph ellis

      .
      >>“nobody has ever denied that CO2 is a global warming gas”
      >>PROVE IT.

      Andy, you clearly have a problem with comprehending simple energy transfers.

      Go out on a night with a thin cloud layer, and it will be reasonably warm. Wait until the clouds clear and the temperature might drop by 10ºc. Why? Because the clouds act as an opaque ‘insulating’ ‘greenhouse’ (simplistic terminology, but you get the idea).

      Now imagine a special type of cloud that can allow sunlight though them, but still have the same ‘insulating’ property. That is water vapour or CO2.

      .

      You know I have seen AndyG55 types around the web. Most of them are uber-warmist agitators, who are trying to spread confusion withing the Climate Realist world. What they want is a politician like David Davis here to stand up in Parliament and say ‘the greenhouse effect does not exist’. And then all the ‘scientists’ would fall about laughing and the Climate Realist cause would be badly holed under the waterline.

      People like AndyG55 are truly devious and truly dangerous people.

      Ralph

      11

      • #
        AndyG55

        People like Ralph are mis-informed and child-minded.

        The continued repeat of trying to mark someone he disagrees with as a warmist is truly deceitful and underhanded.

        You have pegged yourself for exactly what you describe of others.

        Everyone here knows me.. you have outed yourself as underhanded TROLL.

        A John Cook messenger, I’m guessing.

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Now imagine a special type of cloud that can allow sunlight though them, but still have the same ‘insulating’ property. That is water vapour or CO2.”

        gees.. next you will be calling CO2 a “blanket” of something hilarious like that. ;-)

        CO2 in the low atmosphere absorbs a tiny band of radiation and immediately passes that energy onto the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere. It is then taken care of like any other sort of atmospheric energy.

        Maybe you should read some of Dr Happer’s work to get an understanding… or not.

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        The CO2 concentration doesn’t change when you take away the clouds.

        Remove the water vapour like over a desert, and CO2 does absolutely nothing to insulate from loss of heat from the surface.

        00

        • #
          ralph ellis

          .
          >>Remove the water vapour like over a desert, and CO2 does absolutely
          >>nothing to insulate from loss of heat from the surface.

          Ok. Prove it.

          Find a desert and measure its night-time temperature response.
          Now remove all the CO2 from over the desert and repeat the experiment.

          If you have not done the experiment, please stop manufacturing lies and deceit. You have absolutely no idea if “CO2 does absolutely nothing to insulate”, because the experiment has not been done. Now be a good troll and go back to your cave.

          R

          00

          • #
            AndyG55

            Sorry, but the basic hypothesis is that CO2 causes warming (or insulates the atmosphere.)

            This has never been proven. Its your hypothesis. PROVE IT !!!

            Or be a good little lukewarmer and crawl back under your rock.

            00

    • #
      Wayne Job

      Riding a motor bike in the desert, just before the sun goes down on a totally clear sky, set up camp lay on your back and watch the stars come out, it is like a magic curtain rolling across the sky. Without a moon you can see by the star light. The temperature can drop from 30c to zero in an hour, no magic CO2 holding in the heat, no clouds or magic H2O that are our real and probably our only useful heat blanket our only useful green house gas.If ever CO2 became the largest percentage of gas in our atmosphere, it may help warm the planet, but most life would be extinct.

      I do wonder at the thought processes of some people that a trace gas essential for our well being can be so pilloried and so many people are sucked in to a scam so obviously attached to an agenda of the UN, that has no semblance to science.

      40

      • #
        ralph ellis

        .
        >>The temperature can drop from 30c to zero in an hour.

        And without CO2 in the atmosphere it might drop by 32ºc in an hour.
        And even a glass greenhouse might drop by 25ºc in an hour.
        So your point is?

        Ralph

        01

        • #
          AndyG55

          “And without CO2 in the atmosphere it might drop by 32ºc in an hour.”

          Prove it.. !!

          Sorry, but CO2 has no proven effect on retaining heat in the open atmosphere.

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          I like that you used the word “might™”

          Makes you sound just like a “climate scientist™”

          00

        • #
          ralph ellis

          >>Prove it.. !!

          You ‘prove it’. How do you know it does not?
          You a bloviating windbag Andy. All hot air.

          R

          00

          • #
            AndyG55

            Its your hypothesis that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

            It is for you to prove that hypothesis.

            So far it is totally unsubstantiated.

            It is you who is taking the NON-science stand.

            00

            • #
              AndyG55

              correction..

              Its your hypothesis that CO2 causes warming or insulates in an open atmosphere.

              It is for you to prove that hypothesis.

              So far it is totally unsubstantiated.

              It is you who is taking the NON-science stand.

              00

  • #
    toorightmate

    I might be kidding myself, but I detect slightly less vitriol in the comments from the AGW chorus of The Drum contributors. Only marginal, but a penny might be dropping.

    I think the main factor influencing the thinking is the lack of forecast disasters.

    90

  • #
    pat

    6 Nov: WaPo: Lisa Rein: Congressman demands climate study documents as scientists warn of ‘chilling effect’
    A nasty fight between a senior House Republican and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration over a recent climate change study is getting nastier.
    The country’s chief society of meteorologists weighed in this week with a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), warning the prominent congressional skeptic on climate change that his demands for internal communications and documents from NOAA “can be viewed as a form of intimidation” that could thwart federally funded research…
    “Singling out specific research studies, and implicitly questioning the integrity of the researchers conducting those studies, can be viewed as a form of intimidation that could deter scientists from freely carrying out research on important national challenges,” wrote Keith L. Seitter, executive director of the Boston-based scientific group (American Meteorological Society)…
    Andrew Rosenberg, a fisheries scientist at NOAA during the Clinton administration who is now with the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists, summed up the dispute this way:
    “This is mostly about climate change. But it is also about a congressman attacking answers he doesn’t like. I sincerely hope that federal scientists don’t have to lawyer up because they’re doing their jobs.”…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/06/as-scientists-warn-of-chilling-effect-on-research-congressman-doubles-down-on-noaa-to-release-deliberations-on-climate-study/

    30

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Let us never forget the core practice of supposed climate science, as epitomised by CRU’s Phil Jones infamous comment:

      Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?

      Very simply, if you are not prepared to share the data, nor how you process the data, now how you decided how to process the data, then you have something to hide. Especially, if your findings go against all previous evidence and conveniently fit a political agenda of someone desperately seeking some kind of ‘scientific proof’.

      Apart from the usual trolls, does anyone here want to put their hand up and say they trust the routine NOAA/GISS adjustments/manipulations/torture of the global temperature data, which appear deliberately designed to make the past ever more cooler and the present ever more warmer?

      A lot of UK MPs, predominantly Conservative, are becoming increasingly concerned about the UK’s insane energy policies, while PM David Cameron blithely sails on ignoring the rocks ahead and can be relied on to be one of those warmly embracing whatever idiocy is dreamed up by the Parisites later this month.

      170

      • #
        TdeF

        It is possibly much more than that. More like Climate Gate. The meteorologists are afraid that there are plenty of emails where people discuss the results they want and why and how to achieve them. The congressman is not actually asking for the data.

        At what point does collaboration become conspiracy? Their argument is that communication is private even as public servants. Sir Humphrey Applebee of Yes Minister fame would use National Security or refer the conversations to a private committee formed by those most affected who would then report to the congressman that everything was in order. After all the Australian government just did that to protect the BOM from having to explain their actions.

        You have to think the resistance alone indicates there is a great deal to hide, so much that they cannot be sure to hide it all.

        100

        • #
          gai

          Ethics Material for Government Employees

          s Principles of Ethical Conduct

          1. Public Service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain.

          …8. Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual.

          9. Employees shall protect and conserve Federal property and shall not use it for other than authorized activities.

          10. Employees shall not engage in outside employment or activities, including seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with official Government duties and responsibilities.

          11. Employees shall disclose waste, fr a u d, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities.

          12. Employees shall satisfy in good faith their obligations as citizens, including all just financial obligations, especially those–such as Federal, State, or local taxes–that are imposed by law.

          14.

          Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or ethical standards.

          Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective or a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.

          5 U.S. Code § 552 – Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

          NOAA does not have an ethical, moral or legal leg to stand on and that doesn’t even get into FOIA

          The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, is a federal freedom of information law that allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States government.

          60

    • #
      clive

      Typical “Lefty Speak”

      10

  • #
    Robk

    I’m not generally the worrying kind but I do wonder how many Paris-ites are aware the last big international treaty that demanded reparations to be paid was not far from Paris, in Versailles, almost 100 years ago. It didn’t end up that well for mankind.

    90

  • #
    pat

    ugly to watch.

    Thom Hartmann (former psychotherapist, trained in the 1970s in Neuro-Linguistic Programming – Wikipedia) has a program which airs on Russia Today…but also on ***Free Speech TV (you will find that ironic) and other media outlets.
    he is so obnoxious, I cannot watch him, but I made an exception for this piece someone posted in the comments at WUWT. it almost made me sick.

    he introduces Driessen as being from CFACT climate-change-denying website…
    at 3.20, he says he took a train across germany a week ago… & more than half of all the electricity consumed by germany was generated by renewables, wind and solar exclusively.

    keep in mind the following, which I’m accepting at face value:

    4 Nov: CleanTechnica: Roy L Hales: Germany Will Reach 33% Renewable Electricity This Year
    Up until now, the European leader has not produced more than 27% green energy in a year. According to a joint press release from the Centre for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research Baden – Württemberg (ZSW) and the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW), Germany will reach 33% renewable electricity this year…
    http://cleantechnica.com/2015/11/04/germany-will-reach-33-renewable-electricity-year/

    according to Wikipedia, hydroelectricity accounts for 3.5% of the electricity demand, so wind and solar would not account for all of the renewable electricity above.

    VIDEO: 9mins26secs: 21 Sept: Thom Hartmann: Climate Change Deniers Should Be In Prison…
    Thom Hartmann asks climate change denier Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Analyst-Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) why he should not be thrown in prison for lying to the American public about climate change.
    http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/climate-change-deniers-should-be-prison
    COMMENT by TomHarrisICSC: Thom, why did you act in such an immature fashion with Paul Dreissen? Do you really think being rude and agressive towards your guests, continually interrupting them and misrepresenting what they are saying, you will win converts to your point of view? Note how polite Mr. Driessen was, no matter how you goaded him and called him names. Shame…

    50

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Pat

      I hope he enjoyed his trip across Europe because the trains probably will stop all too soon.

      Europe has a crisis amongst it’s people who are asking:

      why work like a dog and save just to have your efforts taken up by politicians posturing in Bruxelles and dispersed to all points of the compass in order to “save the planet”.

      60

      • #
        clive

        I hear they have more pressing problems with “Country Shoppers”Money is the least of their problems at the moment.

        30

    • #

      In 2014 11% of the Primary Energy consumption were Renewables, most of it biomass/firewood (yes the German timber/wood production could even be doubled still being sustainable). Solar contributes 1%, windpower 1.5% to the Energy consumption.

      As solar and wind are volatile, big amounts of electricity must be sold to neighboring countries or bought from them.

      CO2 emissions have slightly risen due to stopping Nuclear power plants and replacing them with coal plants. Bavaria has to import 50% of its electricity if they shut down the rest of the Atomic power plants.

      All this you can hear /read in the Media and at official websites.

      http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/Bilder/Energie/Energiedaten/energie-daten-energiegewinnung-und-energieverbrauch-grafik-3,property=bild,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de.jpg

      Erneuerbare=Renewables

      40

  • #
    Carbon500

    I’m encouraged by Davies’ use of figures and also IPCC quotes from the papers he’s holding to counter the opposition. Clearly he’s been reading around the subject, so let’s hope that more MPs begin to do the same and think for themselves. Well done that man!

    120

  • #
    Ruairi

    Some M.P.s will check what they’re told,
    Nor follow like sheep to a fold,
    Though their numbers are few,
    Their skeptical view,
    Could shatter the climate-change mould.

    200

  • #
    ralph ellis

    .
    Mr Davies also comments on the Younger Dryas period, and rightly points out that this is still a mystery. So how can we declare that the ‘science is sett;ed’ on climate, if we have no idea what happened in the Younger Dryas?? However, this latest paper solves many of the Y.D. mysteries, and explains the entire sequence of events. It follows the Y.D. impact theory, with a few interesting twists, and it makes a great deal more sense than most latest scientific papers on this subject:

    .

    Amendments to the standard Younger Dryas impact theory:

    There was only one primary extraterrestrial impact.
    The impact occurred on the Laurentide ice sheet in Canada, leaving little trace.
    The Carolina Bays all point to an apparent primary impact site, west of the Great Lakes.
    However, this primary impact location is moved eastwards by Coriolis and Drift angle adjustments.
    The new real primary impact point lies at the center of the Great Lakes.
    The ejecta or secondary projectiles from this impact, were composed of crushed ice.
    Being low velocity crushed ice, these secondary ejecta projectiles created shallow elliptical depressions – the Carolina Bays.
    With millions of projectiles falling over eastern America at the same time, all life in eastern N America was terminated.
    The sub-orbital trajectory of the ejecta ice-projectiles deposited a lot of ice in the upper atmosphere.
    This blanket of ice crystals caused the Younger Dryas.

    .

    This sequence of events caused:

    The Younger Dryas cooling.
    The Pleistocene extinction event.
    The hundreds of thousands of Carolina Bays.

    .

    Please see this Academia,edu article.

    The Carolina Bays and the Destruction of North America:

    https://www.academia.edu/17274053/The_Carolina_Bays_and_the_destruction_of_North_America

    .

    A few Carolina Bay formations, highlighted in a false-colour LIDAR image.
    There are some 500,000 Bays across America, all pointing to the same focus-point in the Great Lakes region.

    110

    • #
      ralph ellis

      The image of the Carolina Bays did not post for some reason.
      This is a LIDAR image of some carolina Bays.

      http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/carolina-bays/lidar-image.jpg

      60

      • #
        TdeF

        Wow. Great image. Countless low angle impacts.

        30

        • #
          ralph ellis

          .
          >>Wow. Great image. Countless low angle impacts.

          Indeed. Now imagine 500,000 of them all over Maryland, Virginia, Carolina, Georgia, Kansas and Nebraska – and all pointing to the same focal point in the Great Lakes.

          Tell, me. Why has that not stirred the interest of science? Do they think the ‘science is settled’ so much, that they can all give up and go home?

          R

          70

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘Tell, me. Why has that not stirred the interest of science?’

            It raises deep philosophical questions, like why is the Holocene a gently sloping plateau unlike the interglacials which came before?

            The YD put a damper on rising temperatures and gradually civilization began to develop.

            10

    • #
      ianl8888

      Ralph

      Why do you require our email address before we can download the PDF, please ?

      Unless I know the person involved, I never respond to those requests

      10

      • #
        ralph ellis

        .
        >>Why do you require our email address?

        You should be able to read on-screen without registering. Correct??

        I don’t run Academia.edu, it is an academic paper site. But I can let you have a pdf if you want one. ralf dot ellis at me dot com.

        Ralpj

        10

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘The impact occurred on the Laurentide ice sheet in Canada, leaving little trace.’

      That might explain was there is no dust spike in the Greenland ice core.

      10

      • #
        el gordo

        What I meant to say …

        ‘This dust should be recorded as a spike in the dust record in ice cores from Greenland that is simultaneous with (or slightly leading) the initiation of the Younger Dryas. Steffensen et al (2008) present high resolution records of ice core proxies across the Younger Dryas initiation and report no dust spike simultaneous with the transition. Instead, the increase in dust lags behind changes in deuterium and oxygen isotopes.’

        Richard Telford

        10

        • #
          ralph ellis

          .
          >>Steffensen et al (2008) present high resolution records of ice core proxies across
          >>the Younger Dryas initiation and report no dust spike simultaneous with the transition.

          There is an impact signature within the ‘black mats’, as I report in my Younger Dryas article. There are numerous papers which identify impact deposits at the base of the black mat, including nanodiamonds, metallic microspherules, buckminster-fullerenes, and carbon spherules.

          But you are hardly likely to get a large dust signature in Greenland, as the primary impact was on a 2km thick ice sheet. Thus the primary ejecta was ice and water, not dust.

          https://www.academia.edu/17274053/The_Carolina_Bays_and_the_destruction_of_North_America

          20

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘…as the primary impact was on a 2km thick ice sheet. Thus the primary ejecta was ice and water, not dust.’

            Thanks for that insight, I now accept the proposition that the YD was caused by a cosmic impact.

            00

      • #
        ralph ellis

        The Y.D. record is somewhat confusing. The guys doing the ice core analysis say it was dry and dusty, because they see dust in the record (but not as much as in O-D events). But the geologists in the USA say the Y.D. was wet and boggy, because it is associated with the ‘wet’ black mats. That part of the problem has still to be worked out.

        This is the Greenland ice core record:
        http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309074347/xhtml/images/p20005394g26001.jpg

        20

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘It’s always hard to evaluate evidence in fields outside one’s own, but to me the continuing accumulation of impact proxies by independent groups – melt glass, nanodiamonds, Greenland platinum spike and so on – provides compelling evidence that a cosmic input of some sort occurred at the onset of the YD cooling.

          ‘And the finding by the Belmont group of a second nanodiamond peak a few thousand years in the past is exciting: it strengthens Marie Agnes Courty’s long-running contention that of a more recent event at 2350 BC, again coincident with a widespread cooling, and drought, sufficient to bring about the collapse of the earliest civilisations.’

          Bill Napier (The Cosmic Tusk)

          00

  • #
    gigdiary

    David Davies’ opening remarks about CO2 are misleading, if not wrong, however, he goes on to debunk the consensus crap and highlights significantly the various warming periods in the past. This is good.

    The Australian public needs to hear this parliamentary speech rather than the ‘climate science’ we get from Turnbull, Hunt and Flannery et al.

    As Joanne says, it’s high school science level. However, that’s the level that anyone other than a scientist can be expected to comprehend, myself included.

    This is the type of message that skeptics should be circulating. Well done, David Davies.

    Wouldn’t it be great to hear one of our pollies delivering this address?

    131

    • #
      Peter C

      Yes, that was my thought as well.
      Surely me have some MPs who ink as David Davis does?

      Dennis Jensen did have a go about a year or more ago, but that is the only time that I can remember. Party discipline may restrict some members, especially if they are in cabinet.
      The independents have an ideal opportunity.

      30

    • #
      James

      Unfortunately, there is indeed a consensus among “climate scientists” on both global temperature and “greenhouse effect”.

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      “David Davies’ opening remarks about CO2 are misleading, if not wrong’

      THANK YOU. !!

      00

  • #
    Peter C

    Does anyone know how this video clip is produced? Some video clips do not work on my I-Pad 1.
    However I was able to watch this one.

    20

  • #
    J Martin

    Converting the co2 brainwashed back to a normal healthy balanced scepticism is about subtle psychological manipulation and that involves gently challenging their established viewpoint.

    The most effective way to start is to appear to be on their side, eg. accepting global warming and much of the IPCC, but then picking some points from the IPCC to demonstrate that the establishment viewpoint has been exaggerated.

    Once you have established that small crack of doubt and left it to sink in, then you can apply further facts and figures, eventually leading to a change from co2 accolyte to healthy sceptic.

    40

  • #
    Robdel

    This proves there are a handful of mps who can actually use their brains.

    30

  • #

    David Davies has had a real job at a Steel Works in the real World, before becoming an MP. He does not want to be paying £2500 per MWh for some Green Dream of Wind Power. We need a few more David Davies in our parliaments.

    60

  • #
    kneel

    Perhaps the most salient – and underused – point is “… from anthropogenic CO2 and other anthropogenic affects“.
    LULC changes are a well documented source of climate changes at the local level (UHI, eg). Where GW is most significant – NH, specifically Europe and N. America – is also where the greatest anthropogenic LULC changes are to be found.
    Correlation is not causation, but it certainly warrants further study of causative agents.

    10

  • #
    James

    The guy said “Nobody has ever denied that CO2 is a global warming gas”. What is beautiful about that statement?

    20

  • #
    old44

    No one I’ve ever met has ever suggested the climate never changes…

    Every Green I have ever met believes the climate has always been stable and benign, no storms, even and constant temperatures, gentle rain, soft winds, no droughts, until the invention of the car.

    60

  • #
    Ian

    Was anybody bored or curious enough to watch the whole debate? I did and what’s very significant is that the MP in the video is the only one who did other than pray at the altar of Climate Change. It was pitiful.

    for UK readers) A Scottish Nationalist MP suggested that the Tory’s mandate to cut back on onshore wind subsidies shouldn’t apply to Scotland.

    A Tory (I think) MP, remembering (or misremembering) his time in Kenya, lamented the loss of the Kilimanjaro glaciers!

    Pretty depressing stuff.

    40

    • #

      Sorry to hear that Ian. Though you can bet all of them will remember Davies quoting the IPCC back at whathisname…

      30

      • #
        Ian

        Thanks Joe,

        The good thing is that it’s all there in Hansard, for ever. My only fear is whether I’ll live long enough to be able to write to these poor, deluded people and ask for an apology.

        Ian

        10

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      I thought Kilimanjaro melted at least a decade ago. You’ll be telling me that there are still Polar Bears next…

      11

  • #
    TedM

    Eloquent, factual and courteous. If only one of our elected members was as well informed and capable of presenting the facts in our parliment.

    30

  • #
    Amber

    Politicians don’t mind being politically correct but killing people with high energy prices for something most know or suspect
    is a fraud is something they don’t want their name or government attached to .

    When the numbers role in about fuel poverty deaths, directly and indirectly attributed to foolish and devastating global warming policies
    those politicians will be looking for a place to hide . They will blame it on the “scientists ” who they bought to produce grossly exaggerated
    global warming fear mongering reports and public statements . So the little band of scientists can wear this global scam .

    The other conmen attached to it will be a little tougher to get but repeating something you know is a lie so as to swindle people won’t buying them a free pass ,
    it’s fraud resulting in the untimely death of thousands so far .

    Once the lawyers jump on board and they will … scary global warming propaganda will flame out . The perpetrators deserve what is coming .

    The scam cost billions on the way up and going down will be no different .

    00