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

Richard Lindzen: Axe climate science funding. Groupthink has destroyed intellectual foundations.

How things change. This article has a straightforward tenor, asks questions of both sides of the climate debate and discusses whether skeptics might finally be given a seat at the government funded table (so to speak). It’s so blandly normal in tone it is a bit wildly rare! (Almost like real journalism?) How often do we see Judith Curry and Michael Mann in the same article as Bjorn Lomborg and Will Happer?

Most skeptics are optimistic that the Global Freeze on skeptical scientists may be finally coming to an end. But not Richard Lindzen, the carefully spoken man, with decades of experience, who lets loose…

Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold

Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences who has long questioned climate change orthodoxy, is skeptical that a sunnier outlook is upon us.

“I actually doubt that,” he said. Even if some of the roughly $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars currently spent on climate research across 13 different federal agencies now shifts to scientists less invested in the calamitous narrative, Lindzen believes groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected.

“They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,” he said. “Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”

Spot the unskeptical scientist:
Fake, Poseur Scientist

Richard Lindzen:

The field is cluttered with entrenched figures who must toe the established line, he said, pointing to a recent congressional report that found the Obama administration got a top Department of Energy scientist fired and generally intimidated the staff to conform with its politicized position on climate change.

“Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”

Who cares? Spot the ones who earn their dues without cash or the glory. Guys like David Evans, Nils Axel Morner, Roger Tallbloke, Jennifer MarohasyJohn AbbottStephen McIntyreAnthony Watts, Ian Wilson, and Bill Kininmonth. (Forgive me for omitting many others…).

For the last ten years climate science would have progressed faster if there was no government funding at all. The more the unskeptical scientists get funding, the more they get in the way of real research.

Science will only be healthy if there is competition from non-government funded research though private philanthropy (thank you to all you philanthropists out there who keep us going!).

To earn tax dollars, scientists must propose falsifiable ideas and be willing to debate in public against their most ardent critics. Their datasets and work emails need to be publicly available.

Those who break tenets of science by waffling on about “consensus” science should be disqualified henceforth and immediately, and not be allowed in the classroom either.

I wrote about the dilemma of how to tell which scientists are the real ones, versus which ones are not in The Skeptics Handbook II. Help: How Do I know?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (148 votes cast)
Richard Lindzen: Axe climate science funding. Groupthink has destroyed intellectual foundations., 9.5 out of 10 based on 148 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/zns2uzg

171 comments to Richard Lindzen: Axe climate science funding. Groupthink has destroyed intellectual foundations.

  • #
    Peter C

    To earn tax dollars, scientists must propose falsifiable ideas and be willing to debate in public against their most ardent critics. Their datasets and work emails need to be publicly available.

    I agree. Even if funding to Climate Science is slashed by 90% the government funding agencies still need to insist on proper scientific ethics.

    600

    • #
      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I don’t know who jonrappoport the blogger is but he’s got all the earmarks of a conspiracy theorist. I don’t know what would’ve happened if Hillary had been elected but since it’s Trump instead I don’t believe the current thinking at Homeland Security will survive beyond January 20th.

        If I was to make any comment about Homeland Security it would repeat what I’ve already said. DHS was a bad mistake. When George Bush proposed it I just cringed and shuddered. Why create one more federal monster? We already had all we needed but we forgot one thing — we forgot to tell everyone to actually cooperate instead of acting like they all worked for different enemy nations. Honestly, the history of the 21st Century will have a hard time coming up with a better example of kneejerk reaction than this thing we so affectionately call, our very own Department of Homeland Security.

        By the way. Obama took over DHS very early in his presidential career. Something like this isn’t much of a surprise considering DHS has become Obama’s own private little army, including armored vehicles and suspected detention camps.

        301

        • #
          Leonard Lane

          Yes DHS should be scrapped or completely re-organized with a fraction of their current budget. Otherwise, the DHS will wear down Congress and the President through some of the best bureaucratic fighting ever seen in the USA–it is loaded with Obama plants and incompetent administrators. ICE and the Border patrol should be removed from DHS and made a small agency dedicated to border protection and security.
          TSA is another one that never should have been formed and made union. Now they act like the DMV: harassing the innocent and not giving a darn about the bad guys.

          80

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        The Russian hackers have been caught in the act. A picture is worth a thousand words.

        150

      • #
        richard verney

        Bringing in voter ID would be a good start, but then of course the Democrats don’t want that.

        60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Take them out of their private labs and put them behind a big window in public view. Don’t allow them to hide anything.

      Do it for government too.

      Good idea but fat chance, methinks.

      140

  • #
    damon

    The disgrace is that John Cook was supported to the last by the University of Queensland, even after it was obvious his ‘research’ was nonsense.

    771

    • #
      el gordo

      Cook is criticised for his 97% flawed paper, but its only nobel cause corruption, even the potus got into the act.

      CNSNews.com) – President Obama said Tuesday that he’s confident his successor will honor any climate change agreement negotiated in Paris becasue “99.5 percent of scientists and 99 percent of world leaders” think that climate change “is really important.”

      411

      • #
        spetzer86

        Thankfully, O also was confident the Hillary would be elected and that Obamacare would result in a $2,500 benefit to every American, among others. O is a classic Democrat in that he believes a lot of things that just aren’t so.

        480

      • #
        Mike Restin

        Let airports supply their own security.
        They can go to Israel for training on how to properly profile terrorists and other bad guys.

        50

      • #
        Mike Restin

        Obama needs to widen his vocabulary and learn the meaning of the term fat chance.

        50

  • #
    DavidH

    What chance of climate debates in the spirit of the Bohr – Einstein debates on quantum mechanics? Very little, I fear.

    191

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Is there a point where the fields of science go purely theoretical?, I know science is observation of known things but at some stage some imagination is needed to reveal the unknown, just curious, cheers.

      120

      • #
        Katio1505

        Yonnie

        Science has its theoretical and practical (observational) scientists, and all need to have imagination. The key to good science, however, is to follow the Scientific Method.

        90

      • #
        sophocles

        Yonnie asks:

        Is there a point where the fields of science go purely theoretical?

        Yes there is: from the instant of the Big Bang to some seconds, or perhaps even minutes, afterwards.

        40

  • #
    Antoine

    again, it’s the thin edge of the wedge that has been struck in and will be hammered home.
    AGW and climate change is going down – they know it and we know it

    321

    • #
      Ted O'Brien

      What seems to be getting overlooked is that the AGW scam is only a tool in a much bigger exercise, an exercise to demolish the capitalist economic system by shifting money out of productive enterprise.

      If the capitalist system collapses, and the Marxists, who believe that there should be no private management of industry, have been trying very hard for many years to make it collapse, then the AGW scam will have no further use. It will have achieved its terminal objective.

      I see a very real danger that the capitalist system may collapse, especially when Australia’s democracy can be subverted by a visit from Al Gore to somehow persuade Clive Palmer to change his policy and block the spending cuts that the Abbott government was elected in a landslide to make.

      Richard Lindzen is so right to call for cuts in government spending, but not just for climate science. Education in particular should be cast on the free market, so that we can get the education we want, not the education that partisan operators seek to indoctrinate us with.

      Some very good comments in the #5 thread.

      00

  • #
    PeterS

    It’s not going to happen. The climate change scam is so well entrenched and too powerful. The only way it can be reversed is if the majority of scientists got together and exposed the scam. I can’t see that happening either for various reasons, mostly selfish ones. Perhaps Trump can do something to expose the scam. Time will tell.

    282

    • #
      TdeF

      You have a point. Climate Change, Global Warming and carbon pollution these things are part of the vocabulary now by endless repetition. No one really questions them. Or they do not care. Just more taxes from a greedy Socialist government, except that they voted Conservative.

      A single event can turn this on its head and there are many coming. Loss of funding and credibility under Trump. Actual Global cooling. In Australia collapse of South Australia when Hazelwood closes. Loss of so many jobs, from Hazelwood, Portland and the bauxite mines and processors, closure of Arrium in Whyalla, Port Pirie and thousands of dependent jobs. Add that the the car manufacturers driven from Australia by union extortion as with Toyota now closing. The billions that State Governments have been paying smelters, car manufacturers and other big employers just to stay open will stop. Alcoa does not want their bribery. AGL is trying to get out of the deal rather than take the blame. In this year we could get the collapse of huge numbers of blue collar votes. Whole cities sacrificed by inner city Green voters and the Sydney based government funded political organization know as the ABC/SBS to their Green God, Climate Change.

      Even rusted on Labor voters are starting to revolt at the job losses and the sheer destruction of our cheap and reliable electricity system by their Union/Labor masters. It was a system built by Labor, destroyed by Labor and now under an uncaring Turnbull.

      We need to put the ABC/SBS/CSIRO/BOM on the chopping block for sale. Balance the budget. They make profits or close. Our news comes from overseas and our weather from satellites.

      It could all come to a head this year with Trump, Brexit and Hazelwood. The culmination would be Turnbull and his lackey Bishop bundled out of office. If last year was an exciting one for sceptics with the biggest drop in temperature in decades, Trump elected, Tories in Britain and BREXIT undercutting the EU monster, this one could be bigger. There could be a revolution in France and so many energy companies are French. An interesting year ahead and the pushers of Climate Change might find a very cold wind blows over their budgets. So called Climate Scientists might have to find a new vein.

      730

      • #

        Well said; 2017 might finally save us from the zombie-climatologist apocalypse. I am hoping.

        271

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Unfortunately the politicians have built barricades with the “fixed term” of 4 years, supposedly so they don’t have to worry about the elections for the first 3 years and get on with managing…well, we know how that worked out.
        At the moment in SA an election wouldn’t leave many Labor members in Parliament, but we have a bit over a year to go before they can be thrown out.
        On the Federal level things may happen. Even Turnbull is starting to realise that expensive and unreliable electricity isn’t a vote winner. With Weatherill, Andrews and Palaszczuk pushing their States to disaster as fast as they can, an election would be a wipe-out for Labor.
        None of these 3 headless chooks has to face an election until next year (or 2018 in Qld.) so even Turnbull will look better than the opposition, so if the Liberals could find a real leader???.
        I wonder what the odds are on Weatherill, Turnbull and Shorten all being booted this year?

        261

        • #
          C. Paul Barreira

          And who would replace those Labor members? Not Liberals—for they are not in the least in these matters. Neither press release nor policy interferes with the status quo. The old rule that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them has a caveat: the opposition, as an alternative, must possess some degree of credibility. The opposition in South Australia is not credible—otherwise it would have won the last election. Worse, as far as I can tell, the disasters of power distribution of recent weeks have largely been forgotten. After all house prices continue to rise and what, in South Australia, is more important? Nothing. And it has been that way since before 1836.

          90

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            I can assure you that the power problems haven’t been forgotten. Mention it and the emotion boils out, but there is nothing to do until the election.
            It is difficult to win any election when 47% produces a majority for the government. That is being sorted out although the Labor party is disputing the umpire (with public money). So lst time the Government did just enough to not lose the election.
            House prices may be rising but at a sluggish rate. Possibly because of movement of young people out of the State.

            160

        • #
          el gordo

          At Sportsbet you can get odds of 3/1 that Talcum will slip or be pushed in 2017.

          60

      • #
        Dennis

        PHILLIP HUDSON
        Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are the least desirable leadership pair since Paul Keating faced off against Alexander Downer.
        The Australian – Newspoll

        120

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          My comment seems to have found a few supporters.

          This is not a true poll because it compares both (for want of a better term) leaders. People who regard Shorten as a potential disaster would tend to look favourably on Turnbull, and vice versa.

          What would be the result if both were compared with the choice of a dead wombat?

          120

  • #

    Wonkypedia unwittingly reveals a truth:

    Ph.D. is a terminal degree in many fields.

    So that’s where thinking stops.

    220

    • #
      TdeF

      What does this mean?

      50

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      That is why I didn’t complete my PhD in Pharmacology. Added to several years of enforced penury, I saw my life in the lab with thousands of rats, a room with tens of thousands of chemicals, and would have been required to put one in the other to see what would happen. It was not made clear if the chemicals were to go into the rats or the rats into the chemicals. Since my passion was making things work, I dropped out and became a Biomedical Engineer who earned a living making things that work. I did not stay being a Biomedical Engineer but the point is I escaped the destiny of rooms of rats and chemicals.

      That was over fifty years ago. During the following years, I met a few good PhD’s and far too many dead end PhD’s. I am totally happy with my decision.

      290

      • #
        spetzer86

        I can’t disagree, although many PhDs end up working very little in their major field. I got my PhD in pharamcokinetics and, while employed in the pharmaceutical field, haven’t done any real kinetics work for over 25 years. The funny thing is that if I’d stayed with my pharmacy BS and worked behind a counter, my average salary would be the same or higher. Of course, counting tablets all day isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.

        130

    • #
      Bulldust

      Is Wonkypedia something like Uncyclopedia? The latter is quite funny. See their entry for climate change, for example:

      http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Climate_change

      Here’s a snippet to whet the appetite:

      Carbon Dioxide (molecular formula: C666O2) is both a naturally, unnaturally, and supernaturally occurring gas emitted from angry volcanoes, the natural emission of flatulence from the sea floor, and sarcasm. Since roughly the time of the industrial revolution, mankind has been burning dinosaur blood at an alarming rate to power his machines, and make his snacks. This burning has risen the amount of C666O2 in the atmosphere which has blocked out a measurable quantity of the happy light spectrum from the sun, making the Earth angry… in a heated way.

      150

    • #
      terrence22

      Don’t forget that “PhD” very often means “Piled higher and Deeper”…

      20

  • #

    Only 80 or 90 percent?

    Me, I want obliteration, revenge, gizzards on a stick and all that. Better still, give the climatariat jobs wiping down greasy solar panels in the German winter at 50+ latitude and lugging away rickety old Spanish wind turbines nobody wants to replace. Pay them in Geodynamics shares. Green jobs!

    561

    • #

      Not all government funded scientists are worthless. I say we keep funding all those who spoke up against corruption, inexplicable adjustments, and bad reasoning — at least 5 or 6 people.

      301

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Not all Government funded scientist are worthless.

        But are all worthless scientists funded by Government? Commercial reality would imply a correlation.

        80

  • #
    Eric Worrall

    I agree, defund the lot of them. It would be just as wrong to pick favourites on the skeptic side as it was for the previous regime to pick their favourites. The only way to end this intellectual cancer is to excise it – to shut off the financial blood supply.

    361

    • #
      el gordo

      To defund all climate science, through the normal political process, would require a revolution in thinking. Turning the world upside down is no easy task, but we need to get the Klimatariat to debate their opponents in the public arena and let the people decide.

      Trump intends to defund and this will start a conversation that politicians everywhere cannot ignore. As the scientists attempt to defend their mindset, we’ll have the debate we richly deserve. The MSM has to cover everything that the new charismatic leader says and as a consequence Turnbull is going to look very silly indeed.

      130

    • #

      No way Eric. It’s not wrong to give funding to honest researchers. That they all happen to be skeptical is not biased, merely the simple statement of fact that there are no unskeptical scientists. All scientists are skeptics.

      “Both sides” have favorites, but this is irrelevant. We should fund real research, not political activism (of the right or the left).

      This may be our one chance in the 50-year decline of the practice of science. Collectivists showed no sense of fair play, no desire to seek the truth, and they mercilessly sacked those who spoke against their political ideology.

      It is not about which side a scientist is on. We fund people who offer falsifiable theories, use data to test their ideas, and don’t break the basic laws of logic and reason. We fund people willing to debate their theories in public, ones who offer up data and all complete methodology, including adjustments and codes without an FOI.

      But the people who do OK research, yet sat in silence as their colleagues trashed science are still complicit. You might convince me to fund them at a lower level. But the real champions of science need support.

      253

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        Jo, I agree to a point. But the fact is that big government with big funding dictate the research topics and approach with their choice to fund “Popular” (i.e. things that help bring votes) projects.
        My thought is that we need to find a way to get big government out of science and somehow insulate science from another takeover by Marxists. But, this is probably dreaming.
        Government will always play a role in science/engineering and research, that role should be small and tightly monitored.
        Somehow we have to get ethics, honesty, decency, and accountability back into big government, big government funding and also into the schools, colleges and universities producing our scientists & engineers. I suppose that we need to fist get these things back into society and our governments. The question is how do we do this in a free country?
        I do not know how to accomplish it, but I know it is necessary.

        40

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Off the top of my head:

          Have the Government bulk fund an independent agency, that is solely responsible for distributing that funding to various research initiatives on a year-on-year basis.

          The science explored by any research initiative must be replicable and repeatable and have application to the betterment of mankind, protection of the environment in which we all live, and show a return, both tangible and financial to the population at large.

          30

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            By definition research is about the unknown, which the bureaucrats translate as results due by Feb. 14th. in triplicate copy.
            The decision has to be split into ‘pure’ and applied research. Let the bureaucrats stuff up the applied side and direct some funds to University faculties on a bulk basis with the internal Department fighting to decide who gets to employ how many students to do the work. Every so often review/compare those departments for results. The god ones get money, the poor get a pittance until they improve.

            10

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Good points, Graeme. Yes, I agree that pure research is fun, but applied research is what will give the return on investment. Pitting one against the other will certainly need the intervention of “god”, in the apportionment of the monies. ;-)

              10

      • #
        tom0mason

        All models to be aggressively verified, with working code opened for public inspection.

        All statistical methods to be open to public inspection.

        40

    • #
      Ted O'Brien

      Hmmmmmm! Defund?

      If government ‘defunds’ research, government needs less tax. Less tax means industry has more funds for research. Industry direction means research more relevant to need.

      Believe it or not, really, truly, that is how it works. As, hopefully, Trump is about to demonstrate.

      10

  • #
    tom0mason

    The bottom line is where the corruption starts.
    The UN.

    Trump could not do better than to stop funding that bureaucratic junkhouse.

    360

    • #
      Egor the One

      Bang On tomomason!

      Where it all began…the house of ill repute…the house of the Unelected Nutters(UN) and freak show of fanatics, setting themselves up as an untouchable world dictatorship.

      The invention and propagation of CAGW is simply the tool for their end game, with many other cohorts drunk on the gravy train ride!

      80

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The original purpose of the UN was to prevent hostilities between the member nations.

      It has achieved that purpose by giving itself the semblance of a one world government, that seeks to influence member nations against their better interests.

      The EU has also adopted a similar model within Europe, with unelected Bureaucrats running “the business” for their own benefit.

      There is no democracy – no sanction from the populace – in those appointed to seats of power, in either organisation, and no means of removing those who do not act in the best interest of the global population they are supposed to serve.

      130

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    So it comes down to money again, as always.

    If one is not part of the productive economy, but instead exists on tax dollars, one is likely a parasite.
    There is, of course, a part of the government that is very symbiotic in current terms – and potentially productive in investment.
    We support schools, and are gratified if they are effective. We support firefighters, and applaud when they save lives.
    We support our local police, and are please to live in an orderly and moderately safe society.

    We ‘support’ the EPA, and are asked to believe that their regulations, rules, and questionably constitutional enforcement mechanisms
    save thousands of lives.

    We move well beyond the law of diminishing returns when the agency turns inward, and thinks more of itself, its preservation, and its
    aggrandizement that its functions. We are at the point of insanity when real results can no longer be cited as outputs for the ever
    increasing inputs, and justification becomes a combination of reveling in past glories, faith, and attachment to other, still motivating, causes.

    It is not an accident that every liberal desire that is on shaky ground finds a way to attach itself to the civil rights movement.

    We’ve been there for while.

    One the the interesting things about a self referential group like the climate folks is that there are few connections to the real world –
    pull one like funding and collapse happens.

    Some of us are old enough to remember the global cooling scare that led to the first “Earth Day”.

    Within a few years after the fear factor of then CAGW displaced cooling, it was hard to find anyone who had ever believed in global cooling and a new ice age.

    As ‘climate change’ fades the same thing will happen.

    The Mitchell Trie once did a song called the “I was not a Nazi Polka”.

    We will see government and academia preserving its status by dancing on the head of a pin doing the “I was not a climate warrior Polka”.

    It was just a Theory…..
    I wrote maybe, possibly, could be, might be, evidence suggests…….
    I had to compromise with my co-authors but I always had my doubts……
    That’s how science works, we were examining a theory……
    We had a few experiments that were statistical anomolies but eventually reached the truth as science is supposed to……
    I was never political — the pols misrepresented my science…….
    A food scientist can change his/her mins when the evidence changes……
    No one was persecuted, look how most of us have adapted. Only the paranoids thougt there was persecution…..

    And, to save the world for the [NEXT GREAT SCARE] just give us lots of money and political power and we’ll fix thing right up, you betcha….

    And, likely as not, a gullible public an complicit press and government will prove once again that PT Barnum was right.

    220

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    For those who do not remember songs from the 60′s:
    http://lyrics.wikia.com/wiki/Chad_Mitchell_Trio:I_Was_Not_A_Nazi_Polka

    60

  • #

    [...] JoNova discusses killing off climate science funding due to Groupthink [...]

    20

  • #

    Richard Lindzen is the hero in the climate field, a straight shooter who tells it like it is. He has provided a detailed description of the foibles displayed in the cartoon above:

    How science was perverted from a successful mode of enquiry into a source of authority;

    What are the consequences when fear is perceived to be the basis for scientific support rather than from gratitude and the trust associated with it;

    How incentives are skewed in favor of perpetuating problems rather than solving them;

    Why simulation and large programs replaced theory and observation as the basis of scientific investigation;

    How specific institutions and scientific societies were infiltrated and overtaken by political activists;

    Specific examples where data and analyses have been manipulated to achieve desired conclusions;

    Specific cases of concealing such truths as may call into question gobal warming alarmism;

    Examples of the remarkable process of “discreditation” by which attack papers are quickly solicited and published against an undesirable finding;

    Cases of Global Warming Revisionism, by which skeptical positions of prominent people are altered after they are dead;

    Dangers to societies and populations from governments, NGOs and corporations exploiting climate change.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/climate-science-was-broken/

    311

  • #
    Kaiser Derden

    Just fund some studies that look for the natural causes of recent climate events and you’ll see plenty of groupthink in the opposite direction …

    130

    • #
      el gordo

      Good point Kaiser, a fair and balanced approach, even if it does take a couple of years to unravel the junk science and weed out the AGW zealots.

      70

    • #
      tom0mason

      Climate research that relies on only modeled outcomes for its results funded by 10-12%.
      Climate research that relies on models and observations funded to a maximum of 60%
      Climate research that relies only on observations funded 80-100%.

      20

  • #
    Mickey Reno

    I’d like to see governments and universities start to insist on open publication of all tax-funded research, with NO publication costs to journals, no pay-walls for reading and replication, only open, web based publishing with requirements for full code, methods, and data archival. Further, no grants for non-falsifiable papers. Experiments must have a hypothesis section and a proposed falsification method section in the abstract. With this type of system, much of climate “science” would have been slam dunked into the bit bucket before it began.

    180

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    There are several sources of support for AGW.
    1. The weakest group is the politicians, who will soon be “sniffing the wind” and changing direction.
    2. There are the Universities who are milking the public for as much as they can get.
    3. And there are the various pigs in the subsidy trough with renewables.
    4. Then there are the bureaucracies e.g. The UN, the EU and the local versions with their jobs and funding dependent on following the diktats of the first two.

    Once the politicians realise they will be voted out of office they will suddenly discover “the public interest”. That should be used to cut funding for AGW science, which will change the Universities (and the CSIRO etc.).

    Getting rid of the subsidies for renewables will be difficult as the various operators will claim they have lucrative contracts for many years. The only way is default on these by setting a maximum life, say 7 years then ALL subsidies will end. There will be howls but the answer will be Why would any sane person go into a business when the payback time is 25 years (or whatever the length of the contract)? This would stop any investment in renewables stone cold dead (even less than the reduced amount going in now).

    The bureaucracies will be where the real battle begins. Shutting down whole Departments might be necessary to get the message across to the local branches. Stopping funding to the IPCC, the World Bank and others who throw money into the scam would help. The EU will probably start to dissolve shortly, or morph into something more accountable to the tax payers. What you do about the UN is a problem, possibly if Trump boots them out of New York and they head to Geneva they will slowly die from lack of money (those Swiss know how to get their share, several times over).

    It will be a long, hard fight. Too many partake from the trough to expect otherwise.

    301

    • #
      bobl

      There is a simpler way, Trump could simply take the rent seekers funding and use it to build power stations and distribution networks across africa and other energy deprived nations to at last start them on the way to having first world economies.

      It will take 50 years but with energy for irrigation and a comfy life (relatively speaking) many of the worlds ills will die out. In 8 years Trump would make a huge dent in death by poverty. Even in places like india an investment needs to be made in social energy (free electricity for the poor) so they can ramp up some sort of income. Imagine how limited the busines opportunities are even here is Australia if you don’t have electricity or liquid/gas fuel even in a service economy like ours? Think about that for a moment!

      Energy, for pumping water, sewage, refrigeration, transport, and power tools are the key to world harmony, not some physics free apocalyptic fairy story out of James Hansen’s feverish imagination.

      The whole problem with the politically distorted environmentalist elite is that they abhor the idea of people getting out of the gutter and making real lives – Treating access to energy as a social necessity like access to food or water is ESSENTIAL to building an equitable world. We see food aid all the time, but where is the energy aid! With energy aid comes greenhouses and irigation and hydroponics which makes the food aid unnecessary. The greens however push in the opposite direction, they want access to energy to be reserved for the elite.

      170

    • #
      richard verney

      Shortly after Climategate, I suggested that Politicians must realise that the science is weak, and, in any case, that the political response does not result in the meaningful reduction of CO2. Solar, windfarms and the like do not reduce CO2. Biomass increases CO2. Carbon trading/taxes merely outsources where CO2 is emitted, and they doe not globally reduce CO2 emissions. Everyone of the political policy responses is a failure on the primary objective of reducing CO2 emissions.

      I suggested that the problem was that we are curently in a finacial crisis (that crisis still has not been resolved) and there is no way that Politicians can unravel/unwind from cAGW without deepening the then current financial crisis.

      Too much money has been invested in this sc@m. It is a multibillion per year industry. How can one pull back from this without company insolvencies, non payment of loans/debts, huge job losses etc. The knock on consequences are enormous.

      Given how deeply Politicians have allowed the State to become involved, the level of subsidies etc, it will take decades to unwind in an orderly and manageable fashion.

      I agree with Lindzen that the research should be completely defunded. That is easy to do, and private companies will still fund research if the research could lead to some money spinning discovery. Defunding the industry as a whole is the problem. This cannot be done quickly without causing another financial crash.

      The first step is to restore some sanity to the electrical generating industry. This cannot happen too soon.

      30

  • #

    The parents of primary school children must front the teachers and demand that they must stop teaching alarmist junk science.
    They started on my very bright nephew in grade 4.
    I told him to do his own research and showed him where to look.
    Thankfully he is excited about knowing the truth.
    Sadly he has lostrespect for some of his teachers.

    241

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Thankfully he is excited about knowing the truth.’

      Yes its amazing and tell him not to worry about the teachers, they have been brainwashed.

      Also, he would be wise to think of himself as heroic in the face of overwhelming adversity, with the Donald leading the charge the war should be over by Xmas.

      110

      • #
        bobl

        Don’t overhype Trump, he has battles coming on many fronts some of the less important ones like climate change will end up neglected. OTOH clumate change reform is an opportunity to claw back lots of money to fund other things, like say border security.

        110

        • #
          TdeF

          There are some very interesting money dynamics. If corporate taxes drop to say 10%, a lot of money will come home and money on which tax will be happily paid. Even Turnbull openly keeps his money in the Caribbean rather than Australia. A lot of cash will come into the US, increasing the dollar, dropping costs for imports and with work kept at home with punitive tariffs, the world’s biggest economy might just boom. Climate Change could just be defunded completely and then everyone goes home. How many public servants around the world are paid to be Climate Change/Global Warming experts? Hundreds of thousands who were never needed before and who do absolutely nothing. The Global Warming balloon could all collapse like so much hot air. The Trillion dollars might be spent on making the world a better place once the “Carbon Dioxide is pollution” nonsense stops. We are made from it, plus every other living thing. More is better.

          70

          • #
            TdeF

            What about those poor 350 CSIRO scientists dedicated to proving Climate Change is a problem? Perhaps they could solve a real problem for a change or find a meaningful and rewarding job? The incredible 1,000 ABC journalists might start writing material people want to read rather than push their Green politics on the public. Or get a real job.

            We did not need the IPCC. It needed Climate Change to justify its existence. The IPCC invented Global Warming and if it all went away, it would not be missed. Especially by those 400million Indians who were to die of thirst by 2035 when the glaciers all melted. Not only did that not make sense, opps! A typo. Zero credibility, zero need. Fire the lot. Donald could just cut all IPCC funding.

            100

            • #
              bobl

              Every department has “sustainability” specialists now, weeding them out could reduce the cost of governmemt a lot; it’s more than just the relevant quangos.

              On the CSIRO, you don’t need to change their jobs much, it is important that Australia become climate resiliant. Resiliant for water, crop survival, irrigation, flood defences, cyclone survival, fire defences, built environment and so on. These are worthy of government attention, whether the future is hot, cold, wet, dry, or all four together ( Melbourne anyone? )

              40

              • #
                Angry

                sustainability…………..

                SUCH A BS WORD !

                40

              • #
                TdeF

                So at $1,240,000,000 a year for the public service CSIRO, what is the actual return for Australia, or is that a rude and offensive question? WiFi was one patent of the hundred needed for WiFi and the total income covered only 1/2 a year.
                What about the other 100 years? What does Australia have for a total investment of say $100Bn. Are we so much better off for having a CSIRO? What about the hundreds of millions just studying Climate Change?

                If you sold the CSIRO and found it was worthless, that is what it is worth. You can buy a lot of research for over $1Bn a year.

                If the government wants something done, some problem solved, take the $1Bn and go to tender to private industry.
                Otherwise it is just a retirement home for scientists with no point, no achievements, no direction.

                CSL was not worthless but very profitable. So was Telstra. Everyone is better off now that it is private.

                The great thing about American research is that you have to succeed. In Australian Public Service research, you just have to turn up. Or could someone could tell me what the 5,000 people in the CSIRO discovered last year, what serious problems they solved, how many patents they filed?

                If we really needed submarines, we should buy them, the best and cheapest. We buy all our aircraft.

                Sell the lot, all the Qangos. We are doing all the sustaining.
                Balance the budget. Get the government out of power stations and telephones too. Again.

                30

            • #

              Problem with the IPCC it’s on a mission from G.

              Mission statement of the IPCC:
              ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and
              transparent basis, the scientific, technical and
              socio-economic information relevant to understanding
              the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate
              -change, its potential impacts and option for adaptation
              and mitigation.’

              Not weather a natural phenomenon, not ‘if’ or ‘maybe’ but
              ‘here’s what we’re paying you to do, go get ‘em and do
              not forgit that you report back to us.’ …
              ‘Review by experts and governments is an essential part
              of the IPCC process.’

              …Your on a mission from the bid Gee.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4YrCFz0Kfc

              20

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘….less important ones like climate change will end up neglected.’

          Before he tackles the hard questions, climate change gives him a chance to ridicule scientists, media and politicians in one fell swoop. There maybe be an uproar, but Donald will convince the masses that CO2 does not cause global warming.

          This of course will renew their faith in him and he can then begin the task of building new infrastructure at home and solving international conflicts.

          50

        • #
          Yonniestone

          I think to most of us here Trump is like a new weapon that hasn’t been tested yet but its gonna be a hell of a lot of fun to try it out! :)

          110

      • #
        richard verney

        If Trump wants to restore jobs to the rust belt States, which I consider will be a top priority of his, he needs to stick two fingers up at cAGW alarmism. The creation of jobs, supporting the coal and steel industry, rolling out investment in infrastructure will create a lot of CO2.

        By necessity Trump will need to pull back from the Paris Accord. Whilst Climate may not be his top priority as an inherent consequence of the policies that are top of his agenda, he will need to side step the Paris Accord, and will therefore need to make it clear that there is no merit in cAGW.

        There is a lot of Government wastage in the climate related fields and trump is a business man. he is not getting value for money from this, and this resource (Government funds) can be put to better use if redirected.

        i expect to see a drastic reduction in US Government funding of climate science. I expect him to seek to depoliticise the agencies and the science as this will make his life easier.

        60

        • #
          R2Dtoo

          One good thing that Trump could do is use monies from defunded climate bull to seriously tackle real environmental issues. I would start with a major cleanup of the Colorado mine disaster caused by the EPA. Then move to securing the dikes around New Orleans ( a good infrastructure project). He would be seen as caring about the environment- and I think he does care. It wouldn’t take long to define a list of high-impact very visible projects strategically located across the USA. Working with Canada to clean up Lake Winnipeg would be a win-win strategy. It would be great to see two super-computer centres retained for climate modelling- it is important. One could be NOAA-based (NASA is toast) and one university-based (anywhere but Boulder). The rest of the reduced climate research funding should go to serious study of the natural variability in the climate equation. Results could then be added to the models. This would both redirect climate research and reduce it. Peanuts from Canada.

          30

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      My approach has been simple – tell the kids to respect the teacher, and explain to the kids thier teacher is being old to lie to them by the govt, which sets the syllabus.

      That way the teachers maintain respect by the kids ( as they should ) , and the govt is exposed as the lie maker ( as it should ).

      00

  • #
    Dennis

    Meanwhile the fairy tales continue to be presented, ABC News today contains a story that by 2050 snow will be in short supply in the snowfields of NSW/VIC.

    120

    • #
      • #
        AndyG55

        And yet in the NH, the large amounts of snow currently hiding in plane sight is being blamed on Global Whatever”

        142

      • #
        Mark M

        Wait. What?

        Climate change is not only making the planet warmer, it is also making snowstorms stronger and more frequent, US scientists said on Tuesday.

        “In fact, as the Earth gets warmer and more moisture gets absorbed into the atmosphere, we are steadily loading the dice in favor of more extreme storms in all seasons, capable of causing greater impacts on society.”

        http://phys.org/news/2011-03-global-snowstorms-scientists.html
        . . .

        110

      • #
        bobl

        Lewandowski’s conspiratorial dissonance, to hold two incompatible ideas concurrently, like say that humidity increases provide amplification of CO2 warming and that precipitation will decrease (undoubtedly due to that increase, humidity in the atmosphere). This is what you get when you let earth “science” graduates do anything, especially science. I think it’s about time to add subjects on the scientific method, physics, chemisty and a spattering of engineering (at least thermodynamics and energy system calculations say for expensive part-time energy sources) to every earth science degree.

        Any scary storyline will do. Can’t possibly have the Canberran elite’s annual snow retreats interupted by no snow – unthinkable

        110

        • #
          ianl8888

          Geology degrees DO include the topics you list. You are simply displaying a well-known prejudice.

          Physics, chemistry, biology, geology and maths graduates are all equally susceptible when in the academe to the siren lure of tied funding. “Tied” in the sense of expecting specified outcomes.

          I once asked a Professor of Geology from a well-known Aus uni (the gentleman being quoted here is now deceased and very greatly missed) with whom I was doing some collaborative projects: “Why do academics squabble with each other so viciously ?”. I asked this because we had just witnessed a nasty episode of this.

          He said: “Because there’s so little to fight about”. So true, such sad consequences.

          10

      • #
        Lewis P Buckingham

        Our climate scientists simply cannot predict rainfall 20 years ahead.
        Prof Flannery, quoting them, demonstrated that quite effectively.
        Why should they be right about snowfall 33 years ahead when everyone of them has retired and picked up the pension and super.

        20

    • #
      el gordo

      CSIRO Climate Science Centre research director Kevin Hennessy needs to be taken outside and given a good tongue lashing.

      110

      • #
        Dennis

        Deceptive information released in the name of CSIRO, that actually comes from one department (Climate Science Centre), could be taken seriously by insurance companies, investors, business owners and many others who are effectively being misled into making decisions on a false premise. The federal government should not permit this.

        140

      • #
        Dennis

        Deceptive information released in the name of CSIRO, that actually comes from one department (Climate Science Centre), could be taken seriously by insurance companies, investors, business owners and many others who are effectively being misled into making decisions on a false premise. The federal government should not permit this.

        50

        • #
          el gordo

          ACCESS is their baby and its a waste of tax money, does Morrison know there are huge savings to be had in this rout?

          ‘ACCESS embodies a national approach to climate and weather prediction modelling that will give CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology the best possible scientific tools for climate impact and adaptation analysis, and weather forecasting.

          ‘It will also help Australian scientists contribute to major international climate modelling and prediction projects, and will provide Australia’s major input to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the world’s climate future.’

          90

    • #
      Mark M

      If there is a poster child for global warming, it may be the vanishing snows of Kilimanjaro, which were predicted to disappear as early as 2015 in a widely-publicized report a decade ago.

      The 2001 forecast was indirectly part of key evidence for global warming offered during the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which warned of the threats of rising global temperatures. In it, former vice president Al Gore stated, “Within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro” due to warming temperatures.

      http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/snows_of_kilimanjaro_defy_global_warming_predictions.html

      110

      • #
        TdeF

        Ha! Ha! They now wish they had not made the famous prediction. Now the minimum is at least another 20 years to maybe 50 years.
        Will we even have fossil fuels in 50 years? No. No will anyone be around to openly regret their absolute predictions.

        No one disputes warming after the end of the ice age and steady sea rise. Never forget the Gore panic was about catastrophic, runaway, deadly, Armageddon, tipping point inferno warming requiring urgent action by humans, not slow change indistinguishable from natural variation. Now the snows of Kilamanjarro may be gone, possibly, by the time Al Gore is 138.

        61

    • #
      Angry

      Typical BS twadle that we have come to expect from the ABC(Australian BRAINWASHING Commission)……….

      20

  • #
    Ruairi

    With billions worldwide being spent,
    On the fake 97 per cent,
    While a consensus view,
    Is in science taboo,
    As a method to stifle dissent.

    240

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    Slightly o/t, but only slightly… How is the fresh mind of your new broom senator, Malcolm Roberts, doing?

    He arrived on the scene with great fanfare, and some refreshing new ideas (like, let’s have some facts in science; let’s have empirical data), but seems to have gone quiet. Has he been subsumed in the tarpit of torpor (or perhaps turpitude) that is the default setting for modern bureaucracy? Would be a shame, if he has; he was so promising.

    50

  • #
    Griffo

    Vail Resorts, owners of Perisher Valley Ski resort in NSW Australia are dealing with a challenge by environmental activists to their proposal to add 800 beds to the facility. Vail are obviously not too worried about predictions of no snow by 2050. Sorry this comment is a bit off topic

    200

  • #
    pat

    re the ABC/CSIRO 0 Jan link posted by Dennis above – surely the 19th century starting point of the illustrative figure shows a period of snowfall similar to the recent period they are making a big deal out of!

    ABC weren’t worried about less snow yesterday:

    8 Jan: ABC: Is your Kosciuszko holiday damaging the environment?
    By the National Reporting Team’s James Thomas and Alison Branley
    It’ll be about six months before the next snow dump lures the masses to the ski resorts at Perisher in the NSW ski fields, but in summer it’s also a sight to behold…
    Vail bought Perisher this year for $176 million from former owners Jamie Packer and Transfield.
    The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) concept plans include an ice rink, sports centre, cinema, bar and swimming pool.
    But environmentalists are gathering, rallying the troops for a possible legal challenge…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-08/is-your-kosciuszko–holiday-damaging-the-environment/8141094

    8 Jan: ABC: Environmentalists fear Perisher development will turn ‘small village into a town’, impact threatened species
    By the National Reporting Team’s James Thomas and Alison Branley
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-08/the-price-of-turning-popular-perisher-village-into-a-town/8166176

    52

  • #
    pat

    touches on anti-coal activists, SA and Vic energy policies, etc. well worth a listen:

    AUDIO: 9mins41secs: 2GB Steve Price standing in for Alan Jones: The unexpected commodity price surge
    Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan speaks to Steve about an unexpected commodity price surge tipped to add $47-billion to the economy…
    https://omny.fm/shows/the-alan-jones-breakfast-show/the-unexpected-commodity-price-surge

    51

  • #
    Asp

    I fear that Richard Lindzen may be right.
    My employer, a large coal mining company, recently put our promotional 2017 calendars, which featured our work in the communities that surround our mines but did not in anyway refer to the fact that we mine coal.
    The December issue of the monthly bulletin put out by the professional association of which I am a member was full of articles that could only be categorized as left-progressive-Green.
    This bulleting does not provide for letters from the membership. Direct correspondence with the editor and CEO has not been answered.
    I feel like an endangered species.
    The GW Groupthink in our society may now be our parasitic paradigm.

    170

    • #
      tom0mason

      Yes ASP, it is just like the groupthink, or mass hysteria, that gripped society of the 1920 when everyone got into shares because it was ‘common knowledge’ shares prices could only go up.
      And the fallout from that reverberated around the world with mass despair as poverty reigned, followed by war and bloodshed.
      What will the outcome of this mass hysteria?

      70

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘I feel like an endangered species.’

      Welcome to the club.

      What did you say in your correspondence with the CEO and editor?

      60

      • #
        Asp

        I expressed my displeasure. Maybe a tad more emotionally than usual. Indicated that I would not be renewing my membership until I have viewed the Jan 17 bulletin. I am not exactly holding my breath for any measurable change in direction.

        20

        • #
          el gordo

          After the swamp is drained the CEO and editor should see the light of day and the contrarians vindicated. I’m rather looking forward to my day in the sun.

          10

    • #
      ianl8888

      The December issue of the monthly bulletin put out by the professional association of which I am a member was full of articles that could only be categorized as left-progressive-Green

      Yes, it is absolutely vomitous. BTW, I’m not all afraid to name the association – the AusIMM. And, like the GSA, they don’t poll their (very expensive) membership on these issues … these articles, over 80% of the December issue, just turn up without justification or any use.

      I want to read detailed case histories of various mining operations, as we have been offered in the immediate past. Now, we see article after article from “Social Science” PhD’s (mostly wymminses) rabbiting on ad nauseum about diversity and inclusiveness and … B/S, B/S, B/S. None of these numpties would ever be seen in luro vests, let alone mapping, analysing and reporting on underground operations.

      The point that is truly psyche-damaging ? Membership of the AusIMM is a pre-requisite for being able to present technical reports to the various SX’s (critical requirement). If one makes a noise about this numpty propaganda, coventry becomes the country of no-choice.

      120

      • #
        Peter Doobes

        Ian,

        I met Malcolm Roberts in 2009 at a mining conference organised by the youth association of the AusIMM & MAMA. The ‘future of the industry’ was the topic and climate change was a key item. The organisers were very savvy in having an even balance of pro,anti & neutral speakers. Needless to say MR was one of the antis and wiped the floor of the pro AGW, ~14 yrs in from IPCC 1 so evidence of models being crap were plentiful. I was a student speaker and did the same to my opponent. The AusIMM president, Michael Catchpole?, confirmed that at no stage had the society executive, most hadn’t seen a mine, done a survey of its membership before formulating it’s official position, despite the overwhelming majority of the floor saying it was a crock they wouldn’t do so. I chose not to renew my membership even when my employer’s policy was to pay the membership dues.

        61

        • #
          John McDougall

          After 50 years as a member of the AusIMM, and in my 70s, I saw this coming. I could have remained (on a reduced membership subscription) but I elected not to. This was coming several years ago. I elected not to take them up on the offer. Happy to be gone. This is not the professional society I joined in 1962.

          00

  • #
    pat

    good Twitter:

    8 Jan: Breitbart: Joel B. Pollak: Fake News Plus Fascism: New York Times Urges Boycott of Breitbart
    In two op-ed articles for the New York Times‘ Sunday Review, the Gray Lady attacks Breitbart News and its founder, Andrew Breitbart, and encourages an effort to “destroy” the company by appealing directly to advertisers not to support the website.
    One article, “How to Destroy the Business Model of Breitbart and Fake News,” written by someone actually called “Pagan Kennedy” (was “Antichrist Roosevelt” not available?) celebrates the flagging effort of anonymous Twitter trolls who have tried to target and intimidate companies whose ads appear alongside Breitbart News articles, via third party platforms.
    These would-be censors of the totalitarian left have decided that since they cannot defeat conservative views and arguments on the merits, they would prefer to eliminate them.
    The Times, which prides itself as a guardian of free speech and press freedom, gives its backing to this (unsuccessful) campaign with nearly 2,000 words of space. The article includes instructions on how to join the anti-Breitbart effort, copied verbatim — “Step 1… Step 2…” — from the anonymous activists’ Twitter page.
    And Breitbart News, the “biggest fish,” is not the last intended target: the group declares that it “would like to broaden its campaign to take on a menagerie of bad actors.”…READ ON
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/08/new-york-times-aims-breitbart-misses-badly/

    Breitbart doesn’t single out Pagan’s top concern!

    Pagan Kennedy’s piece begins:
    One day in late November, an earth and environmental science professor named Nathan Phillips visited Breitbart News for the first time…When he clicked on the site, he was shocked to discover ads for universities, including one for the graduate school where he’d received his own degree — Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “That was a punch in the stomach,” he said.
    Why would an environmental science program want to be promoted on a site that denies the existence of climate change?…
    Eventually, after a flurry of communication with the environment department, he received a satisfying resolution — an assurance that its ads would no longer show up on Breitbart…
    ENDS WITH: Pagan Kennedy is the author of “Inventology: How We Dream Up Things That Change the World” and a contributing opinion writer.

    honoured, as always…

    Wikipedia: Kennedy’s accomplishments have been recognized many times during her career; she was a 2010 Knight Science Journalism fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was named the 2010/2011 Creative Nonfiction grant winner by the Massachusetts Cultural Council. She has also been the recipient of a National Endowment for the Arts fellowship in fiction, a Sonora Review fiction prize, and a Smithsonian Fellowship for science writing

    Pagan tweeted in Nov, with a link to a Vice article on the subject:
    “Kids Now Have the Right To Sue the Government Over Climate Change”

    41

  • #
    pat

    bad Twitter:

    Tucker has fun with the Mad Professor, who wrote in HuffPo that Trump shouldn’t be permitted to use the “science” of Twitter because he “rejects the science of climate change”:

    Youtube 6mins04secs: Tucker Carlson OWNS Liberal Professor on Trump’s Tweets (01/04/17)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UimwTPz3bZ0

    Tucker with the Chicago Uni Senior, Jake Bittle, who wrote a piece “Shutting Down the Institute of Politics” for the student newspaper, Chicago Maroon, recommending going to DC and “flipping cars” when Trump walks away from the Paris climate agreement:

    Youtube: 8mins41secs: Tucker Carlson vs Anti Trump University Of Chicago Student (01/02/17)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aE3IJ0f7YM

    41

  • #
    Wally

    Unfortunately there are a log of philanthropists funding the scare story side too.

    70

  • #
    pat

    8 Jan: CBC: Jon Hernandez: British Columbians pay tax on the carbon tax, and one Vernon city councillor isn’t happy about it
    GST on fuel purchases is calculated after carbon tax is added to the total
    So, whenever a consumer pays their heating bill, or fills up their gas tank, they pay a GST that is calculated using the total price of the product plus the carbon tax…
    Last year, British Columbians paid a total of $1.216 billion in carbon tax dollars, generating an extra $63 million to the federal government from GST, according to Spiers’ estimates.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/carbon-tax-politician-1.3926875

    CAGE-infested CBC underplays the number of signatories, and doesn’t provide a link to the petition. ***here it is:

    8 Jan: VernonMorningStar: Richard Rolke: Carbon tax petition gains strong support
    An online petition calling for the federal government to remove the goods and services tax on the carbon tax was launched Jan. 4 and by Jan. 7, it had 504 signatures.
    “This is the minimum amount (500) of supporters required to ensure that our MP Mel Arnold will be tabling this in the House of Commons shortly after the petition is closed for signatures May 4,” said Bob Spiers, a Vernon councillor who authored the petition.
    “Most of the supporters are from B.C. but there are signatories from five other provinces and one territory.”
    B.C. initiated a carbon tax in 2008 and the five per cent federal GST is levied on it…
    ***The petition can be found at LINK
    http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/410014365.html

    31

  • #
    pat

    15 Dec: FinancialPost, Canada: Steven Lyazi: Nota Bene: Why should Africa be made to suffer by western anti-fossil-fuel hypocrites?
    (Excerpted from The World Needs More Energy! by Steven Lyazi, a student in Kampala, Uganda and a former assistant to the director of the Congress of Racial Equality-Uganda)
    For most of mankind’s history, human or animal muscle, wood and animal dung, water power, and plant or animal oil provided our energy…
    Then, almost suddenly, people began using coal, and then oil, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear power. Our abilities, and our dreams, began to reach for the heavens – at least in many countries. Sadly, many other countries lagged far behind, and many still do…
    This is partly because many (poor) nations are governed by incompetent, corrupt leaders…

    But it is also because callous, imperialistic people in rich countries use exaggerated, imaginary or phony environmental concerns and fake disasters to justify laws, regulations and excuses not to let poor countries use fossil fuels or nuclear power or develop their economies.
    They tell us we should only use renewable energy. They say nuclear power is dangerous, and oil, gas and coal are dirty and cause dangerous climate change…They don’t seem to think or care about the poverty, diseases and starvation that we suffer because we do not have fossil fuels.
    They even oppose hydroelectric power for poor nations…
    I support clean energy and don’t want to see dangerous global warming…But that does not mean we should accept more poverty. It does not mean these rich, powerful people should be able to take away our right to live…
    It does not mean they should invent claims that our planet is boiling and we are causing droughts and floods – and so we should throw away coal and other cheap energies that we need to survive
    http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/nota-bene-why-should-africa-be-made-to-suffer-by-western-anti-fossil-fuel-hypocrites

    41

  • #
    Egor the One

    Come on Jan 20….The Day of the Donald, and the end of El Presidente O’Bummer and his over 1000 executive orders of lunacy and incompetence!

    Lindzen should be the Donald’s chief science advisor.

    50

  • #
    pat

    8 Jan: UK Express: Ross Logan: EUROPE WEATHER CHAOS: Freezing temperatures cause multiple deaths and travel delays
    A LETHAL cold snap has claimed multiple lives and caused travel chaos across large parts of Europe, with no sign of warmer weather to come.
    Officials in Poland, where temperatures have dropped to minus 20C, say the cold weather has killed at least 10 people in the past few days…
    A lorry driver in Belgium is believed to have died after his vehicle slid off the icy highway, while in Italy, six homeless people are reported to have perished in the freezing cold…
    Parts of southern Italy were buried under a metre snow and schools were advised not to open on Monday, while in Rome, the fountains in St Peter’s Square froze over.
    A number of main roads in northern Greece were closed due to heavy snow and ice, while more than 650 Turkish Airline flights from Istanbul were cancelled…
    Skiers in Sarajevo, Bosnia, stayed off the slopes as temperatures dropped to minus 27C, Sky News reported.
    Even in Denmark, a country used to cold weather, officials have warned the public to be careful on the icy roads, following multiple minor traffic collisions.
    Bitter winds from the North Pole threaten to tear across the UK from next Friday dragging temperatures to a bone numbing -15C (5F)…
    ***Weather models currently disagree on how long the cold snap will last although some forecasters are warning to brace for a month-long freeze…
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/751619/EUROPE-WEATHER-CHAOS-Freezing-temperatures-multiple-deaths-flights-Turkey-Poland-Italy

    8 Jan: BBC: Deadly icy spell grips much of Europe, including Greek islands
    Icy temperatures across Europe have left more than 20 people dead and blanketed even the Greek islands and southern Italy in snow…
    Rome, too, saw freezing temperatures.
    ***Russia has experienced its coldest Orthodox Christmas in 120 years…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38546998

    bottom of above piece links below to the following, with no mention of the record cold:

    8 Jan: BBC: Hundreds of cyclists brave Moscow cold
    The organisers ignored warnings to cancel and say some 500 took part in the ride, aimed at promoting cycling.
    The participants, some dressed as Santa Claus or the Russian equivalent, braved temperatures of minus 27C.
    “Not one of the participants… ended up going to the doctors after it finished,” organisers said…
    Dubbed Let’s Bike It, the course took riders 15km (nine miles) along the banks of the frozen Moscow river with the Kremlin as backdrop…

    31

    • #
      Rick Will

      The BBC needs to lift its game. The statement should be:
      ***Russia has experienced its 120th warmest Orthodox Christmas since records began…

      30

  • #
    AndrewWA

    For in the sciences the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man. Besides, the modern observations deprive all former writers of any authority, since if they had seen what we see, they would have judged as we judge.
    Galileo Galilei

    60

  • #
    el gordo

    In a guest essay at WUWT, Paul Driessen believes grants should no longer go to CO2 centrics.

    ‘That means government grants must not go preferentially to researchers who seek to further CO2-centrism, but rather to those who are committed to a broader scope of solid, dispassionate research that examines both natural and manmade factors. Grant recipients must also agree to engage in robust discussion and debate, to post, explain and defend their data, methodologies, analyses and conclusions.

    ‘They must devote far more attention to improving our understanding of all the forces that drive climate fluctuations, the roles they play, and the complex interactions among them. Important factors include cyclical variations in the sun’s energy and cosmic ray output, winds high in Earth’s atmosphere, and decadal and century-scale circulation changes in the deep oceans, which are very difficult to measure and are not yet well enough understood to predict or be realistically included in climate models. ‘

    20

  • #
    AndyG55

    typo error..

    in Excel. -> as calculated by Excel.

    11

  • #

    In reply to DavidH – thanks for the link to the Bohr-Einstein debates. But being Wikipedia, it says

    The consensus view of professional physicists has been that Bohr proved victorious in his defense of quantum theory…

    I wonder if it’s as high as 97%.

    30

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      I suspect most of the quandary arises from the fact we cannot look at subatomic events both individually and fast enough. Hence, the statistical nature of quantum mechanics. However, probability is NOT a property of physical reality.

      Probability is epistemological and not metaphysical. It is merely a measure of the degree to which we don’t know something. All we know is what we observe. Much is known about the why we observe it but not everything. The rest is pure conjecture based upon the metaphysics held by the person making the conjecture.

      Is reality objective (is what it is) or is reality subjective (we can’t know but only agree on what we think it is). Einstein chose objective, Bohr et.al. chose subjective. Subjective in the sense that their presumption was reality IS their equations and cannot be known to exist apart from their equations. The two sides cannot come together because they are incommensurate.

      Quantum Mechanical calculations may “work” (whatever that means) but we do not know why it works. It is nothing but a magical incantation usable only after long study of the ways to make it work. Otherwise the calculations are unstable and don’t work at all.

      40

      • #

        “Quantum Mechanical calculations may “work” (whatever that means) but we do not know why it works. It is nothing but a magical incantation usable only after long study of the ways to make it work.”

        Indeed. as is all science (learning). If you want a simple straightforward answer, go ask the meteorologists. Then you must accept that that answer is wrong!

        05

  • #
    doc

    From a very basic brush with science in a couple of fields, and from a semi layman’s view of AGW, the power of the message on Global Warming comes from the distorted use of statistical proof in the ‘scientific method’. Levels of proof used to reject or accept a null hypothesis are not used scientifically as proof of a point of scientific theory. A level of 70% or 80% or 90% is not taken as rejection of a scientific premise. Instead it is interpreted in Climate ‘science’ as being 70-90% ‘proven’ to be a probable factor in causing ‘Global Warming’ ie the presentation of the investigation is presented as a very likely proof that
    the premise is correct instead of actually being a rejection based on statistical method.

    Is this the reason seemingly bright but scientifically and statistically naive politicians, and most ‘lay people’ fell for or fall for the junk and fund it further with $billions?? I believe it is this form of knowingly distorted interpretation of facts that has allowed the AGW fraternity and the carpet baggers parasitising the community to make fortunes whilest the going is good.

    For a non science based community and its similarly composed managing organisations, government or private, I believe from the UN down, it is this distortion that has driven the Climate Change creed. People don’t understand ‘scientific method’ but they understand ‘odds’(percentages). Defunding the argument, as suggested, does nothing to dispel community belief. It simply stops scientific work. Most people would probably think, from our science deprived education system,’So what?’Stopping the work will not change the belief of people.

    Whoever is to stop the current mania actually has to pull apart the climate scientists in public and display the way they have manipulated the public by distorting the presentation of the science, maybe in self interest. The UN system has to be exposed as a set-up to attack the democracies and transfer their wealth. The politicians have used it to drive globalisation further. Just as the EU sought to change from a trade system to a centralised government system, the UN seeks the same and the politicians are looking to their futures in it. The money is the profitable side issue. It is people’s beliefs that have to be exposed to critical debate.

    40

  • #

    Lionell Griffith January 10, 2017 at 4:16 am

    “I suspect most of the quandary arises from the fact we cannot look at subatomic events both individually and fast enough. Hence, the statistical nature of quantum mechanics. However, probability is NOT a property of physical reality.”

    Lionell,
    I must disagree with your “probability is NOT a property of physical reality.”, especially of you drop the last word ‘reality’. The ‘probability’, of say, what’s next, is always physical and 100% fulfilled in each case that you actually know ‘all’ of the individual probabilities including that probability of ‘nothing’! The physical probability of ‘all’ remains precisely at 100%, never 99%, never 101%.
    The Bohr-Einstein debate was strictly about ability to measure\observe ‘all’. What I call ‘quantum nonsense’ is about failing to accept, “the probability of ‘all’,next, is 100%”! This carries over to the realm of the complex conjugate of time as (minus frequency) and all of Lorentz invariance. BTW I like to observe the progress of the Quantum ‘thingy’, from mechanics, to field theory, to electrodynamics, to now chromodynamics, and the stringy thingies! :-)

    “Quantum Mechanical calculations may “work” (whatever that means) but we do not know why it works. It is nothing but a magical incantation usable only after long study of the ways to make it work.”

    Indeed. as is all science (learning). If you want a simple straightforward answer, go ask the meteorologists. Then you must accept that that answer is wrong!
    All the best! -will-

    05

  • #
    Reed Coray

    I have two questions that I would like answered:

    (1) What happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object?

    (2) Is there any weather-related behavior that Global Warming won’t cause?

    40

  • #

    Reed Coray January 10, 2017 at 1:23 pm

    “I have two questions that I would like answered:(1) What happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object?”

    Be else where\when! Or for Joanne’s wonderful moderators; bend way, way over and kiss your young ass goodbye!

    25

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Professor Lindzen is correct. We need to get the government money out of it, not redirect it.

    10

  • #

    Off topic perhaps!
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/09/smackdown-ams-paper-exposes-media-scientists-as-falsely-hyping-human-attribution-in-extreme-weather-events/comment-page-1/#comment-1157093

    SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 5:15 PM

    “What do you think heats the oceans? Direct sunlight? That can certainly heat up only the surface, correct?”

    Solar UV power is clearly measurable at ocean depths of 1000 meters. Is that a surface?

    “Does the atmosphere transport heat away from the surface through convection?”

    Yes of course! Atmospheric convection is the ‘only’ significant transport of both sensible and latent ‘heat’, to the higher altitudes for more efficative dispatch of thermal electromagnetic flux to space.

    “Is the athmospheric green house effect responsible for losing less energy to space (via radiation) as would otherwise be the case?”

    No never! There exists a measurable increasing thermal radiative exitance to space with increasing altitude, in every IR waveband, all the way to 200km. In the 14-15 micron waveband, increasing atmospheric CO2 above 180ppmv has never limited (reduced)surface thermal radiative exitance in that band.
    There is no fake greenhouse effect. Higher Surface temperature is strictly an atmospheric compressive effect do to Earth’s gravitational field.

    “And are these mechanisms contributing to a warmer surface? And finally: is CO2 a green house gas?”

    No and No!

    SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 11:15 AM

    “El Ninos are not causing warming, they are an effect.”

    Are you now claiming that some greenhouse effect are causing El Ninos? What about all others that claim a gravitational Earth luni-solar influence?

    “As a side note on those papers: What is surprising is that none of the first few papers is dissmissing AGW only its magnitude is discussed. Non of those papers postulate that CO2 is no green house gas or that the green house effect doesn’t exist.”

    The early papers by Kenneth Richards and others did indeed concentrate on the obnoxious thermal magnitude claims of early CAGW proponents.
    I have always postulated that CO2 is no green house gas and that the green house effect doesn’t exist, except as a deliberate SCAM. It is still not known if atmospheric CO2 ‘can’ influence surface temperatures. Your CAGW clan has yet to propose any viable scientific mechanism for such, or any evidence thereof!

    35

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Defund AGW or fund both ? plus Trump and the story of an Ice Rink

    Jo thanks for the great post :D

    Firstly I agree with Lindzen in that it will take generations to undo the damage the pro AGW scientists have inflicted on science.

    Secondly , I think 2017 is going to be a “defund” year for climate science as a whole.
    As for President elect Trump, he does not seem to be the sort of guy who supports funding of an enterprise that has no tangible result, and especially when Trump asks G.Schmidt of NASA GISS how long has his project been going ( circa J.Hansen 1970′s ) … and has he finished it yet, and how accurate are the predictions of his climate model ?
    I think the answer is going to remind him of a previous Government project involving a New York Ice rink .. :o

    20

    • #

      ScotsmaninUtah January 12, 2017 at 7:04 am

      “Defund AGW or fund both ? plus Trump and the story of an Ice Rink”

      Please, please Can both NASA Goddard and the UN be relocated from NYC to Greenland? All employees may retain benefits, if willing to shiver lots! :-)

      14

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>