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

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: We’re All Going To Die From Climate Change

By David Evans

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an up and coming young politician in the Democratic Party in the United States:

On June 26, 2018, Ocasio-Cortez won the Democratic primary in New York’s 14th congressional district covering parts of the Bronx and Queens in New York City, defeating the incumbent Congressman, Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley, in what was described as the biggest upset victory in the 2018 midterm election primaries. Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

When she takes office on January 3, 2019, at 29, Ocasio-Cortez will be the youngest woman to serve in Congress in the history of the United States.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Many say she is the progressive future of the USA — socialist, young, brown, female, outspoken, but not overly bright.

Nicknamed “occasional-cortex” by some for her comments on economics, she is influential and receives a lot of attention. From a recent article on her climate change pronouncements:

Newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is doubling down on her first week’s agenda in Congress, calling on her colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass a “Green New Deal” because “people are going to die” from climate change.

Ocasio-Cortez cited a report released Friday by the U,S. Global Change Research Program, a voluntary committee of scientists from 13 federal agencies and a number of outside pressure groups, that warned that thousands could die, and the United States could suffer a striking 10% reduction in its gross national product by the end of this century if humans do not curb their fossil fuel consumption. …

“People are going to die if we don’t start addressing climate change ASAP,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “It’s not enough to think it’s ‘important.’ We must make it urgent. ” …

The U.S. Global Change Research Program makes no recommendations on how to curb “climate change,” but it’s quite clear that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes the only way to make real in-roads on the subject is to enact a massive, socialistic environmentally focused legislative package, using taxation and other “incentives” to help Americans cut down on fossil fuel usage, while pouring millions into “green jobs” and “alternative energy.”

What can we do? Is it possible to convince her that increasing carbon dioxide is not a mortal threat? How? What would you tell her?

 

PS Joanne gave her talk in Oslo Monday, and it went very well. She is now flying to the UK, on her way to have dinner at Westminster with Matt Ridley on Tuesday, and delivering her speech at the GWPF on Wednesday.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (86 votes cast)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: We're All Going To Die From Climate Change, 9.0 out of 10 based on 86 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y9p2tpfz

358 comments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: We’re All Going To Die From Climate Change

  • #
    Tom O

    If, in fact, this woman is representative of the future of America, America of my youth is on life support, and will be terminated as more of these witless and brainwashed people take office. I suggest all democracies take note – you control the future by brainwashing the youth into your belief set, and that is what happened here. You take over government – at all levels – by gaining control over the local politics. When you allow local politics and issues to be taken over by radical thinkers, you are a generation away from losing your country to these same idiots. Take them seriously, and take seriously, WHAT is being taught your children.

    740

    • #
      Spetzer86

      Since you asked, they’re happily attempting to hard-wire the kids into believing everything the Left spoon feeds them. All in the name of making the ready to be happy global workers of the future. http://invisibleserfscollar.com/implanted-thoughts-never-had-before-via-citizen-science-and-the-abcd-framework/

      With everyone getting slap happy shutting down conservatives on social media and college campuses, there’s not a lot of the old America in the major population centers. We’re not as far gone as the UK, but we’re not that many years behind them.

      372

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        From the analysis I have seen, shes a small influence. She also appears t be a hard core leftist, and like most millenials, kinda clueless about how the real world really works. She is a happy puppet, and not much more, a kind of kite flying exercise.

        I agree with hardwiring kids – I have to preemptively talk to my daughter about the lies that are constantly fed through the media.

        Kids need to be taught & practice being independent thinkers, and to told that school curriculum is just a reflection of the govt view of the day, and that to respect the teachers, but to realise the teachers have to effectively dish up state-mandated propaganda to the kids coz the govt has said via curriculum “this is what you have to teach”.

        Really important to call out the blame where it really lies, and for kids to realize that as the west is under attack from communism from within, that the kids know this so they dont see socialism as “normal” , when in fact socialism in real terms is a cancer on society. They also need to know the govt *lies* a LOT.

        330

        • #
          Bulldust

          She has already been read the riot act by Pelosi by now. Money rules Washington DC and Pelosi and Clinton have the most money on the left. I can see two scenarios:

          1) Alexandra Pinto Maria Sanchez Gomes Ramirez Ocasio-Cortez either kisses the Pelosi ring and pulls her head in, or;
          2) She fades into obscurity after one term.

          Remember the primaries are usually uneventful. She only won by 18 thousand to 13 thousand votes IIRC. This only happened because the incumbent didn’t realise there would be a serious challenger. That result can be reversed with a bit of money and campaigning.

          As a side note, I find it hilarious that a Westchester raised daughter of an architect, and Boston University grad (in economics, yeah my mind is blown too … guess it didn’t stick) pretends to be working class. Just another champagne socialist. Lightweight by anyone’s standards.

          BTW if you are looking at potential future leaders of the Dems, Beto O’Rourke is the most likely. He gave Ted Cruz a scare in Texas, which is no mean feat.

          180

          • #
            Tom O

            She didn’t get there because the establishment was against her, it was because the democratic establishment wanted her. As for Pelosi, no, she may ask her to tone down on some things, but Ocasio-Cortez is going to appeal to the young braindead set that thinks that you can give up fossil fuel powered electricity and run on Solar and wind because “the sun is shining somewhere all the time.” As if we had a world girdling power grid. She won’t be throttled much. In fact, it isn’t impossible, if they handle her correctly, that she might well be a presidential or vice presidential candidate in the future. That is how far down this nation has sunk. You mention Beto. I can see Ocasio-Cortez as his running mate in 6 years.

            10

    • #
      BernardP

      She already looks like a future President. Remember how Barack Obama came from nowhere with his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. For most of the electorate, ideas don’t matter, but image does. She checks the boxes the Left loves, but she has to go through a couple of election cycles.

      The Democratic party has more pressing needs in trying to find a suitable candidate to face Mr. Trump in 2020. No, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren won’t do!

      180

      • #

        Obama’s greatest skill, in my opinion,
        is his ability to read a speech from a teleprompter.

        That can be very important in politics,
        especially against another candidate
        with no charisma (Shrillary).

        On November 25, i made Obama my first
        “Climate Buffoon of the Year”,
        on my climate science blog, for
        his incoherent thoughts w/o a teleprompter:

        http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2018/11/barack-obama-honest-global-warming.html

        220

        • #
          peter

          Richard,
          Your Honest Global Warming Chart on your site is brilliant. But I can’t copy it? Can you alter the format to make it copy-able?

          40

          • #

            Peter
            Thanks for the “brilliant” complement.
            No one has ever called my site brilliant before.

            I am just summarizing articles I have been reading
            about climate science since 1997 — edited
            and in an easy to read format for smart phones
            – the brilliant people are those who wrote those articles
            in the first place, and a few were by Jo Nova.

            I have no idea how one would “copy” a website.

            I save copies of my own work every week
            with a screenshot using Safari software.

            10

        • #
          me@home

          Richard, I disagree. Watching Obama reading from two teleprompters is the most excruciating image imaginable. Wooden doesn’t come close to describing his performances.

          30

          • #

            me@home
            I wrote that reading a speech from a Teleprompter
            was Obama’s greatest skill — you mistakenly assumed
            I meant that he was great at it.

            In fact, he was mediocre,
            but in comparison
            with George W. Bush***
            and Donald Trump,
            who were both below average
            when reading from a Teleprompter,
            “mediocre” was an improvement !

            I’m talking about Obama;s delivery,
            not the speech content.

            Ronald Reagan set the standard for
            reading speeches from a teleprompter.

            No one else in my lifetime came close.

            10

        • #
          Gerry, England

          We named Tony Blair ‘Teflon Tony’ in the UK for his ability to slide off problems arising from his lies and incompetence. Obummer seems to have achieved something similar for the way he can bash the bankers for 2008 while he is actually one of the causes of the crash. In his senator days he was fully supportive of sub-prime – a wonderfully socialist idea to give loans to people who can never pay them back. Without sub-prime the CFD and CDO merrygoround would most likely have kept turning.

          40

      • #
        glen Michel

        The teeth are millenial perfect as well. One of the Midwich Cuckoos.

        80

        • #
          Latus Dextro

          Glen, if I might, Occasional-Cortex is a product of the Soros clone lab. These products are betrayed by the oddly staring eyes and muscular gnashes.
          You’ll note she bears a more than passing resemblance to Comrade Ardern right down to the equine dentition, globalist (sock puppet of Helen Clarke and Michael Cullen) eco-socialist PM hell bent on the installation of ethno-nationalism under the mantle of multicultural globalism, all with copious quantities of regressive crème de menthe (the green version) and stone-age energy policies.
          If this lot capture political power in any enduring manner, I suspect a lot of society will be living off the grid in more ways than one.

          80

    • #
      Geoff

      Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: We’re All Going To Die From Climate Change

      wrong

      We’re All Going To Go Broke From Climate Change Policies Enacted By Our Children.

      Our planet will be fine. It will carry on long after we destroy ourselves with the wars that follow the poverty caused by socialists.

      381

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Climate change is a socialist trojan horse, nothing more.

        Socialism is like the parasite that infects mice, that turns them suicidal in front of cats.

        181

        • #
          Ian Knows

          OriginalConspiracy,

          I can’t wait to see your evidence that the global scientific community is socialist.

          417

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Who knows?

            20

          • #
            bobl

            As much can be inferred, polls have universities at over 80% left leaning. So by inference climate scientists are majority left leaning.

            140

          • #
            Geoff

            There is plenty of evidence that socialism has infected climate science. Do ANY of these people produce anything without government money? Have ANY made a profit, paid salaries etc.

            Socialism, a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

            or

            UNscienceism, a political and economic theory of science organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government for the benefit and promotion of UNscience and UNscientists who therein regulate the community via UNscientific statutes and policies enacted by the creation of an UNelected UNgovernment.

            I admit there is a subtle difference. Timelines are different but the end result is “we ran out of other peoples’ money”.

            A bit like 1-1=0. Lots of ways to get to zero. It is still subtraction resulting in zero.

            If you start from zero (poor country) it is possible to get lower than zero or UNzero. Can’t see these places being UNscientific unless they get -(-1). In which case, they will promote UNscientificism without worry of being infected by it. Poor countries are like UNscientists. Both seek to live off everyone else. Both believe in whatever the entity with the free money, the UN, believes in. Neither believe in the community but do believe in regulation of the community.

            UNzero

            or

            UNsocialism, a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be regulated by the UN.

            130

          • #
            AndyG55

            He that is INTENTIONALLY BLIND, will never see.

            66

          • #
            ian hilliar

            The globull cliamtescientology community is vehemently opposed to capitalism, so , yes, they are socialist at the very least.

            52

          • #
            Latus Dextro

            Climate change is a socialist trojan horse, nothing more.

            Ian Doesn’t Know typically responds with an ignorant non sequitur:

            I can’t wait to see your evidence that the global scientific community is socialist.

            The UNFCCC is an eco-Marxist political body that defined “climate change.” It is an unfalsifiable term unless one goes to the trouble of expunging humanity from the face of Gaia. Look it up.
            “Climate variability” is the dominant entity, massive, chaotic, stochastic noise. It is not possible to discern the signal of “climate change” above the noise, with the possible exception of the urban heat island effect and deforestation, in which case it is local not global.
            A former lead UN ideologue, Christiana Figueres has publicly stated that the objective of the UNFCCC is to wreck life (economies) as we know it. The UN is also intent on dissolving borders (Global Migration Compact) and destroying cultures, customs and traditional identities (ECOSOC). The recipe is a thinly clad agenda (transformational 2030) to impose globalism in the form of totalitarian administrative diktat.

            Your switch and bait kraptitudinous nonsense is little better than stating that all collaborating Vichy French were Nahzees. As you doubtless know, what motivates collaborators extends far beyond ideology. Grants, power, influence, publications, and institutional acclaim all make outstanding seducers.
            What appears true however, is that the socialist globalist players place a very low price on the ownership of their souls.

            172

          • #
            MudCrab

            I can’t wait to see your evidence that the global scientific community is socialist.

            You still subscribe to the 97% claims?

            We don’t have to prove the global scientific community are socialist. People studying particle physics or doing cancer research are not important for this discussion. We are talking about Climate Change(tm) is socialist. We just have to show that the Climate Community are and frankly, if you can’t see the blindingly obvious, you are in denial.

            71

          • #
          • #
            Analitik

            I can’t wait to see your evidence that the global scientific community is socialist.

            Climate science isn’t actually part of the global scientific community.

            40

    • #
      clivehoskin

      She is just another”Regressive Lefty Airhead”I wonder where the DemocRATS find these Maroons?

      53

  • #
    A C Osborn

    Sorry, I don’t think that there is anything anybody can do.
    She is completely delusional and not just about Climate & CO2.
    Some of the things she comes out with are truly embarrassing.

    340

    • #
      Curious George

      She is an “educator” (not a teacher or professor). She can rely on a wide group of Democratic Socialist supporters in any need except to rent an apartment.

      140

  • #

    So a frisky kid from NY is babbling some silly stuff about climate. You should have heard me at that age.

    Think of the degrees and distinctions held by our recent political leaders, deputies and senior ministers right here in Oz. Consider the jobs and incomes they have held down. Consider their age and backgrounds. They didn’t just babble silly stuff about climate. They spent on white elephants like drunken sailors, splashed money at green foundations and NGOs that had more board members than staff, savaged our prime resource (unless we were exporting it), even decided to send the Snowy River back uphill so it could tumble down again.

    Think of the waste and misjudgment of our last PM, starting with his GE lightbulb moment. Think of all those highly qualified talking heads from both the ABC and Murdoch sides who told you this was the guy Australia had been waiting for. Were his frequent pronouncements on climate (when he managed to finish a sentence) substantially different to those of the frisky kid from NY? Were they different at all, apart from some wording?

    We need fewer Ocasio-Cortez jokes and more Malcolm Turnbull jokes.

    410

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Well, Di Natale got suspended in the Senate. Suspension is a rare thing.

      Perhaps he needs to have a good hard honest look at himself and his behaviour, and ask if he should sit in parliamwnt if thats what happens…..the lefts behaviour at the Kavvanagh hearings come to mind too, and how unpleasant that got.

      Mind you, the Left still failed…..

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-27/richard-di-natale-suspended-for-labelling-barry-osullivan-a-pig/10559992

      “Federal Greens leader Richard Di Natale has been suspended after refusing to withdraw his description of Liberal senator Barry O’Sullivan as “a pig”, accusing him of throwing “sexist filth” at colleagues.

      Key points:
      * Queensland LNP senator Barry O’Sullivan withdrew a reference to Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young after wide condemnation
      * Senator Di Natale said no woman in any workplace deserves to endure the language directed at them in Parliament
      * The suspension will be lifted on Wednesday morning

      Parliament descended into ugly scenes on Tuesday afternoon after Queensland LNP senator Barry O’Sullivan said Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young had “a bit of Nick Xenophon in her”.

      Would have loved to be in the gallery for this little exchange….

      100

      • #
        glen Michel

        Hold your ground Barry. The howls and screeches from the Left are worth it.I , for one would love to clean out the Augean stables that are both our houses.Time to arrest this nonsense and have a “strongman” take over.

        92

      • #
        Bulldust

        That’s not all. The reason Di Natale called O’Sullivan a pig is because the latter referred to herself as being a woman last week in Parliament. So not only was Di Natale rude and objectionable, he was also transphobic.

        When the left makes silly rules you should hold them to their own standards. Likewise Jack Dorsey should suspend himself from Twitter for that photo in India last week.

        144

      • #
        Analitik

        Odd. Barry O’Sullivan said Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young had “a bit of Nick Xenophon in her” which, politics aside, implies Sarah Hanson-Young has some character traits exhibited by a male. So how is this being sexist, since gender is supposedly non-exclusional for character/personality/behaviour?

        It seems Di Natale should be the one who is branded sexist by the lefty LGBT crowd.

        Conservatives are the ones who should be objecting to O’Sullivan’s labelling (not that they should care).

        12

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      You should have heard me at that age.

      She is now 29.
      I do not believe you were as silly as she is. Perhaps at 9?

      80

      • #
        Latus Dextro

        Sadly, the collective IQ of her NY electorate appears inversely proportional to the number of people that voted for her.
        I guarantee she will immortalise herself in American, if not, globull humour.

        41

  • #
    ivan

    There is very little we can do to get across to such mentally challenged people that know nothing about logical thought and have, in fact replaced thought with feelings and groupthink.

    Any of her pronouncements will be greeted as the word of god just as Obarma’s words were and that could well lead far down the road to serfdom for the masses.

    221

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    From hearing her speak several times, at first I was confused, then started to think she is all that is wrong with feminism, millennials, and a social just educational system that leaves one ignorant of the real world. Now I am beginning to think she is also a case of arrested development–a child like mind. Heaven help us.

    310

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      A child has more sense than she does until they go though what is jokingly called public education. One out of a hundred, more or less, survive that experience with their minds mostly intact. Even then it takes twenty more years of real life and learning how to think to mend the damage that was done.

      A proper education would teach one how to think, how to communicate, and how to compute. What we have teaches you what to think, what to say, and that the ability to compute is useless. After all, you can always use a calculator – assuming you can figure out which buttons to push. What is left is a mere shell of a human unable to function as a human. They are one step short of being zombies.

      The consequence is that we really don’t have to worry about a climate apocalypse. Unless we change the direction of things, our civilization will be long gone by that time. Intelligent life on earth will have vanished.

      Can that 1% pull us out of the hole that has been dug for us? Maybe. They have done it many times in the past. Usually after a long, chaotic, and deadly dark ages. It is going to be a rough ride no matter what kind of ticket you hold.

      Keep in mind: you can’t put better people in government until the people hold better ideas. Then you can find the better people to hold office. Until then, what you see is what you get.

      160

    • #
      Latus Dextro

      She personifies the saying, “ignorance is bliss.” I’ll wager she sleeps soundly at night with nay a bubble of troubling psychic perturbation.
      She’s completely out of her depth.
      When reality and Rainbows collide, she’ll surface so fast that the intellectual narcosis will destroy her occasional cortical neurones.
      I anticipate huge entertainment value in the meantime, from all sides of the political spectrum.

      40

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    In a sense, though, this lady person is correct – if the most likely climate change does occur, then millions will die. Except the most likely climate change is not the one that is being promoted, that of “global warming”, but of global cooling. History is filled with examples of the destruction of civilisations, and the deaths of millions, because of global cooling; global warming generally proves beneficial – can anyone give a genuine example where warming has caused harm?

    340

    • #
      yarpos

      Depends what you mean by harm. I am generally not a fan of long running droughts and the destruction of livelihoods and bushfire that accompany them.

      21

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Not sure what you are getting at Yarpos.

        40

      • #
        bobl

        Sorry, but the exalted IPCC say warming leads to more evaporation and higher rainfall, don’t tell me you are sceptical of what all those scientists say?

        70

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Yarpos,

        Since when did you run the climate change activist line?

        I’ll take it as a slip.

        After all, bobl puts you right.

        However, you might need to refresh, nevertheless.

        If you knew how poor the forest management practices are in the ever expanding National Parks, nature reserves and conservation areas, you’d leave bushfires alone.

        And, as for long-running droughts, maybe reread Dorothea Mackellar?

        31

        • #
          John F. Hultquist

          Good idea, so find it here:
          https://www.dorotheamackellar.com.au/archive/mycountry.htm

          I found this about 10 years ago. One ought to be able to recite this before being allowed to vote in OZ.

          60

          • #
            beowulf

            50 years ago it was taught in schools as a regular part of the curriculum John. Kids could recite it by heart. My niece and nephew are both university-educated in their early 20s and neither has heard of it. Dorothea wrote it in about 1904 a year or two after the terrible Federation Drought had ended. Her inspiration for ragged mountain ranges, tangled brushes (the old term for rainforest) and lithe lianas, the McKellar property “Torryburn”, is in the foothills of the Mt Royal Range up the road from where I grew up.

            I can think of several global warmist pseudo-scientists like Flannery whose noses I would like to rub in that poem until they admit that there is nothing new in Australia’s floods and fires and droughts.

            60

  • #
    WXcycles

    Freedom of Speech is to be defended for all, let’s be clear about that. It’s just that it would be nice if she was an astronaut, so we could send her off to mars on a free well-moneyed scholarship schedule, to study the rate of sublimation of dry ice crystals. She can give us daily updates on her findings and her political insights. The other side of the coin is that freedom of speech does not guarantee an audience. “So when are they sending the ship to bring me home again?” Well, the thing is, Congress abolished NASA just last week so there may be a delay … we’ll get back to you on that one.

    160

  • #
    Yonniestone

    I’ve been following her ‘progressiveness’ through the news for a while and I hope she is given plenty of air time because her ideas are so easily discounted it’s too good an opportunity to miss for exposing hard left politics for the failure it is.

    She’s the gift that will keep giving and one that even impressionable youths will see through and learn from.

    221

    • #
      yarpos

      She seems to be a living breathing example of the NPC meme, just spouting standard phrases without understanding or actually doing anything. It will be interesting to see how the Dems construct damage control around her. Although after years of Waters and Pelosi she may appear as the next genius to them.

      81

      • #
        beowulf

        Octogenarian Maxine Waters (D) will be peeved that you didn’t give her an honourable mention:

        “North Korea and South Korea you need to stop fighting — you are both Japanese.”

        “My fear is if North Korea nukes us, Trump gonna get us into a war.”

        On sequestration: “Over 170 million jobs could be lost” — there are only an estimated 135 million jobs in the US.

        And my favourite: “I have to march because my mother couldn’t have an abortion”.

        Only passed 3 bills during 27 years of congress and one of those was naming a post office.
        Has connections to radical holocaust denier Louis Farrakhan.
        Paid her daughter $750,000 of campaign funds to mail out flyers.
        Has been voted most corrupt member of congress 4 times.

        OR

        Shelia Jackson Lee (D): “Homicide is the leading cause of murder.”

        Against talent like that Occasional Cortex will have an uphill battle.

        150

  • #
    Dave in the States

    The socialists/greens need a new banner carrier…right now. Hillary is a loser and too old. Bernie is also too old. Obama is no longer useful. Warren blew it. Alex checks all the boxes for the puppet masters. Young and physically attractive. Female. Ethnic minority. Completely indoctrinated. Not smart enough to think for herself or rebel. Too far out of reach to reason with. Scientifically illiterate. History Illiterate. Economics illiterate. Life experience short. She’s too young to be president but she will be well groomed by her handlers by then.

    But they need somebody that can connect to today’s young and push the climate change is an existential threat and we need socialism now to survive meme…. now, before the it becomes passe and the millennials grow up.

    200

    • #
      Tony K

      Hillary Clinton has the money. Michelle Obama has the following. Elizabeth Warren shot herself in the foot. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has her delusions. Hillary Clinton hasn’t lost her dream of being POTUS and will ruin it for the Democrats if she tries to run again.

      150

  • #
    Obie

    I looked at the expression on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s face and it instantly reminded me of a film I saw many years ago where Robin Williams, with a wide eyed expression on his face, was babbling on about some unbelievable thing he was planning to do and his co-star, Walter Matheau, paused, looked him in the eye and said ‘the light’s on but nobody’s home’.

    With A.O-C. on the young end of the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi on senior end there out to be some “interesting” talking going on in the house.

    170

    • #
      Dave in the States

      “With A.O-C. on the young end of the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi on senior end there out to be some “interesting” talking going on in the house.”

      Two complete air heads make bookends on the house Dems. Classic.

      140

  • #
    Dirtman

    She doesn’t even know that US emissions have dropped dramatically, does she? I would wager she thinks China is setting a good example.

    190

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      The left needs its programmable robots, she seems to be one of them.

      I suspect though, ask a hard science-based question about climate thats not political and she’d fold…such is the vacuous world of the left-droids…..

      60

  • #
    Betapug

    Can Polish food really be that good? In the runup to COP 24 in Katowice, Vancouver’s local media have been falling over themselves with disaster porn. California fires have given way to threatening sea level rise and as we have a week of king tides, the City is urging citizens to collect photographs of the “extreme” levels about to submerge us, in order to “be very afraid”.
    I submitted the NOAA chart showing 100 years of unvarying 0.22mm/yr but I doubt it will make into the gallery of horrors.

    160

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Sea level.

      We are currently in the most stable sea level environment of the last 8,000 years and the next major turn will be downward as the imminent ice age begins.

      273

      • #
        Betapug

        You mean Vancouver’s expensive building code changes (“think of the chilren, it’s only money”) to meet the rapid acceleration of local sea level from our boring, straight line 0.22mm/yr of the last 100 years to the thrilling 12.5mm/yr to raise our sea level a full metre by 2100 will not be enough to keep us above the ice?

        100

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Betapug

          You mention Local Government.

          A bad word to mention in the LG Area of Lake Macquarie Newcastle.

          Sounds as though Vancouver has a soul mate in our local council which caused much unnecessary heartache to those living on the lake edge when they put a climate change driven zoning on the water edge land. Values fell, people couldn’t sell etc. People suffered for no good reason.

          We are entering, perhaps already in, the new weird age of Total Disconnectedness.

          Rationality is gone.

          KK

          100

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    In the beginning George Soros created New York district 14 in his own image, and it was good.

    Elon Musk was thankful that more public money would occasionally be available to buy his big batteries.

    The face of the future has been installed.

    America, thanks for the look into the future, it always seems more obvious when looking in from outside. That’s why we have green tinged activism in Australia’s parliamentary system and nobody sees the damage done.

    Perhaps one day soon New York will be like Australia and have it’s own Desalination Plants.

    KK

    111

  • #

    For the definition of the phrase
    “DING DING DING bat”,
    they’ll just need a picture of Cortez.

    She’s the dumbest American politician
    at the national level, in my lifetime,
    and I’m 65 !

    But she’s the future of the Dumb-ocrat Party.

    See my article on immigration, demographics
    and the not very bright future of the
    US Republican Party:

    http://www.ElectionCircus.Blogspot.com

    40

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    She’s not the future of anything except trouble — too young to know her backside from a hole in the ground but nevertheless sure of herself to the point of needing a much larger hat than her neck will support.

    Is it legitimate to hope that she’s the first one to die from climate change? Well I doubt it but wouldn’t that be a relief for everyone?

    We should have raised the voting age to about 35, not lowered it to 18. Better yet, make it necessary to have a certain net worth before you can vote. That would eliminate the voter base of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and much of the worlds present trouble along with her. And it would make for much wiser voters all the way around.

    222

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I may get red thumbs for this but I don’t care. It’s too late in the game to be anything but blunt and to the point.

      182

      • #

        The Dumb-ocrats
        require young candidates
        who say the “right things”,
        and don’t care
        if their knowledge
        of any subject
        is an inch deep.
        .
        Remember that Obama
        was young with no record
        of accomplishments
        when he ran in 2008:
        – the liberal-biased press
        made him a blank slate
        – almost no one who voted
        for Obama realized
        he was farther left
        than every other member of Congress
        and sort of a Marxist in his college days.
        .
        The older Dumb-ocrats have a record,
        and usually not a good record to run on,
        because they are Dumb-ocrats.
        .
        Dumb-ocrats have too many old-timers
        like Shrillary, who wants to run again,
        after losing twice (2008 & 2016).
        .
        Also consider that Trum, in my opinion,
        often sounds like he has never read a non-fiction book,
        with little knowledge of economics, trade, climate change, etc.
        and HE got to be president !
        .
        So why not a dimwit like Cortez in eight years?
        .
        Or Beto “babble” O’Rourke from Texas
        .
        Any political party that is frightened of carbon dioxide
        is a party full of dimwits !

        61

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      New York explains a lot of it right there — California in training.

      81

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        And in congress she’ll vote her “not too bright” knowledge of things.

        She’s the perfect storm brewing and we can’t stop her.

        81

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          I dunno…the thing is, when the hype gets to a point, it weither has to deliver, or make the messenger look like a fool. When there arent disasterous climate changes ( except the coming LIA old freeze ) she either has to fall on her sword, or change her tune.

          The problem is, like all would-be leftist “stars” they want to be bigger and louder than everyone else.

          She ticks all the boxes for minority “acceptance” and can “bark” on command….perfect.

          She’d make a good SJW – bleat bleat bleat…..

          40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And notice please, I stayed polite and avoided name calling and the evil ad hom. But I think you can guess what I really think.

      We have let nonsense go on for too long and now our recovery may be impossible.

      151

      • #
        Bobl

        At least Roy, you have trump to set an example of how to run a country, who is not afraid to roll back the institutions a bit and install free thinkers into the public service. The EPA won’t be back to its old tricks any time soon though it should have been abolished or neutered in mandate by the GOP when they were able. If trump keeps reforming and downsizing the public service it’ll take several terms to get back to “utopian” levels of government control. That’ll insulate you for a while, in Oz we have Cortez parliamentarians everywhere

        50

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      a certain net worth before you can vote

      Gore, Hillary, Barry, Soros, Steyer, Moonbeam, Bloomberg, Pelosi, Streisand . . .

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        There’s always someone around to point out the holes in any theory.

        Oh! Hi John. I didn’t see you lurking there. ;-)

        20

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      So, apart from her arse and her hat, you can’t fault her on anything concrete then?

      [live on the edge AZ] ED

      14

      • #
        AndyG55

        I don’t care what she looks like.

        Just the whole arrant stupidity of her ideology.

        But it is just the thing to “catch” gullible left-wing, unthinking, scientifically-naïve little minds…

        … like yours, CT.

        41

      • #
        AndyG55

        “fault her on anything concrete then”

        She doesn’t have anything concrete.

        Just starry-eyed, empty nonsense.

        Build from a mix of quicksand and slimy green ooze.

        31

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I don’t know what’s with the 2 moderators apparently in a disagreement, Craig. But I can assure you that I have no use for this woman or what she stands for, all the way from her hat to her arse and back again. I do not like the fact that young fools are taking over my country.

        I fault her explicitly for falling for for all the drivel she’s obviously been told without taking the time or making the effort to look into any of it. And I fault voters for the same crime, failure to look into what they’re told before swallowing it.

        But I thought what I said would say what was on my mind without needing this much verbage or needing to call her for the fool she is. The count of green thumbs bears me out. No hard feelings though because I expect you intended to be comical. But it should not have been necessary to say it all explicitly. :-)

        30

  • #
    Mark M

    The Terminator thinks we need a better type of activist …

    Schwarzenegger to CNN’s Axelrod: Environmentalists doing a terrible job selling climate change concerns

    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/414752-schwarzenegger-to-cnns-axelrod-environmentalists-doing-a-terrible-job-selling

    She is not the one you are looking for.

    70

    • #
      Mark D.

      I know exactly where “Arnod” went to school. In fact there are probably a few children (now well into adulthood with very similar receding hairlines) nearby. It ain’t the best school in the country and you don’t get extra credit smarts for lifting iron.

      Arnod may have had more cortex before steroids were invented though. Just sayin

      30

  • #
    PeterS

    People like her is one of several reasons why the West will crash and burn to allow another nation or group of nations to become the world power and leader. Enjoy what time we have left.

    50

  • #
    Another Ian

    Sounds like this bloke is a supporter

    “NYT: Climate Deniers are Depraved and Corrupt”

    “h/t Marc Morano – NYT columnist Paul Krugman believes climate “deniers” are depraved and corrupt, because he read a book written by Michael “Hide the Decline” Mann. ”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/27/nyt-climate-deniers-are-depraved-and-corrupt/#comment-2534518

    From comments there this bloke likely isn’t


    Walter Sobchak
    November 27, 2018 at 8:17 am

    I deny that the so-called called climate record is a reliable record. I deny that the true record of the weather (as opposed to the ones cooked up by so-called “scientists”) supports a claim that the weather is measurably warmer now than it was in the first half of the 20th Century. I deny that climate models are anything other than mathematical masturbation. I deny that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has any ill effect on any biological system. I deny that the so called climate scientists are honest men. I deny that so called climate scientists have engaged in anything other than fear mongering. I deny that polar bears are in any danger from warmer weather in the arctic. I deny that sea levels are rising faster than they have in the recent past. I deny that so called “tropical” diseases have any causal relation with warmer weather. I deny that any of the weather events of the last year, or any other year are related to any changes in the general climate.

    I affirm that the whole miserable theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming was created and advanced for the sole purpose of scarring people into surrendering their freedom, their property, and their prosperity to a global socialist government. I affirm that a warmer world is a happier, healthier, and more prosperous world. I affirm that CO2 is absolutely necessary for the existence of life on earth, and that we, and all other living things, are better off at 400 ppm than we were at 280 ppm. I affirm that it is more likely that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the end of the Little Ice Age than it is due to human activity. I affirm that humanity would be far better off by the aggressive exploration of fossil fuel energy resources to bring prosperity to Africa and Asia, than it would be by halting any change in the general climate. “

    171

    • #
      Another Ian

      ” azraycatcher
      November 27, 2018 at 10:15 am

      I think David Catron in the American Spectator summed up the raison d’etre of Krugman (and the NYT) quite nicely a few years ago (the article was about the ACA but the logic extends perfectly; just substitute global warming for Obamacare)

      “So, if progressives are intellectually superior to the rest of us, why can’t they figure out that Krugman is lying about the history of Obamacare? They don’t want to, of course. They need to see themselves as a cut above the hoi polloi. If they admit the truth about Obamacare’s tawdry legislative history and subsequent failure to accomplish any of its goals, it means people like you and I were smarter than they were from the jump. Even worse, it might mean we’re right about other things as well. In the end, that’s what Paul Krugman gets paid for — perpetuating the pathetic progressive superiority complex.” ”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/27/nyt-climate-deniers-are-depraved-and-corrupt/#comment-2534665

      80

    • #

      Walter Sobchak’s “I deny list” (Comment on WUWT NYT: Climate Deniers are Depraved and Corrupt) is a keeper.
      I have suggested some corrections, eg in context it is “scaring” not “scarring”. Also “honest men” should be changed to “honest people”; no need to provoke the usual pc reaction, as some are male, some female, and some may be indeterminate.
      Another suggestion is that the last phrase be changed to ” … than it would be by pretending we can halt any change in the general climate, and wasting money trying to.”
      The list could be added to. I am tempted to repeat a version of this list as a sort of chant or invocation when I get called a denier. Could be risky. Maybe I’ll only do this when I have security back-up.

      60

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Walter S makes interesting reading.

      21

  • #
    Global Cooling

    How dare she move from New York to hot Washington DC. Climate change is much larger than in CAGW.

    https://www.weather-guide.com/Weather-Comparison/New-York-Washington-DC-Weather-Compare.html

    60

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    My take from the climate data is that global warming hasn’t been happening for nearly a quarter century. I base that statement on the Rutgers Snow Lab data, which I’ve graphed here. Snow cover extent is easy to measure from orbit and represents a nice 0 degrees C isotherm. It’s clear that on average the extent of the northern hemisphere at or below 0 C hasn’t been changing for more than two decades.

    The trouble with convincing someone like Ms Ocasio-Cortez of this is formidable. She would have to:

    - know what a graph is
    - have some idea about interpreting graphs
    - understand what an “average” is
    - have some concept of what a regression line means
    - know what the melting point of water is
    - understand how snow cover can be measured
    - have some idea why it is a better measurement than the manually adjusted terrestrial temperature datasets
    - have some ability with numbers and arithmetic

    Unfortunately given Ms Ocasio-Cortez’s comments about finance and money I doubt she has these competencies. She is also an example of the kids now ‘graduating’ from high school – who have so little exposure to maths that almost none of them have any ability to crosscheck the claims of the climatistas. Meanwhile they get unrelenting propaganda throughout school (like having to watch ‘Inconvenient Truth’ multiple times) and from the MSM.

    I don’t know what can be done about this. Maybe I should read Proverbs again, about all the disasters that fools get themselves into.

    101

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      “It’s clear that on average the extent of the northern hemisphere at or below 0 C hasn’t been changing for more than two decades.”

      Hilarious.

      Consider this: the amount of land at -10 is about the same as the amount of land at 0.
      –> Temps increase across the board by 10 degrees.
      == The amount of land at 0 degrees is the same as before.
      Therefore there was no warming.

      Not to put too fine a point on it, Bruce, but your complete inability to think extends way beyond the logical lacuna that I just exposed. Maybe you should accept you aren’t the brightest spark and try to learn and understand what the smarter people are trying to explain?

      18

      • #
        AndyG55

        There has been NO WARMING apart from the El Nino any where since the end of the last El Nino effect in 2001. The NH temperature for October 2018 was below both 2003 and 1998

        The year to date in the NH is below that of 2002 and 1998

        There is also ZERO empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

        Your posts are lame and empty as always, CT

        There HAVE NOT been temperature increases across the board of 10C.. that is just a flat-out LIE or your information comes from a highly tainted and corrupt source.

        The ONLY thing you have exposed is yourself, CT. !

        41

      • #
        AndyG55

        “and understand what the smarter people are trying to explain?”

        You have yet to explain why you can’t produce one tiny skerrick of empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming

        Yet you still just “believe” (spooky music)

        Not very “smart” are you little troll.

        Seem your mind has basically ZERO CAPACITY for even the slightest rational thought.

        Bottom rung of the ladder at school were you, CT ??

        Still struggling with the barista degree ???

        31

  • #
    Bob

    Apparently Jo’s speech at the climate conference is not available, but maybe it will be from the GWPF. The lady does a fantastic job.

    70

  • #
    Robber

    Well, she’s partly right: We’re all going to die. But it seems she’s missing part of her left brain.
    “The left side of the brain is responsible for controlling the right side of the body. It also performs tasks that have to do with logic, such as in science and mathematics. On the other hand, the right hemisphere coordinates the left side of the body, and performs tasks that have do with creativity and the arts.”

    60

    • #
      Another Ian

      Are you then questioning the right side of her brain too?

      50

    • #
      Hanrahan

      I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why a small temp rise [for the sake of argument] will kill anyone.

      Y’day was a scorcher here abt 40 deg with no cloud cover but the guys installing the irrigation system in the yard showed up as promised and did the job. Jeez it was hot, but they lived.

      40

      • #
        bobl

        When I was a kid on those scorchers we used to run around OUTSIDE under a sprinkler and scream loudly due to the fun to be had. Now people hide away in their airconditioned living room watching “The day after tomorrow” on Netflix then walk out to get the mail and whinge about how the climate must be changing because it’s hotter outside than in the airconditioned living room.

        31

        • #
          bobl

          Oh might I add that of course now it’s illegal to have the sprinkler on in summer because … climate change (or no dams ever being built again because the greens are usefully i***ts)

          61

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        I mentioned before the temp on this planet at any one time ranges from at least -50C to +50C (NH to SH, desert to Artic/Antarctic etc.) thats 100C! or often much more depending on the season.
        Each sq m of the surface doesnt know what the temp of any other sq m. Averaging the planet’s surface (roughly first 1km of troposphere) temperature is meaningless!
        AND it doesnt include that of the alt plateaus, Tibet, Alta Plata > 4000m ASL. OR most of the oceans.

        30

  • #
    Another Ian

    “An Event Worth Paying For”

    Hi Alexandria, would you like to debate @benshapiro? I’ll be happy to moderate and donate all proceeds to the charity of your choice. https://t.co/nPMvSIYO3n

    — Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) November 26, 2018″

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2018/11/27/an-event-worth-paying-for/

    40

  • #
    Scott

    “were all going to die from climate change Policies”

    There fixed it for her

    90

  • #
    tom0mason

    Currently Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, southeastern Wisconsin, and New York is having a major early winter snow event. Many highways are unusable, smaller towns are isolated, cut-off …

    Imagine the death rate and carnage that would have happened if Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania southeastern Wisconsin, and New York were powered mainly by ‘renewable’ wind and solar.
    Just imagine…
    Just imagine if Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York sometime in the future, mandated renewable were to be the main power suppliers, and that citizens could ONLY drive battery powered vehicle.

    Yes, just imagine.

    Ridiculous, eh?

    But That is what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is about! That is what so many of your US political representative wish to do. Then they could bath themselves in the glory of virtue signaling (while no doubt, scamming a profit for themselves.) The glorious virtue of killing folk to save the world!

    So next time you vote, listen well. Are these people wanting your votes the murdering sociopaths/psychopaths that advocate your ‘death by misadventure’’bureaucratic negligence’ whatever through promoting ‘renewables’? If they are, and you do not have a death wish, avoid them, AND DON’T VOTE FOR THEM!.

    140

  • #
    TdeF

    In my experience, inside every passionate radical socialist is a cold hearted bigoted and blind totalitarian who will tell you about the greater good. The damage done by Climate Change radicalism is endless and never mentioned. It is also interesting that such people only find their voice in free societies and never criticize communist governments where people have no such freedom.

    121

  • #
    Bill In Oz

    Why is this Australian blog on Science giving this foreign US idiot airtime ?

    She’s a radical American politician with no grasp of science.

    21

    • #
      Annie

      Read what Jo has on the banner for this blog.

      42

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        Banner ? “A perfectly good civilisation going to waste ” ?

        So..The USA civilisation is somewhat different to Australia’s….We do not need to be infected by it’s poison. Let them deal with her…

        02

        • #
          MudCrab

          Splendid Isolation, Bill?

          That only worked for the Brits because at the time they had the biggest navy in the world.

          If our navy got any smaller we would struggle to beat ourselves up. Watch and learn from your neighbours. Your future may depend on it.

          20

        • #
          Annie

          Western civilisation is under enormous threat at the present time.

          21

          • #
            Annie

            Not least because the power-grubbers are using the so-called ‘science’ of global warming to wreck our Western civilisation.

            21

  • #
    AZ1971

    It’s been said that given a long enough time scale, the probability of living drops to zero. We have bigger issues to address than taxing a reliable, 24/7/365 fuel source into oblivion when the alternatives are intermittent at best.

    110

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Cortez = another sucked in young dupe.

    70

  • #

    Guys, as I said above, be careful of using this kid as some kind of whipping girl. Smell the trap, watch for the diversion.

    It’s all very well to play the generation card, talk of a lack of hard education, extensive business and admin experience, science credentials and so on.

    Consider this, however: Our media, academia, government and pseudo-private corporate sector are full of people with hard education, extensive business and admin experience, science credentials etc…

    And these very people with their hard education, extensive business and admin experience, science credentials have not just said the same things as the giddy girl from NY. They have acted upon them and been costing us billions in white elephants while savaging our most critical resource and its domestic infrastructure. They haven’t gone away.

    Think of the Turnbulls and Garnauts and Flannerys. They’re not 29 and they’re not over there. They’re right here.

    140

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      “Consider this, however: Our media, academia, government and pseudo-private corporate sector are full of people with hard education, extensive business and admin experience, science credentials etc…”

      Some people might consider that to be a clue.

      27

      • #

        “…billions in white elephants while savaging our most critical resource and its domestic infrastructure.”

        That’s the big clue. Doubtless Heavy Metal Garnaut is aware but doesn’t care. We should care.

        As I said, I don’t like piling on one girl who is only repeating the conformist tripe she’s been fed most of her life by the empty narcissists and dud intellectuals of Big Green. She is not the problem, she is the product. So she’s a Democrat. William Jennings Bryan was a Democrat with very odd beliefs…and might have saved the world some major strife had he prevailed over the loathsome Woodrow Wilson.

        I know plenty of good kids who have been saturated in green dogma all their lives, through media and school. What escape could there be? I can honestly say that Catholic boarding-school education of the 1950s and 1960s was far more open on matters political and scientific. There were a few interesting and independent journalists on the BBC etc a mere twenty years ago (though it feels like a century now). If you are under 30 you have lived in an intellectual strait-jacket not of your making.

        There is no such excuse for the likes of Turnbull, Frydenberg and Bishop. They are not victims of sick green dogma, they are its vectors and profiteers.

        71

  • #
    Ian Knows

    David,
    Instead of an ad hom attack on a single democrat, why not follow the scientific method and put your efforts into submitting evidence that rising CO2 levels are nothing to worry about ?.
    On that same thread, why is Jo only talking to other deniers (also without science degrees) and not the general scientific community ?.

    (I have read your 9 comments to date on this thread, seeing that you are generally here to troll people with your attacks, to cause angry replies and create fog. You are expected to improve the quality of your comments or you will be treated with snipping or worse) CTS

    718

    • #

      I am doing precisely that. You’ll see soon.

      In the meantime,the general scientific and political communities don’t want to hear from us, mainly for political reasons.

      The toxic political environment is the main reason the carbon dioxide theory of global warming persists, and so a little discussion of how it comes about and what we can do about it is appropriate.

      I’m serious above: how would you convince that influential young woman that that carbon dioxide is not much of a worry? If you cannot convince her, how are you/we going to convince the world at large? What would it take? What would constitute sufficient evidence? Why would she ever even listen?

      Even getting fellow skeptics to take notice of a new discovery like this (Fig. 2) and what it means (see the main message) is difficult.

      186

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        you’ve posted on this before, but how do you prove the correlation?

        77

        • #
          AndyG55

          There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature, yet you don’t ask the AGW apologists for proof of their anti-science conjecture.

          I am asking YOU for empirical scientific proof that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

          Are you up to it ???

          129

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            sure, but why should I bother. my question is simply about the model proposed by David Evans

            87

            • #
              AndyG55

              Thank you for stating so back-handedly that you have NOTHING !! :-)

              109

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Ramanathan, V., 1988: The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change: A Test by An Inadvertent Global Experiment. Science, 240: 293-299.

                • Ramanathan, V., R. D. Cess, E. F. Harrison, P. Minnis, B. R. Barkstrom, E. Ahmad, and D. Hartmann, 1989: Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment. Science, 243: 57-63.

                • Ramanathan, V., E. F. Harrison and B. R. Barkstrom, 1989: Climate and the Earth’s Radiation Budget. Physics Today, 42(5): 22-33.

                • Raval, A. and V. Ramanathan, 1989: Observational Determination of the Greenhouse Effect. Nature, 342: 758-761.

                get back to me when you have read these. and again it is not up to me to prove anything, I’m simply asking a question

                67

              • #
                AndyG55

                H2O, H2O, H2O !!!

                And the climate models are basically USELESS when it comes to H2O,

                which makes them BASICALLY USELESS.

                You have presented ZERO empirical proof that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

                Well done. :-)

                128

            • #
              AndyG55

              You really need to read David’s work.

              Try to understand, try to LEARN.

              But I suspect that is well beyond you.

              88

            • #
              peter

              Hey Fitzy,

              I looked at those 4 papers.
              Well done, if that’s your evidence of correlation between CO2 and temperature, you just supported the NO case.
              I can quote from those papers:

              Paper1: Just a discussion – no science.
              Paper2: clouds had a net cooling effect on the earth. This cooling effect is large over the mid-and high-latitude oceans, with values reaching -100 W/m2.
              Paper3: A NASA multisatellite experiment has determined that clouds cool the planet more than they heat it and identified them as a major source of uncertainty in three‐dimensional models used for studying the greenhouse effect and global warming.
              Paper4: The greenhouse effect is found to increase significantly with sea surface temperature. (nothing to support CO2 theory.

              Again Peter Fitzroy, well done!

              141

              • #
                AndyG55

                As I said, but PF seems to be in DENIAL

                H2O, H2O.. CLOUDS. !!

                ZERO evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

                1) radiative heat transfer requires a thermal gradient. ie it is a product of a thermal gradient.

                2) gravity provides a thermal gradient as part of containment.

                3) radiative heat transfer, if significant, would reduce the thermal gradient by cooling the warmer body and heating the cooler.

                4) since radiative heat transfer is insufficient to modify the gradient it remains a ‘product’.

                There is no evidence that the tropospheric thermal gradient is modified in any way, globally averaged, by long wave radiation.

                Basic science, but still totally beyond PF and IKN.

                97

              • #
                Bill In Oz

                Thanks Peter.. for looking & finding out that there were a false trail.

                61

          • #
            theRealUniverse

            A paper just published I posted about in an earlier blog, PROVED that the temperature of a planet is dependent on the solar energy it receives and the surface pressure, REGARDLESS of the gaseous constituency of the atmosphere. Tested with 3 other planets and moons with atmospheres, ranging from 97% CO2 to 50% CH4., N2.

            72

      • #
        Ian Knows

        David,

        I hope you’ll present it for review?. I know that the consensus here is that peer review isn’t part of the scientific method but sadly, it is. Publishing or posting unilaterally can be done by anyone, it has to be vetted.

        “the general scientific and political communities don’t want to hear from us, mainly for political reasons.”
        No, they’re tired of hearing from sceptics because of their lack of evidence, hence your new name, deniers.

        The ” toxic political climate” is just another excuse to not engage with the scientific community, forget politics, you don’t like the facts ?, fine, the burden of proof is with you.

        You can “convince that influential young woman” by convincing other scientists first, but you know that already and so the list of excuses just grows.

        (I have read your 9 comments to date on this thread, seeing that you are generally here to troll people with your attacks, to cause angry replies and create fog. You are expected to improve the quality of your comments or you will be treated with snipping or worse) CTS

        519

        • #
          AndyG55

          It has been presented , and read by FAR MORE people and real scientists than most so-called climate science ever has.

          Heck, even a putz like you, who knows NOTHING could try to dissect it.

          That would be funny to watch :-)

          Do you have any empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming yet?

          By dredging up a 30 year old paper, Peter has managed to show that any possible measurements are totally overshadowed by H2O.

          But we knew that already.

          (Edited for the 30 year correction) CTS

          128

        • #
          bobl

          What a hypocrite you are.

          1. Peer review is a publishing step, not a science step. It doen’t matter how many people agree with a theory it only needs to be proven wrong once. It doesn’t matter if that proof of incorrectness is published or not, the science is incorrect if it’s incorrect. AGW has been proven wrong many times over, the Missing hotspot, Satellite IR emission measurements disproving positive feedback, errors in the bode theory, errors in the energy budget assumptions, overunity outcomes at the surface and dozens of other ways.

          2. You love to call people names don’t you, well I tell you what I’m a believer in science. I believe the law of conservation of energy prohibits the model outcomes of overunity at the surface, I believe that if the models say the positive feedbacks will reduce IR emission as the world warms and the satellites show that emission is increasing with warmth that models positive feedback hypothesis is disproven. I believe that energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed from one form to another and climate models have ignored transformations. I believe that Bode was right when he said that the bode equations can only be applied to linear invariant systems. I believe that a scalar analysis is insufficient to describe the future state of a non-linear system – basic Electrical Engineering science. I believe the chaos theory insofar as the integral (average) of a chaotic system is chaotic.

          Your belief in climate science is nothing more than faith in the prophets that sing it to you – You might as well believe in the tooth fairy. If you believe in science – DO THE MATH.

          162

          • #
            AndyG55

            Don’t confuse him too much, bobl ;-)

            And whatever you do, DON’T bring actual science into the discussion,

            .. he will run around like a headless chook.

            76

            • #
              bobl

              Oops, sorry Andy, but I get real wild at kiddies who cant manage to hold a calculator trying to equate me with a holocaust denier, especially when so-called climate action is killing grannies.

              So Evil are the outcomes of “Climate Action”

              Mods, can you do me a favour and moderate out the denier word, it’ll do a lot for my blood pressure.

              [Bobl, sometimes a little extra blood pressure is a good thing for a blog. I hope you don't mind too much if I leave it. Kinda makes them look the part. ] ED

              63

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        “the general scientific and political communities don’t want to hear from us”

        Gosh, and why *wouldn’t* they want to spend their time examining nonsensical models that hind-cast negative concentrations of CO2 and predicted global cooling would kick in in 2015?

        You’d think they would jump at the chance to drop all their serious scientific work in favour of disproven nonsense.

        19

        • #
          AndyG55

          Apart from the El Nino, there has been no warming since 2001, slight cooling trend before the El Nino.

          But you knew that , didn’t you, CT. ;-)

          You really have NO IDEA just how bad the standard “climate model” really is , have you CT.

          Range as wide as a barn, like shotgun pellets, and they STILL miss !!

          https://i.postimg.cc/cC6z3SSd/biggestfail2.png

          (red is atmospheric temps, UAH)

          (black line is fabricated and adjusted nonsense from Hadley CRU propagandists)

          and this is against RCP4.5, which emissions are well above.

          53

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Andy, no, the red line is not UAH temps, it is some kind of graffiti that some incompetent has scrawled onto a genuine graph of HADCRUT v. CMIP temperatures. The very strange “envelope” scribble at the end is especially bad.

            The Y axis’ values don’t even match up you’ll notice the scribbler hasn’t managed to line up the “0″ value anywhere near.
            Also, UAH is calculated as an anomaly against the 1981-2010 average.
            The graph with the red graffiti on it uses a 1961-1990 average.
            Ergo, the two simply aren’t comparable.

            I am absolutely amazed that I am the only one sceptical enough to notice that your graph is a meaningless bit of bodged-together nonsense – why didn’t you notice it, Andy?

            17

            • #
              AndyG55

              CT doesn’t even know REAL temperature when its in front of him

              DENIAL is your ONLY way out of your mindless quicksand, isn’t it CT.

              They line up at 1980, when the satellite data effectively started.

              Are you saying it should be EVEN LOWER?

              Heck even the fabrication that is the black line barely touches the model mean at the top of the El Nino transient.

              They can’t even “ADJUST” the data enough to match their fanciful simulations

              So FUNNY that people like you are so MATHEMATICALLY ILLITERATE that you can’t see that.

              GULLIBILITY, is your only trait, CT. !

              31

            • #
              AndyG55

              “The very strange “envelope” scribble at the end is especially bad.”

              Makes you LAUGH you to see JUST HOW BAD those fanciful models will look against REALITY in a couple of year, does it CT. :-)

              21

    • #

      Why is David talking about what he’s talking about? Why doesn’t he talk about something else?

      Why is Jo talking to the people she is talking to (called deniers without science degrees as if they were checked at the door) instead of talking to other people who belong to something called a “general scientific community “(like they were stopped at the door)?

      All trick questions without answers. If you’re not with GetUp!, you should be.

      141

      • #
        Ian Knows

        mosomoso,

        There’s nothing “tricky” about my questions, how can I simplify them further?,OK, I’ll give it another go:

        The problem: Deniers don’t like science.

        Their solution: DON’T talk to the scientists, instead, find like minded people and tell what they want to hear while pretending to be Galileo.

        The result: Further rejection by scientists and development of a bunker mentality bolstered by:
        hidden global socialist agendas, UN article 21, fifth columnists, gravy train funding, broken science, globally fiddled empirical data, etc .

        My question: Provide evidence please ?

        The answers are meant for YOU to supply.

        (I have read your 9 comments to date on this thread, seeing that you are generally here to troll people with your attacks, to cause angry replies and create fog. You are expected to improve the quality of your comments or you will be treated with snipping or worse) CTS

        414

        • #
          AndyG55

          “The problem: Deniers don’t like science. “

          Yes, we have noticed you avoiding it like the plague. !!

          Tell us what we “deny” that you can actually prove scientifically !

          Running away using distractions again, IKN?

          You have NOTHING, because you KNOW NOTHING.

          107

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Gosh, Ian, just look at this fog you created.

            17

            • #
              AndyG55

              CT can’t see. Wilfully blind ?

              Any empirical science to show atmospheric CO2 causes warming ?

              Or just more mindless distractions you and your mates !

              Tell us what we “deny” that you can actually prove scientifically !

              Avoid answering, AT ALL COSTS, CT

              43

              • #
                Craig Thomas

                Gosh Ian, I seem to be creating fog, too!

                15

              • #
                AndyG55

                About the only thing you are doing

                Certain ducking and weaving to avoid producing any actual science.

                In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributed to human CO2 ?

                Tell us what we “deny” that you can actually prove scientifically !

                Come on, stop running away, stop your childish attempts at distraction.

                42

        • #
          Hanrahan

          My question: Provide evidence please ?

          The answers are meant for YOU to supply.

          Actually, the onus is on YOU to prove your “science”. ‘Tis you who is wanting to push us back to the pre-industrial ages. I’m sure you understand that we need incontrovertible proof before following you on this journey.

          We sceptics are not insisting anyone do anything to their own detriment so don’t have to attempt to prove the null hypothesis.

          112

          • #
            bobl

            Wrong again – my god did you even get past junior high school.

            The NULL Hypothesis is that climate change is natural, if you want to propose another theory the the onus is upon YOU to disprove the NULL hypothesis not us to defend it. So far there is insufficient evidence to disprove the NULL hypothesis and indeed there is significant contradictory evidence to AGW and quite a number of alternative theories for the warming ( None of which are proven either). So the ball is in YOUR court to prove your case AND show all the competing theories invalid. So off to the lab with you…

            81

            • #
              AndyG55

              Quite bizzare, Ian KN doesn’t seem to actually KNOW anything about actual science.

              Why is it all these AGW apologists can never actual provide any empirical scientific proof to back up the AGW conjecture ?????

              Could it be that they actually KNOW that AGW does not really exist, and are just acting out in a FANTASY ?

              96

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              not quilte Bobl – if your hypothesis is that CO2 is a factor in the greenhouse effect (as an example) then the null would be that C02 is not a factor. The test (or experiment) then has to show exactly how much effect C02 could have. In your case, if you say that the null is climate change is natural you have it back to front.

              39

              • #
                AndyG55

                There is no test that shows that CO2 has ANY warming effect

                It has NEVER been measured. Anywhere, anytime.

                Climate has changed NATURALLLY for millions of years. Do you DENY this ???

                It is YOU that has to show that the TINY amount of highly beneficial warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years is NOT totally natural.

                The only arguments that exist are arguments from IGNORANCE.

                There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signal in any real data, or any signal that it has any effect on climate whatsoever.

                If you think there is , THEN PRODUCE IT, and make sure its empirical data about CO2, not H2O,

                We all know H2O causes variability in the atmosphere, and in fact, with the gravity based gradient, controls the base-level atmospheric temperature. That is PROVEN and MEASURED.

                97

              • #
                Bobl

                What Andy said. The Null hypothesis is that climate changes naturally, or stated differently that there is no human influence on the global climate that is distinguishable from the range of historical temperature. (The noise floor). AGW has been proposed against this NULL hypothesis but has failed for all the reasons I have regularly mentioned, the math is unsound , which is not surprising since environmental scientists are not known for their math skill. There is no a evidence or proven science supporting the idea that any human influence will ever overwhelm natural variation, none.

                90

            • #
              Hanrahan

              Bobi, read before firing off abuse. Most high school educated kids know that. I was replying to IK insisting that he prove his case if he wants to change things. I do not insist anyone change so don’t think the onus is on me [us] to prove anything.

              30

              • #
                Bobl

                I apologize if I missinterpreted your meaning, it read to me like you were suggesting its necessary to prove the NULL hypothesis to disprove AGW which is exactly backwards and a common schoolboy mistake. Which is why the media makes it so much.

                10

            • #
              Ian Knows

              Bobl,

              Oh dear, a counter demand to provide more evidence, this could go on for ever.
              But wait, who’s stuck in thumbsey land playing scientist unable to get any NULL evidence to fly ?

              Btw, the NULL hypothesis has been disproved, just ask a scientist.

              212

              • #
                AndyG55

                NO EVIDENCE, and its obvious from his bleating that Ian knows that

                Running and distracting like a headless chook

                So funny !! :-)

                Null hypothesis is that climate changes NATURALLY.

                It HAS NOT been disproved, except by “arguments to IGNORANCE”.

                PROVE OTHERWISE or remain just another empty vassal. !

                Yap all you like, but you continue to produce NOTHING, because that is all you know.

                94

              • #
                Bobl

                Oh so the NULL hypothesis is disproved because Michael Mann says so… wonderful argument there. … logical error – argument from authority.

                I repeat there are models, but there is no evidence, since the evidence that exists contradicts the hypothesis. Amplification doesn’t exist.

                70

          • #
            Ian Knows

            Hanrahan,

            This is so funny—- you’re the ones claiming that the scientists are wrong, they’ve done their work, don’t ask ME for more evidence.
            The onus is on YOU guys to go and pester the CSIRO or NASA with your cherry-picked evidence, should that ever happen.

            515

        • #
          AndyG55

          “DON’T talk to the scientists, instead, find like minded people and tell what they want to hear while pretending to be Galileo.”

          Many people here are far more scientifically based than YOU will ever be.

          Your low-end Arts/barista degree is not really “science”, you do know that, don’t you !

          126

          • #
            AndyG55

            We all saw the hilarious sight when Gavin Schmidt was asked to debate Roy Spencer.

            Little worm squiggled off as fast as his legs could carry him.

            Was PATHETIC, to put it mildly. :-)

            96

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Andy,

            Most of the low ter entry courses in the past 20 years have been made available as an alternative to unemployment benefits.
            Governments screwing around with reality to gain voter friends.

            Eventually the chickens come home to roost: some even turn up here and display their AltDolEducation.

            Not very impressive is it.

            KK

            82

        • #

          Ian, the questions were not complex and did not need simplifying. They were empty stunts which needed retracting.

          Tricksters who deny the nature and history of the Quaternary and Holocene certainly show a blatant indifference to science.

          It amazes me that those who like to use the sloppy term “climate change” are the least interested in actual climate change. Centuries of geology, stratigraphy, speleology, glaciology, oceanography, archaeology and written history have to be cowed and muffled so the arch-deniers can make their patronizing statements like “Deniers don’t like science”.

          Curiously, Ian, you do show a grasp of the politics to which David refers: “hidden global socialist agendas, UN article 21, fifth columnists, gravy train funding, broken science, globally fiddled empirical data, etc .”

          Don’t know how that will go over in the GetUp! bunker…but it’s not far off the mark. Incomplete, but encouraging.

          91

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        Getup ? They are so ideologically blinded that there is no science in what they say or publish.

        Who would want to join the scientifically blind and be lead by them ? Utter stupidity !

        20

    • #
      Hanrahan

      why is Jo only talking to other deniers (also without science degrees) and not the general scientific community ?.

      I can’t speak for David but I suggest one good reason is that no warmist will ever share a podium with a sceptic. Like putting your fingers in your ears “I can’t hear you”.

      100

      • #
        Ian Knows

        Hanrahan,

        It’s the same reason scientists are tired of talking to young Earth creationists.

        411

        • #

          I really think the next question from your agile, analytical mind should be something like: “When did all you Young Earth creationists stop being mean to cute little kittens?”

          That’d nail us. Bet we couldn’t answer that one.

          92

        • #
          Hanrahan

          That’s a circular argument:

          A/ Sceptics are not legitimate because they never debate “real” scientists.
          B/ “Real” scientists will never debate sceptics because they are not legitimate.

          BTW 31,000 American scientists signed the Oregon Petition. Not all “climate scientists”? Many of them would have lectured the new-fangled scientists in college.

          81

          • #
            Ian Knows

            hanrahan @31.3.1.2

            In no way circular.
            You’ve distorted it (surprise, surprise), like my creationist example it should go:

            A/ Sceptics are not legitimate because they don’t know what they’re talking about.
            B/ “Real” scientists will never debate sceptics because they don’t know what they’re talking about.

            This has only been reinforced by you wheeling out the long discredited OP

            (I have read your 9 comments to date on this thread, seeing that you are generally here to troll people with your attacks, to cause angry replies and create fog. You are expected to improve the quality of your comments or you will be treated with snipping or worse) CTS

            211

        • #
          MudCrab

          It’s the same reason scientists are tired of talking to young Earth creationists.

          Of course the variation in putting your fingers in your ears and claiming “I can’t hear you” is to change the subject to something completely non related.

          Face it Ian, you are a paid troll of the Left for the same reason dogs chase balls when excited.

          (and unless you can prove dogs do not chase balls, you will forever be a paid troll)

          (also, unless you can prove you have a Ph.D in dog behaviour, I am not remotely interested in your dog argument because you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.)

          (also also, I am a Crab. I have claw knowledge and have a solid theory (with models) that your middle fingers have been cut off with a claw. Don’t try showing me your fingers. That is not proof. You are not a Crab and not qualified to discuss.)

          Apart from that, how have you been? Doing anything fun over Christmas? :)

          50

    • #

      Why not follow the scientific method…yep, the scientific method.Ahemm.

      ‘First,’ as Feynmen says, ‘you guess.’ that is, ask a question of nature, your hypothesis. Has to be framed as a falsifiable proposition, otherwise its pseudo-science. ‘Then you test.’ If your guess doesn’t comply with evidence, it’s wro-ong. Doesn’t matter how beautiful the theory or how many or how important the people who hold that theory, if it doesn’t comply with evidence,it’s wro-ong. So if, for example, re CO2 warming hypothesis, it doesn’t conform to the required hotspot signature in the troposphere, or if, for example, CO2 is shown to be rising linearly but temperatures diverge, there goes your hypothesis. Can’t go add-justing measurements to support your theory, can’t go pretending the hot spot’s there, or ignoring its non-presence, that’s theory inocculation and contrary to science methodology. If yr theory clashes with obs, it’s wro-ong.

      151

      • #
        Ian Knows

        beth,

        Great, what you’ve just described IS the scientific method.
        Put it in a paper and submit it please.

        210

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        The hot spot is not a necessary part of greenhouse theory.
        The hot spot is the hypothesised response from *any* kind of warming.
        Warming has been measured, but the hot spot is still being investigated. The lack of concrete evidence for the hotspot would indicate one of three things:
        1/ We lack the tools to find it or we are looking in the wrong place
        2/ It isn’t warming
        3/ The modelling that predicts warming causes a hot spot is wrong

        As you can see, our failure to find a hot spot has zero implication for greenhouse theory.

        29

        • #
          sunsettommy

          Craig T. writes this misleading statement:

          The hot spot is not a necessary part of greenhouse theory.
          The hot spot is the hypothesised response from *any* kind of warming.

          The IPCC clearly shows that the “hot spot” is important to the AGW conjecture. It is a VITAL part of the so called green house conjecture. It is specifically depended on “greenhouse gases” as pointed out in the IPCC report.


          Craig goes on with this silliness:

          Warming has been measured, but the hot spot is still being investigated. The lack of concrete evidence for the hotspot would indicate one of three things:

          It is the PROFOUND LACK of warming in the Tropical Troposphere that has been measured, thus the “hot spot” as published by the IPCC projection is a failure.

          Craig goes on with this lie, since the region is specifically located by the IPCC themselves and there is Satellite data available for the two regions mentioned in the IPCC report.

          1/ We lack the tools to find it or we are looking in the wrong place

          Craig again:

          2/ It isn’t warming

          It is warming at about 1/3 the modeled rate in one region, the other region a slight cooling rate.

          Last words from Craig, who finally gets it correct!

          3/ The modelling that predicts warming causes a hot spot is wrong

          I went over this at a forum I debate warmists in it, with all the charts and links to the IPCC reports showing that in deed stated that “greenhouse gases are the cause for a “hot spot”.


          HERE

          HERE

          HERE

          Crick the warmist at the forum did the same this you did here, claim that the IPCC didn’t project a “hot spot”, he continues to do after these THREE links that makes it abundantly clear they DID project that “greenhouse gases” was projected to create a ‘hot spot”. Here are the actual words from the IPCC:

          Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

          The IPCC chart in the link makes that clear.

          61

          • #

            ‘Thousands of billions of dollars spent and not one piece of observed, measured evidence that supports, the AGW hypothesis over natural variability….not one piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, and not a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming, supposedly caused by our burning of hydrocarbon fuels has been empirically, measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.’

            No fingerprint, no CO2/emperature correlation, no agreement on clouds,
            not a bit, not a whit, not a jot, still being investigated.Ho hum.

            60

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Tommy, you are completely and utterly wrong on this – the “hot spot” has nothing to do with *anthropogenic* climate change.

            If somebody finds the hot spot, this in no way shape nor form proves that global warming is *anthropogenic*. It simply has nothing to do with it.

            I clicked on your links to see where you went wrong on this, but it just took me to some sort of blogsite. You should try primary sources instead, maybe that’s why you don’t understand what the hot spot does and does not mean?

            29

            • #
              AndyG55

              No hot spot..

              Except in your desperation, CT.

              Ducking and weaving again.. so funny. :-)

              Do you have that proof of warming by atmospheric CO2 yet, CT?

              What do we “deny” that you can scientifically prove, CT?

              53

            • #
              sunsettommy

              Gosh, Craig Thomas is now in argument with the IPCC!

              Your reply made clear that you have no counterpoint to offer against my FULL quotes from the IPCC report and the Charts that was from the IPCC website. I posted the links to the IPCC website too for all the quotes I posted. It was a FORUM I posted it all there that is easy to post large charts in.

              I posted the hard evidence where they made SPECIFIC statements at WHERE it was expected to show up, showed that it was “greenhouse gases” that was the dominant cause for that warm area. Too bad you are to unwilling to accept the IPCC’s own statements and charts about the “hot spot”, self deception is a truly bad idea as it holds you back your learning curve.

              Your arm waving reply was boring and dead on arrival as you didn’t disprove anything I wrote.

              41

            • #
              sunsettommy

              Craig Thomas,

              Quoting straight from the IPCC website:

              “Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c)…”

              Figure 9.1 Chart is here

              Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

              I have made it clear using only the IPCC website that there was indeed a ‘hot spot” projection in it.

              41

        • #
          AndyG55

          1/ We lack the tools to find it or we are looking in the wrong place

          Maybe look in the ocean.. ala Trenberth ;-)

          2/ It isn’t warming

          Well no, Only warming in 40 years has been from El Nino effects.

          3/ The modelling that predicts warming causes a hot spot is wrong”

          All climate models are wrong, NONE are useful because you don’t know which ones are most wrong.

          There is no empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming, CT.

          It is a baseless conjecture, a myth, a fairy-tale.

          73

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Andy, this conversation appears to have whizzed over your head, but I will try to concentrate you on the key elements here:

            1/ The suggested hot spot is at the top of the atmosphere, Andy, (so no, it’s not going to be in the ocean, lol).

            2/ Every El Nino in the past 80 years except one or two has been hotter than the last. Nobody in their right mind suggests that El Nino actually warms the planet.

            3/ if the modelling that predicts the hot spot is wrong, then the lack of any hot spot isn’t proof that climate change is wrong. Do you get it?

            Your assertion that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas is simply insane.

            38

            • #
              AndyG55

              1… ROFLMAO. Go and find your hot spot CT. They seek it here, they seek it there… etc :-)

              2.. So now you are PRETENDING that El Ninos are caused by atmospheric CO2…ROFLMAO !!!!! Ever hear of the series of very strong solar cycles last century, CT.. or do you DENY that the Sun warms the Earth???
              There is absolutely no mechanism whereby atmospheric CO2 can cause ocean warming.

              3. Glad you realise ALL the models are wrong. :-) Perhaps you are capable of learning.

              Do you have ANY empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming , CT

              You will go insane with all your ducking and weaving.

              CO2 is a radiative active gas, that absorbs and emits at some specific frequencies… nothing more, nothing less.

              The only thing it has to do with a greenhouse is that they use it in greenhouses to help plants grow.

              It does NOT stop convection or modify it in any way, it aids in conduction.

              83

            • #
    • #
      AndyG55

      IKSFA, You DON’T KNOW the scientific method.

      So how would you have the vaguest clue if it is being used?

      Educate yourself, please, and stop your empty trolling.

      138

      • #
        AndyG55

        ps. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

        ANY AT ALL ?????

        “that rising CO2 levels are nothing to worry about”

        Your very question is asking to prove a negative, when a positive has NEVER been proven or measured.

        That is NOT science.

        You wimped out last time, care to at least try this time??

        Seems that Ian Knows NOTHING !!!

        The only REAL evidence is that enhanced atmospheric CO2 is of GREAT BENEFIT to all life on Earth.

        127

    • #
      AndyG55

      Plenty of science and engineering degrees on this forum, IKN.

      And PLENTY in her audiences.

      117

    • #
      AndyG55

      “talking to other deniers”

      No deniers here. We all KNOW that climate changes, NATURALLY.. all the time.

      Seems you know nothing.

      Tell us what we are “denying” and provide scientific proof that it is actually true.

      This is NOT fairy-tail time.

      Time for SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that atmospheric CO2 cause warming.

      We are waiting.

      Or prove that YOU KNOW NOTHING

      137

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Ramanathan, V., 1988: The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change: A Test by An Inadvertent Global Experiment. Science, 240: 293-299.

        • Ramanathan, V., R. D. Cess, E. F. Harrison, P. Minnis, B. R. Barkstrom, E. Ahmad, and D. Hartmann, 1989: Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment. Science, 243: 57-63.

        • Ramanathan, V., E. F. Harrison and B. R. Barkstrom, 1989: Climate and the Earth’s Radiation Budget. Physics Today, 42(5): 22-33.

        • Raval, A. and V. Ramanathan, 1989: Observational Determination of the Greenhouse Effect. Nature, 342: 758-761.

        Get back to me after reading these

        510

        • #
          AndyG55

          H2O, H2O, H2O ..

          Yes, we KNOW that H2O and its changes of state cause variable energy transfer in the atmosphere.

          “Satellite measurements are used to quantify the atmospheric greenhouse effect, defined here as the infrared radiation energy trapped by atmospheric gases and clouds.”

          YAWN !!!!

          97

        • #
          AndyG55

          CO2 DOES NOT trap anything.

          It immediately thermalises absorbed radiation to the rest of the atmosphere where the energy is dealt with by the usual atmospheric transfers of conduction and convection.

          There is ZERO signal of CO2 warming in any real facet of Earth’s climate.

          Not in atmospheric temperatures

          Not in sea level rise

          Not in Hurricanes and other extreme weather events.

          117

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            And your proof?

            611

            • #
              AndyG55

              roflmao

              you FAILED, and now you ask me for proof?

              funny little trollette. ! :-)

              There is ZERO signal of CO2 warming in any real facet of Earth’s climate.

              Not in atmospheric temperatures.

              Not in sea level rise.

              Not in Hurricanes and other extreme weather events.

              End of story.

              Prove it wrong, using REAL data, not massively fabricated nonsense and models.

              108

            • #
              AndyG55

              Don’t you know ANYTHING about re-emittance time vs collisional time of lower atmospheric CO2 ??

              REALLY?

              Wilful ignorance, perhaps ???

              OMG.. no wonder you are SO LOST !!

              87

            • #

              Peter F, not ‘proof,’ that’s mathematics, not science. Science is about evidence based ‘falsifiable’ inquiry. You might read Karl Popper.

              81

        • #
          AndyG55

          1995 paper by Ramanathan

          … the important points made by Prof. Ramanathan are that:

          1) CO2 is not a significant climate driver,

          2) the aqua-sphere is far more significant,

          3) the response of the continents to global temperature changes depends significantly upon ocean thermal inertia,

          4) climate scientists have a poor understanding of ocean thermal inertia.

          H2O, H2O, H2O

          127

        • #
          AndyG55

          Ramanathan has made a GREAT living out of climate propaganda,

          via the Scripps institute of climate farce… CATASTROPHIC PREDICTIONS R’US !!

          Even gets to talk to the pope. !!

          Works with the worst performing climate models. So funny

          107

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Victor and Ramanathan urge, however, that there’s still time to act and the scientific community can lead the effort: “To communicate these new findings, scientists also need to think about how they influence society, in particular, they should build new partnerships with groups that shape how societies frame justice and morality, including religious institutions.””

          Do you REALLY support or believe people with this deep a fundeMENTALISM ?

          Really ?????????

          This is NOT SCIENCE.. it is socialist activism, writ loud and clear.

          136

        • #
          philthegeek

          Get back to me after reading these

          You’d better hope those papers all use small words then. :)

          610

          • #
            AndyG55

            You are planning an attempt at reading them, are you, phlip?

            You have already shown most science is well beyond you.

            Keep seeking attention, little boy.

            127

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Phil – this site is basically fact free. Their standard operating procedure is to demand (in shouty capitals) that you supply the facts, and if you do, they will say those facts do not count.

            you could say that if you supply a fact, you should also supply a trigger warning, because they will arc up when you do

            716

            • #
              MatrixTransform

              LOL.

              Instead of making conclusions before the data is in…

              maybe you guys should try a ‘fact’ or two and see what happens?

              93

            • #
              AndyG55

              “this site is basically fact free”

              All your posts have most definitely been FACT FREE.

              ZERO EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2.

              You know that, so stop your childish trolling.

              117

            • #
              philthegeek

              :) But our AngryG does a cute impression of a slightly rabid energiser bunny when you hit its ” disengage brain and rapid post: trigger. Which is not very hard. :)

              510

              • #
                AndyG55

                (SNIPPED the empty, unnecessary, useless comment. Stop attacking people you reply to!) CTS

                66

              • #
                AndyG55

                No batteries, Phil? No brain to engage? Poor thing.

                CTS, Phil’s comment should also be snipped. Mine was just in reply to his attack on me.

                32

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Are you trying to verbalize science?

              It’s all about planning, observation, measurements, recording and assessment.

              Most Cli-Sci fiction has none of the above structure: just overwhelming verbiage.

              KK

              71

            • #
              Annie

              Peter Fitzroy, if that’s what you really think I wonder that you bother coming here? Most odd.

              64

            • #
              AndyG55

              “you could say that if you supply a fact”

              Waiting, waiting !!!

              You are empty so far, Pffft !

              46

        • #
          theRealUniverse

          Peter F is DOESNT matter what they say in that paper GHG breaks thermo rule 1 AND 2 period!! It has been disproved in several published papers. AND measurement AND tests on OTHER PLANETS ATMOSPHERES including VENUS 97%CO2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          62

    • #
      bobl

      Here you go Ian.
      I am an Electrical Engineer, as such I know all about electricity generation, and am an information domain expert on Electricity, unassailably qualified to speak on this topic, far more so than any Climate Scientist Environmental Science grad or Dead Kangaroo expert, as is Dr Evans, fellow EE. I will tell you that the world CANNOT reliably be run on renewable energy. For example to power JUST THE GRID of Singapore with renewable energy requires the tiling of an area six times the area of singapore with solar panels and batteries, and replaced every 15 years – the definition of unsustainable. Add in transport and industry you can double that. I might also add that EE’s wrote the book on feedback, the concept of feedback in climate models was taken from Electrical Engineering and misapplied to climate. That makes me also a domain expert on feedback. The preconditions that Bode placed on his feedback equations are not met in the climate. Climate is not LINEAR OR INVARIANT and there is no infinite power source.
      Climate models are also scalar (DC) analysis subject to these restrictions, it’s impossible to know the future of a feedback system without dynamic (AC) analysis especially if that system is even slightly non linear.

      Of course you must believe me because I’m qualified to say and you are not …. or maybe you are a hypocrite ?

      162

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Love being a “science denier” with two degrees in science and 30 years in science R&D.
      Maybe you should look at the actual data son.
      Not the made up stuff the catastropharians publish.

      141

    • #
      Curious George

      It is rather difficult to prove a negative. Please submit evidence that you are not a Putin’s puppet.

      20

  • #
    Hanrahan

    Does anyone else have this sense of foreboding? I feel we are at a tipping point, but not the one alarmists speak of.

    Two years ago I was optimistic that Trump would make a difference, that he would drag the world back from the precipice that the crazy left is determined to take us over. I now feel he has three months, six max, to blow the lid off the deep corruption in the US and by extension, the world. I fear the forces agin him, starring the press, and an apathetic electorate will overpower him.

    With wall to wall labor governments for a decade [probably] Australia is lost. Being old has it’s compensations. I don’t know what the young are thinking but they have a lifetime to ponder their poor choices.

    70

    • #
      bobl

      Yes the benefit to being old is that we can move our superannuation out of the hands of the gurbby mitts of the government and insulate ourselves from the coming government meltdown. I feel for the young that are not in a position to do that. Especially those who are renting or living week to week.

      The commbank sent me a note this week

      The overdraw feature previously applied only to cheque payments and direct debits. We’ve expanded this to instore purchases, online purchases and scheduled BPAY® payments.

      Sound great hey, but hidden in this little gem is that if you do attempt to overdraw by any of these new means (accidentally or otherwise) Commbank will charge a fee, either if they approve the overdraft or deny it ! This is not about customers, this is about increasing revenue from bounce and overdraft fees.

      40

      • #
        MatrixTransform

        bobl, we made application to several banks for a mortgage a while ago.
        We did not go with Comm Bank.
        never stopped them sending invoices though …

        Balance = $0.00
        Min Payment = $60.00

        20

  • #
    Gordon

    We are all going to die from climate change!? SO! We are all going to die PERIOD! That is life. People are going to die if we don’t start addressing climate change. Really? When? I have been hearing that since I was child. The world is coming to an end! Well hurry up already! When the Thames river froze over in the 1600-1800′s did the world end? No. The bright spot in the future is that all these loonies will be gone when the climate changes.

    62

  • #
    bobl

    To Phil the geek, Ian Knows (not), Peter Fitzroy and the other paid and unpaid disruptatrons come to entertain us through the elections. Consider your faiths record so far. So far you’ve managed to

    Cause drought and suicide of farmers by opposing dam building

    Cause food riots around the world from using peoples food to make ethanol and biodiesle to burn in your car

    Cause record numbers of grannies to kark it in winter through unaffordable electricity

    Kill record numbers of birds and bats and even threaten the very existance of certain raptors with your 18th century windmill technology

    Burn and blind numerous birds alive over solar thermal plants by actually attracting them (because they look like water)

    Prevent black kids around the world from having basic hygene througth the application of energy through the world bank denying funds to build cheap coal fired power plants – thank god for the chinese filling the gap.

    Render our electricity syste3m almost uncontrollable leading to a full shutdown in SA and rationing in other states, only a matter of time until people die.

    Destroy the only effective defense humans have against cooling of the climate (Energy) despite the inevitability of the next ice age.

    Despite whining about CO2 standing in the way of building the only viable alternative energy source Nuclear.

    Far from singing a virtuous song what you are doing is harmful. You are killing millions now in the vain hope that you might save a handfull of people from a largely imaginary fate in a hundred years! This is not virtuous, it is evil.

    182

    • #
      bobl

      OOps, I forgot they pretty much caused the 2011 Brisbane flood by AGW inspired policies to keep WAY too much water in a flood mitigation dam and they are the cause of a pretty substantial part of our National Debt.

      113

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      I’m not following your wind turbine point – way more birds and other wildlife are killed by cars and trucks – so by your logic we should ban cars and trucks?

      I’m with you all the way then

      412

      • #
        AndyG55

        OMG that pointless argument again

        Show me a raptor killed by a car. Many sliced and dice by the erratic energy crucifixes.

        Wind turbines decimate huge areas of birds of prey and bats, allowing rodents and insects to proliferate

        Why are you so wilfully in DENIAL about these basic facts ?

        97

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          show me a raptor killed by a wind turbine you cuck

          49

          • #
            AndyG55

            You are NOT being serious.. WOW !!!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lb6VeMaXy8

            (SNIPPED)

            No evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2, PF. NONE. EMPTY !!

            (You need to tone down the responses to people you argue with) CTS

            107

            • #
              • #
                AndyG55

                1952 WOW ! gees , I bet that found some searching.

                ROFLMAO

                You really are totally PATHETIC at this, PF.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO5LjgIEofg

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPbGr78dMWw

                (SNIPPED) CTS

                97

              • #
                Craig Thomas

                Andy, why are you so shrill? Did you sit down on yourself?

                http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

                As you can see, death by wind turbine is a spectacularly uncommon cause of mortality among birds.

                The leading cause is:
                “Window strikes – estimated to kill 97 to 976 million birds/year – Millions of houses and buildings, with their billions of windows, pose a significant threat to birds. Birds see the natural habitat mirrored in the glass and fly directly into the window, causing injury and, in 50% or more of the cases, death. ”

                Now, seeing as you are, Andy, so very concerned about causes of bird mortality, and using the same form of argument you appear to enjoy making, I expect you will go ahead right away and remove every single window from every single building and vehicle that you are responsible for.

                Or are you all talk and no walk?

                25

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor CT, living in a world of denial.

                Only way you can accept the devastation wrought by wind turbines.

                The ratio of bird deaths per window vs bird deaths by wind turbine would be many decimal places.

                Slice and dice em, CT.

                43

              • #

                fair point andy… and you also need to look at other risk factors such as bird density in regions where there are windows vs turbines. Given that windows are ubiquitous and widespread I’d guess that fluctuations due to position of windows is not an issue. With turbines they occupy particular prominent open sites and are at a particular height etc

                10

              • #

                there were about 30 of papers corresponding to the search “wind AND turbine AND (avian OR bird OR flyway)” in the last 2 months. 540 in total. Hard to mount an argument that it is not a concern to scientists.

                recent examples

                Wind farms have cascading impacts on ecosystems across trophic levels.
                By: Thaker, Maria; Zambre, Amod; Bhosale, Harshal
                Nature ecology & evolution Volume: 2 Issue: 12 Pages: 1854-1858 Published: 2018-Dec
                2.
                Effectiveness of a mitigation measure for the lesser kestrel (Falco naumanni) in wind farms in Spain.
                By: Pescador, Moises; Gomez Ramirez, Juan Ignacio; Peris, Salvador J
                Journal of environmental management Volume: 231 Pages: 919-925 Published: 2018-Nov-10
                3.
                Effects of development of wind energy and associated changes in land use on bird densities in upland areas.
                By: Fernandez-Bellon, Dario; Wilson, Mark W; Irwin, Sandra; et al.
                Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology Published: 2018-Oct-22
                4.
                Piezoelectric smart composite blades for collision monitoring: Measurement of mechanical properties and impact sensitivity
                By: Kang, Sang-Hyeon; Kang, Myeongcheol; Kang, Lae-Hyong
                COMPOSITE STRUCTURES Volume: 202 Special Issue: SI Pages: 1295-1307 Published: OCT 15 2018
                5.
                Impacts of onshore wind energy production on birds and bats: recommendations for future life cycle impact assessment developments
                By: Laranjeiro, Tiago; May, Roel; Verones, Francesca
                INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT Volume: 23 Issue: 10 Pages: 2007-2023
                6.
                A continental system for forecasting bird migration
                By: Van Doren, Benjamin M.; Horton, Kyle G.
                SCIENCE Volume: 361 Issue: 6407 Pages: 1115-1117 Published: SEP 14 2018
                7.
                Quantifying avian avoidance of offshore wind turbines: Current evidence and key knowledge gaps
                By: Cook, Aonghais S. C. P.; Humphreys, Elizabeth M.; Bennet, Finlay; et al.
                MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Volume: 140 Pages: 278-288 Published: SEP 2018
                8.
                Disturbance affects biotic community composition at desert wind farms
                By: Keehn, Jade E.; Feldman, Chris R.
                WILDLIFE RESEARCH Volume: 45 Issue: 5 Pages: 383-396 Published: SEP 2018
                9.
                Movement patterns of white-tailed sea eagles near wind turbines
                By: Krone, Oliver; Treu, Gabriele
                JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT Volume: 82 Issue: 7 Pages: 1367-1375 Published: SEP 2018
                10.
                Automated monitoring for birds in flight: Proof of concept with eagles at a wind power facility
                By: McClure, Christopher J. W.; Martinson, Luke; Allison, Taber D.
                BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Volume: 224 Pages: 26-33 Published: AUG 2018
                11.
                Using network analysis to identify indicator species and reduce collision fatalities at wind farms
                By: Sebastian-Gonzalez, Esther; Manuel Perez-Garcia, Juan; Carrete, Martina; et al.
                BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Volume: 224 Pages: 209-212 Published: AUG 2018

                00

              • #

                and these are highly cited reviews that consider a lot of evidence. and there my spamming ends

                1.
                Impacts of wind energy on environment: A review
                By: Wang, Shifeng; Wang, Sicong
                RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS Volume: 49 Pages: 437-443 Published: SEP 2015
                2.
                Environmental issues associated with wind energy – A review
                By: Dai, Kaoshan; Bergot, Anthony; Liang, Chao; et al.
                RENEWABLE ENERGY Volume: 75 Pages: 911-921 Published: MAR 2015

                3.
                Direct Mortality of Birds from Anthropogenic Causes
                By: Loss, Scott R.; Will, Tom; Marra, Peter
                ANNUAL REVIEW OF ECOLOGY, EVOLUTION, AND SYSTEMATICS, VOL 46 Book Series: Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics Volume: 46 Pages: 99-120 Published: 2015
                4.
                Understanding bird collisions at wind farms: An updated review on the causes and possible mitigation strategies
                By: Marques, Ana Teresa; Batalha, Helena; Rodrigues, Sandra; et al.
                BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Volume: 179 Pages: 40-52 Published: NOV 2014
                5.
                Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States
                By: Loss, Scott R.; Will, Tom; Marra, Peter P.
                BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Volume: 168 Pages: 201-209 Published: DEC 2013
                6.
                Comparing Bird and Bat Fatality-Rate Estimates Among North American Wind-Energy Projects
                By: Smallwood, K. Shawn
                WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN Volume: 37 Issue: 1 Pages: 19-33 Published: MAR 2013
                7.
                The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: A meta-analysis
                By: Benitez-Lopez, Ana; Alkemade, Rob; Verweij, Pita A.
                BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Volume: 143 Issue: 6 Pages: 1307-1316 Published: JUN 2010

                00

              • #

                To your comment Craig. Sparrows and pigeons hitting windows in urban setting is not the same as an orange bellied parrot trying to safely cross Bass Straight. Ecological impact is assessed and quantified by more than sheer numbers.

                30

              • #
                AndyG55

                Birds NEST in building, in front of windows, above windows..

                It is their urban environment

                Heck How stupid to fly into one. And every step is now made to make sure they can see the windows.

                Wind Turbine blades are whole new thing for birds.

                They are not stationary, they are like a big guillotine. !!

                Russian roulette with a meat cleaver !!

                33

              • #

                Andy – I went through those 540 papers and it is remarkable how many are about mitigation; engineering (eg blade design) or ecological or behavioural. There is lots of industry funding for research as they know that if they don’t improve the impact of the turbines there will be a backlash. It is investment protection research.

                30

              • #

                Craig… did you read the link you sent?

                The section on wind farms is highly supportive of… Andy. And it was written in 2003 so presumably the data is a bit older. When there was a fraction of the number of turbines as now.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                By their very design, and the speed of the blade tips, they are a disaster for avian life.

                Make them out of foam rubber, it would still make no difference.

                And the crazy thing is that they are pointlessly unnecessary anyway !!

                33

              • #
                Craig Thomas

                This is amazing – these people who desperately want to smother our planet in coal exhaust are amazingly concerned about a tiny number of bird deaths.

                What a bunch of greenie cucks, huh?

                27

              • #
                Gee Ayeeee

                some people don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I see no reason to praise something based on one aspect of its functionality if I dislike other consequences.

                40

              • #
                AndyG55

                ” smother our planet in coal exhaust “

                WOW, truly bizarre !!!!!

                You mean CO2, the gas that ALL LIFE DEPENDS ON?

                You have a truly wacked-out little mind, CT. !!

                There is ZERO evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 is anything but TOTALLY BENEFICIAL to the planet and all life on it.

                A LACK of CO2, however, would bring ALL life to an end, VERY QUICKLY.

                Haven’t you ever heard of the CARBON CYCLE, CT

                The relatively tiny amount of human released CO2, from where it was sequestered accidentally eons ago, has enhanced that CARBON CYCLE,

                and the world’s plant life is LUVING IT.

                33

          • #
            MatrixTransform

            Well, I once worked in the Concentrated Solar field.

            Boids and bugs never made it thru the flux.

            Yeah I know, video or it never happened right?

            https://youtu.be/ICLXQN_lURk

            raptor turbine (3:07) = https://youtu.be/dsGiaSOaq9o

            70

      • #
        Hanrahan

        I’m picturing a young hood in court in Chicago: “Your Honour, some bum gets killed every day in Chicago streets and you are trying me for one measly murder? Get real”. Somehow I doubt it would work and only a greenie could think it a viable argument.

        70

      • #
        Bobl

        When was the last time you ran into a bat or an eagle. Also my car has to strike the bird where windmills just kill them with the pressure wave.

        40

        • #
          AndyG55

          I don’t particularly like bats, but the wholesale destruction of colonies of them by wind turbines leaves the environment with no insect eaters. The whole ecological chain is disrupted.

          54

        • #
          Bobl

          Me either especially when they mess on the car, but I don’t like shifty Bill shorten or Penny (always) Wong either, in all cases I wouldn’t recommend extermination. Moving them somewhere nice where they can’t sh1t on me, yes that’ll do – in all the cases.

          50

  • #
    Critical Mass

    For the record, I was the originator of the nickname “Occasional Cortex”. This can be verified by reference to my Disqus Profile, which keeps a chronological report of all comments made on websites which use that platform.

    I dubbed her with that name in comments on articles by writers for American Thinker, Front Page Magazine and Breitbart a few months ago, when Occasion Cortex first appeared on the scene.

    121

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    CLIMATE CATCH-22

    Folk who have convinced themselves that government/agency control of the planet’s climate/weather is both desirable and feasible.are in for a shock. No wonder Professor Richard Lindzen called their breathtaking hubris “unfathomable silliness” in a GWPF lecture last month.

    He said something else too:

    “So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization.”(Professor R Lindzen, Annual GWPF Lecture, London, October 8, 2018)

    The irony: even if the alarmists are right – about CO2 – it is now financially impossible and technically impractical to prevent allegedly dangerous anthropogenic climate change or global warming by implementing their so-called “solutions”.

    For example, Dr John Constable, GWPF’s energy editor, did a critique the IPCC’s latest Special Report, SR15. He concluded that:

    “SR15, if thoughtfully read, should oblige policy makers to conclude that the obstacles to limiting global warming to 1.5℃, and indeed even to higher temperatures, are not just arbitrary blockages, rocks in the road to be removed, but fundamental and structural problems with the policy options currently available, which are almost certainly more harmful than the climate change they set out to mitigate.”

    UN and IPCC also seem unaware that the turbulence in global financial markets is likely to continue with worse to come. Expect we will have more to worry about soon than controlling the climate.

    Reference: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/climate-catch-22-in-poland/

    70

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      Lindzen has a history of publishing error-strewn debunked research – why would you listen to him any more?

      211

      • #
        AndyG55

        CT has a history of yapping ignorant twaddle.

        Nobody listens to him anymore because of it.

        Lindzen NOT wrong,

        just that the climate mafia don’t agree. VERY different thing.

        63

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          More hilarity from planet Andy…

          Andy says, “Lindzen NOT wrong”

          Richard Lindzen says, “we made some some stupid mistakes”, “It was just embarrassing”, “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”

          36

          • #
            AndyG55

            One small mistake, against the MAMMOTH amount of huge errors from the so-called “climate scientists”, who will NEVER admit that they are wrong

            Do you have that proof of warming by atmospheric CO2 yet, CT?

            What do we “deny” that you can scientifically prove, CT?

            Distract and avoid, little child.

            53

            • #
              AndyG55

              And he admitted, THEN CORRECTED his error… That is SCIENCE

              Something that “climate science™” has yet to do about any of its MANY errors..

              They just double down and make it worse.

              That is NOT science.

              Do you even know the difference ?????

              43

              • #
                Craig Thomas

                Lindzen’s work was execrable. His “correction” basically consisted in him changing his paper so that it ended up saying everything that any other climate scientist’s paper says, except Lindzen continued to claim the new paper supported the defective paper’s conclusions.
                He is utterly unreliable.

                Please name an “uncorrected error”. On second thought, – please refer me to any sensible adult who can name any “uncorrected error”.

                36

              • #
                AndyG55

                No, you just think is work is bad, because you CANNOT accept the truth of it.

                You have NOTHING to offer to the discussion CT

                You can’t even provide any evidence of the most basic FARCE of the AGW MEME, that of CO2 warming.

                Uncorrected errors of the AGW farce are too numerous to list.

                EVERY climate model

                Sea Ice linearity,

                Sea level rise,

                Extreme weather

                WARMING FROM ATMOSPHERIC CO2.

                Gees, the list is almost infinite!

                I doubt you have ever met a sensible adult in your leftist AGW circles

                The only thing you are reliable at is being WRONG.

                Do you have that proof of warming by atmospheric CO2 yet, CT?

                What do we “deny” that you can scientifically prove, CT?

                Distract and avoid, CT

                The AGW apologist way

                63

  • #
    nc

    She is the perfect example of why the voting age needs to be raised to thirty. Yes she is 29 but most at thirty have developed some worldly sense, well maybe. Oh never mind.

    24

    • #
      Analitik

      She is the sort where age and experience count for nought since her convictions override any facts presented to her.
      What is needed is a mental competency test for sufferage.

      00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    ” to conclude that the obstacles to limiting global warming to 1.5℃, and indeed even to higher temperatures, are not just arbitrary blockages, rocks in the road to be removed, but fundamental and structural problems with the policy options currently available, which are almost certainly more harmful than the climate change they set out to mitigate.” Sorry you luke warmist, thats is wrong too. Nothing you do will change nature!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    10

    • #
      Bobl

      That’s not exactly true, mankind has the capacity to alter climate if it wanted to, mostly in the direction of cooling via a nuclear winter. Let’s hope they never try.

      10

      • #
        sophocles

        cooling via a nuclear winter. Let’s hope they never try.

        Patience, Bobl. Patience.
        The MENA (Middle East North Africa) states will explode, again, when food shortages hit and someone will press that button …

        30

  • #
    cedarhill

    Swelyn Duke found the midterms Democrat vote by group:
    90 percent of blacks,
    79 percent of Jews,
    77 percent of Asians,
    69 percent of Hispanics
    59 percent of women
    voted Democrat — SAME AS USUAL.
    See https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/americant_from_midterms_to_end_times.html

    One can liken the state of America to a building that has had termites quietly chewing away for decades. Then, seemingly, suddenly, they emerge when parts of the structure breaks down. The American Left has truly emerged. Even diverse conservatives as Dinesh D’Sousa and @NeverTrumper Jonah Goldberg’s have books describing the takeover.

    If history is predictive, the Socialist totalitarians will soon complete their take over of America. Initailly, it will be a form of corporatism tending toward Chavez’s version due, mainly, to the immigrant surge. If one thinks Global Warming is difficult to root out, try socialism.

    For those commenting on the decline in cognition and reasoning of the younger generations, Dr. Shannahan’s Deep Nutrition should be read along with any of a dozen books about the history of the Standard American Diet (SAD), sugar, and it’s impact. One can make a very strong, evidence based, assessment the promotion of SAD contributes to the decline. Since the SAD was promoted by special interest groups, many that are Left oriented, one can speculate an evil conspiracy theory that dumbing down and making folks dependent on government food and health care is part of the Left’s plan. However, the Left, is not likely to be that intelligent regarding their strategies leaving us with a self-created health disaster.

    51

  • #
    The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

    Reading through the comments, this will be a “general” reply to most everyone:

    First, I have three degrees in Math, and GeoSciences. No, none of them would classify me as a “climatologist”, except that the geological sciences have been practicing paleoecology, paleoenvironmental-reconstructions, and other studies of Earth history for nigh onto three centuries, or longer. The so-called ‘science’ of “climatology” has barely made it out of its infancy, so I tend to think that those who have studied more than just the past two centuries of “temperature” have some insight into what, and how, the “average” global temperature has changed in the past four-give-or-take billion (sorry, mates, make that ‘thousand-millions’) years.

    Second, the reference to carbon dioxide as a ‘heat-trapping’ or “greenhouse” gas is a complete misnomer. Gerlich & Tschusner (2007) and Woods (1905) proved that a greenhouse is heated by suppression of convection, not the “trapping” of heat from converted solar visible light, by window glass (which, by the way, is only about 11% opaque to LWIR or ‘thermal’ IR). Even NASA carries on with the myth that window glass, being “opaque” to thermal IR, is the cause of a greenhouse being warm.

    Third, throughout the geological record, we have times of very high carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, and the Earth seen to have been in a glacial state. E.g., the Cryogenian, carbon dioxide was likely present in concentrations measured as percents, and not ppm (Gradstein, Smith, Ogg [2004]; Gradstein, Ogg, Ogg [2012, 2016]). Then, again in the late Ordovician, carbon dioxide was over ten times today’s concentration (north of 4000 ppm), and a global glacial event was underway.

    If carbon dioxide has all this “heat-trapping” power, then the glacial events of the past should have been impossible. Now, it is likely that Fitzroy (wasn’t he the guy who captained the ship, HMS Beagle, and was a “denier” of Darwin’s findings?), Mr. Ian, and others will chime in with the canard, ‘the sun was much less luminous back then!’, trying to deflect the fact that this less-luminous sun also produced “warm” periods (Ediacaran, Cambrian, Devonian, Permian … ), and that the temperature fluctuated between all regimes, regardless of what the carbon dioxide concentration was doing.

    Fourth, unlike our young padawan trolls here, the geosciences tend to look at all of Earth history, not just what has happened since the Industrial Revolution (and, to further the point, a troll at WUWT even said that the ‘characteristics’ of carbon dioxide suddenly changed around 1950, give-or-take a few years), so trying to make a case for carbon dioxide being the “cause” of a change in Earth temperature, or a control of it, is lacking.

    At WUWT, on the “Reference Pages” tab, Anthony has posted a chart, produced by Bill Illis, showing 750 million years of climate change. Mr. Illis also plotted the IPCC-based temperature (as measured by the “3 Kelvins per doubling”) against the temperature graph. I’ve challenged everyone and anyone to run a cross-correlation between the two, and report their results. To date, no “warmist” has reported their results (the two are anti-correlated, so it is obvious why they would not want to report what they found). Let us see if Fitzroy, or Mr. Ian will take up the challenge, and get us a correlation coefficient.

    It would be helpful, but not necessary, if you specified the X-corr software you used; I’m familiar with most of it, but often a new one I am not familiar with, pops up. It would also be helpful to know any base-2 padding you used, and whether you stayed time-domain or chose to use frequency-domain, plus the taper window. Usually, I can spot any errors in the analysis if you supply the ancillaries.

    My regards to all,

    The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler (a crashing bore and an even bigger bully, according to C.T.)

    123

    • #
      Bobl

      No Vlad, good to hear from you

      60

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      For Pete’s sake, the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses.
      You might want to read up on it before posting any more such silly nonsense.

      49

      • #
        AndyG55

        The atmospheric greenhouse effect has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

        It was always nonsense to call it the greenhouse effect.

        The fact that it was called such by climate scientists attests to their total ignorance of atmospheric physics.

        There is no magic blanket that stop energy escaping, there is no “greenhouse” effect.

        It should be called the atmospheric mass thermal gradient effect.

        54

      • #
        The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

        Mr. Thomas:

        I find myself at a sincere loss of understanding. I’ve re-read my post three times, and there is nowhere that I can find a place that I used the words, ” … atmospheric greenhouse effect … “. From reading over what I posted, it would appear that I was arguing against using any such notion as ‘greenhouse’ effect, or anything else related to ‘greenhouses’ and ‘greenhouse gasses’. Unless something has broken down in my reading comprehension, I stated that such a moniker for carbon dioxide et al is completely inappropriate. A true greenhouse gains/maintains its warmth by the suppression of convective cooling, and I listed two references, one of which is over a century in age.

        We do know that there is an effect from the Earth having this thing we call “atmosphere”, composed mostly of elemental nitrogen, and elemental oxygen, with some two or three dozen ancillary species; most of those are at what we call the ‘trace’ level. The “effect” of our atmosphere is two-fold: our atmosphere keeps us cool during the time we call ‘daylight’ (i.e., less than about 321 Kelvins), and it keeps us warm at the time we call ‘nighttime’ (i.e., greater than 184 Kelvins). In contrast, the lunar surface operates at just two temperatures, depending upon whether one is in ‘daylight’ or ‘nighttime’ or ‘shadow’, viz. 390 Kelvins, to less than 100 Kelvins. The “atmosphere effect” is one of moderation, circulation, distribution, and stabilization. Within a fairly narrow range, for about four (give-or-take) thousand million years, Earth atmosphere has maintained a consistent temperature, while enduring extra-terrestrial impacts, flood volcanism, and a dynamically changing surface.

        I note that neither you, nor this “Ian” person, nor the surnamed “Fitzroy” individual has taken up the challenge to run a cross-correlation on Bill Illis’ chart. I further note that “Ian”, who seemed to claim that most commenters here were science-challenged, has not responded to my deposition that started this sub-thread at (posting number) 40.

        You have two choices here: either apologise to me for mis-stating things that I did not state in the first place, or show me where I wrote the words, ” … atmospheric greenhouse effect … “.

        Please try to read what is posted, not what you ‘think‘ is posted, and please do not put words into my mouth. I’m fully capable of constructing coherent English sentences (and, with a little practice, even some coherent German sentences, though those adjective endings have always been my downfall … ).

        Perhaps we can engage in another discussion, at some point, about Freshman Astrophysics, and SubSolar BlackBody vs. Equilibrium BlackBody temperatures. It’s another of ‘climatology’s’ great failures.

        My regards to all, and hope for a joyous Holiday season to everyone (and, safe travels to Jo especially, and all who will visit loved ones),

        Vlad (a crashing bore, and and even bigger bully, according to C.T.)

        41

  • #

    I’ve dealt with these innocents since 1968. My effort is to show them that altruism is not compatible with flourishing life, that Unvarnished climate data shows no warming trend more recent than from 1930 through WW2, and that voting libertarian repeals bad laws because spoiler votes act to defeat the more coercive of two kleptocracy candidates. Voting libertarian also signals platform writers an uncompromising commitment to vote for freedom and against coercion. Before there was an LP.org we dropped acid with the socialists and worked against surrender to the USSR with the objectivists. But today the Libertarian party provides an effective mechanism–one that already has helped ensure women’s rights and topple a dangerous altruist dictatorship. We welcome voters to multiply the law changing clout of their every trip to the polls and hope Australia abandones coerced gauntlet elections and rediscovers democracy.

    11

  • #
    MatrixTransform

    Dearest Vlad,
    your appearance in these parts is very timely I must say.

    Very impressed that the most venerated expert impaler of all time (second only to perhaps Don Quixote), takes some of his precious focus away from day-to-day impaling to point out the petards carried by Don Fitzroy et al.

    Thanks for making me chuckle.
    :-)

    50

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    ‘characteristics’ of carbon dioxide suddenly changed around 1950, give-or-take a few years),

    Correct – it was subsequently known as the Velikovsky Affair. The greenhouse function of CO2 was invoked by Carl Sagan during the 1970′s to counter Velikovsky’s assertion that Venus, from the historical narratives a recently formed planet, had then to be very hot. At the time mainstream science believed Venus has a climate similar to the Earth.

    Once the space probes could measure the Venusian temperature, Velikovsky’s interpretation was substantiated: Venus was hot.

    However the Western cultural myth, based on the judo-christian belief system, cannot accept Venus being a recently formed planet. It has to be as old as everything else, and hence if it is hot, then CO2 did it. James Hansen did his PhD study under Sagan and concentrated on the Venusian atmosphere. Sagan later admitted he got it wrong, though that was never really emphasised in the literature.

    If you add CO2 into agricultural greenhouses to spur growth, that additional CO2 causes the temperature to drop in the greenhouse.

    But we are dealing with religious belief, and the religious can never be persuaded by rhetoric because the religious can’t think; they do, however, excel at recitation.

    93

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      Hissink puts so much effort into being wrong.

      “The greenhouse function of CO2 was invoked by Carl Sagan during the 1970′s to counter Velikovsky’s assertion that Venus, from the historical narratives a recently formed planet, had then to be very hot. At the time mainstream science believed Venus has a climate similar to the Earth.”

      Mayer published in 1958 that Venus was close to 600k.
      Mariner2 flew close in 1962, confirming Venus was between 490k and 590k.
      Veneras 4,5,6,7 starting in 1967, until 1970 conducted missions into Venus’ atmosphere and onto its surface and measured its temperature as 730k, 95% CO2 atmosphere, and 75-100 atmospheric pressures.

      What Sagan said about Venus & its CO2 was a perfectly sensible exposition of the completely uncontroversial fact that is the greenhouse effct:
      ” Like Venus, the Earth also has a greenhouse effect due to its carbon dioxide and water vapor. The global temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water if not for the greenhouse effect. It keeps the oceans liquid and life possible. A little greenhouse is a good thing. Like Venus, the Earth also has about 90 atmospheres of carbon dioxide; but it resides in the crust as limestone and other carbonates, not in the atmosphere. If the Earth were moved only a little closer to the Sun, the temperature would increase slightly. This would drive some of the CO2 out of the surface rocks, generating a stronger greenhouse effect, which would in turn incrementally heat the surface further. A hotter surface would vaporize still more carbonates into CO2, and there would be the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect to very high temperatures. This is just what we think happened in the early history of Venus, because of Venus’ proximity to the Sun. The surface environment of Venus is a warning: something disastrous can happen to a planet rather like our own.”

      48

      • #
        Louis Hissink

        Velikovsky’s statement was made around 1950, and supported by Mayer’s data in 1958, imprecise as it was. At the time, 1950, the mainstream beloved Venus was like the earth but cloudy.

        60

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          Velokosky’s “statement” was that Jupiter spat out Venus which then migrated to a stable orbit inside Earth, causing some biblical explanations along the way.
          Complete. And. Utter. Nonsense.
          He reckoned Venus was hot because he reckoned it was still molten. Or maybe he thought a new planet could solidify in a mere 3000 years?
          Either way, he had no understanding of planetary physics, he was a crank trying to shoe-horn some bible stories into idiotic made-up ideas of his own.

          35

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          Also, Rupert Wildt suggested Venus was hot, so Velokovsky wasn’t even the first to do that. And the Mariner probe proved Velikovsky was wrong about Venus being made up of Jovian chemicals, in fact its CO2 atmosphere proves it never could have been.

          45

      • #
        AndyG55

        CT puts in ZERO effort . And is wrong anyway.

        Quotes two very erroneous statements on GHE.

        No evidence of any warming from atmospheric CO2.

        H2O causes variability and some control, but DOES NOT cause warming.

        Venus’s surface temperature is mostly to do with atmospheric pressure, and distance from Sun..

        JUST LIKE THE EARTH’S

        54

      • #
        AndyG55

        ” generating a stronger greenhouse effect”

        MYTHED AGAIN, CT.

        There is NO PROOF of a “greenhouse effect” from atmospheric CO2

        There is proof of a gravity thermal effect from atmospheric mass.

        Venus is hot because of atmospheric pressure.

        64

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      …and of course, Velokovsky was a crank.

      The “Velokovsky Affair” was some kind of sociological study into how the scientific community reacts to lunatic ideas. Nothing to do with science.

      36

      • #
        AndyG55

        CT is a crank,

        Yes we see how the cli-sci community bring up and brain-washes with lunatic ideas.

        AGW is nothing to do with science, it is purely a socio-political construct

        Very astute of you to realise that, CT.

        64

  • #
    Manfred

    I live in the US.
    Ocasio-Cortez is a very, very stupid woman. Please no offense to women, it is that just *this* particular one, is really stupid.
    Even more so, because she graduated from Boston University, an otherwise excellent school.
    But Alexandria did not learn anything, zero, nada, she is completely clueless.
    I really wonder how she made through BU.

    Just saying.

    92

  • #
    MikeR

    This gal is clueless, plainly, my theory is that she achieved her aims by being a great looking sort, she is very attractive, & that is all she brings to the political table.
    How very old fashioned of me to think this, but it should be said.

    55

    • #
      MatrixTransform

      Neoteny.

      The puppy dog eyes are fine … it’s the yapping that’s annoying

      54

    • #

      old fashioned and wrong are not the same thing

      30

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        In this case, it is.
        She may have fluffed-up her supposed Bronx origins, but Ocasio-Cortez has spent her life being a fairly high achiever, eg,
        “she won second prize in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair with a research project on microbiology. As a result, the International Astronomical Union named a small asteroid after her: 23238 Ocasio-Cortez.”
        I suspect “MikeR” who calls her “clueless” doesn’t have any asteroid named after him on account of winning any science prizes.

        Other points of difference between “MikeR”‘s life and Ocasio-Cortez’s apparently clueful life include:
        “With financial backing from Sunshine Bronx Business Incubator, she established a publishing firm, Brook Avenue Press, which specializes in children’s literature that portrays the Bronx in a positive light.”
        Sounds like a positive thing to do.
        I wonder what MikeR has ever done that’s positive for his community?

        58

        • #

          He knows how to bold text!

          22

        • #
          Mark D.

          No explanation for the rather dumb things she is accused of saying? A Sheepskin is not evidence of intelligence Craig. I recall that Obama was supposed to be worthy of accolades. Where is the Peace Craig?

          62

        • #
          AndyG55

          Surely even you must realise her ideas come from cloud-cuckoo-land, CT !!

          64

        • #
          MikeR

          Well Craig thanks for taking the time to read my comment & reply. I stick to my point & will elaborate some more, she’s clueless because she supports socialism, she’s an economics graduate for heavens sake. Anybody who still supports socialism after seventy years of socialist governments murdering their hapless citizens, & laying waste their economies, is indeed clueless!
          Now O-C wants to make this vicious ideology the foundation on which the US of A runs? That’s got to be clueless.
          As to “people are going to die because of global warming”, well in my view that is the hyperbolic sort of talk you expect from school kids, or clueless youngsters who have swallowed the greatest scientific fraud of all time.
          You will disagree with that, but a lot of folks who are well qualified disagree with you, but it’s a free country for now & you are entitled to your opinion. But if clueless O-C gets her way that freedom to agree/disagree with AGW will be very smartly removed, the socialists just can’t help themselves, it’s all for the general good you know.

          30

    • #
      Mark D.

      As Pelosi demonstrates, attractiveness is all you need in politics.

      11

  • #
    Nobby

    Its not true but don’t let that get in the way of your hate fest

    People are going to die if we don’t start addressing climate change ASAP.
    It’s not enough to think it’s “important.” We must make it urgent.

    That’s why we need a Select Committee on a Green New Deal, & why fossil fuel-funded officials shouldn’t be writing climate change policy”. https://t.co/bn6NloGlaY

    — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) November 23, 2018

    40

    • #
      MatrixTransform

      Hmmm,

      “People are going to die if we don’t start addressing climate change ASAP…”

      …this is starting to sound like a threat from a deranged mob.

      just sayin’

      70

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    Alarmists are funny creatures.

    Somebody says, “People are going to die ” and, before you know it, people are hysterically blogging about how “We’re All Going To Die”. Hilarious.

    47

    • #
    • #
      AndyG55

      Well that post had zero substance, CT.. want to try again ?

      Maybe with some actual evidence?

      45

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        I’ll type this super-slow for you, Andy, …

        A New York politician said, “People are going to die ”

        With me so far?

        This blog post says, “We’re All Going To Die”

        Now you laugh. Or do I have to explain the joke to you?

        37

        • #
          AndyG55

          ““People are going to die if we don’t start addressing climate change ASAP,…. We must make it urgent. ” …” “

          NOPE. just child-minded nonsense. Are you scared yet, CT ???

          Its just a moronically stupid statement, even you would have to agree with that.

          Jo is totally justified in mocking that statement and its hysteria.

          More people will die if we DO take the measured proposed by the AGW alarmist.

          NOBODY has or will die from human released atmospheric CO2.

          It is only beneficial to life on Earth.

          As you and your mates have more than adequately proven in your ineptitude…

          There is no empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

          84

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    People are going to die? Right at this moment there are millions of people dying and millions of babies birthing. But maybe this biological fact doesn’t operate in The Matrix.

    (Edited) CTS

    50

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Error – doesn’t operate in The Matrix.

    30

  • #

    “Occasional Cortex” is a very apt nickname for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She has the beady staring eyes focused on a non-existent future that indicates a true-believer and fanatic, immune to any rational argument or critical thought. She will fit right into the Democrat Party.

    52

  • #
    MatrixTransform

    under-rated film from 2006 – Idiocracy

    30

  • #
    Tanya

    It is more that we are all going to die listening to that [snip] excessive belligerency. She is truly a picnic short of a sandwich.

    41

  • #
    Annie

    The CAGW crowd must be getting really worried, as they have descended on this thread mob-handed. Why don’t people just ignore the trolls…answering them wastes so much time and space.
    I do find that I can agree with GA sometimes!

    51

  • #
    neil

    We don’t have to look as far as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to find authorities running the “We’re All Going To Die From Climate Change” scare.

    Just look at the BoM, yet again they have released a doom and gloom crystal ball prediction for this summer. Despite (here in Melbourne) two very average summers and a very cool November we get the same prediction we have gotten at the start of every season for the past 20 years. THIS WILL BE THE HOTTEST SUMMER ON RECORD.

    The BoM has no accountability they make these dire predictions literally daily, nearly every weather forecast turns out to be warmer than what we get but nobody calls them out on the fact that they are always a few degrees out on the high side. They do this to give the impression that it is actually warmer than it really is.

    Either that or they are very bad at their job so why do we need them.

    61

  • #
    Whalehunt Fun

    Let’s criminalise the ownership, operation or promotion of wind turbines. Throwing the management of certain power companies, all the Greens membership and a few visiting UN parasites into gaol would send a short sharp message. Then invite this stupid woman to visit. She is so dumb she would come and we could lock her up for thirty or forty years. The US would be forever in our debt.

    30

  • #
    yarpos

    Well Alexandria I think you are probably correct on a couple of counts. Its a 100% certainty that I will die one day. There is also a 100% certainty that on that day the climate will be changing.

    It will be difficult to pin my demise on climate however, because I was once in a room where someone smoked a cigarette. So an eager beaver researcher would already have claimed my demise for the smoking related death stats. No double dipping allowed.

    30

  • #
    M Allinson

    I wonder what she thinks about the “Yellow Jacket” riots against the burden of “de-carbonising taxes”, that are now spreading to Belgium:

    https://tinyurl.com/ybgkywkn

    Does she realise that the poorest people (those she says she supports) are bearing the heaviest burden for her “world-saving” high tax ideas.

    30

  • #
    Kim

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her lefty mates need to chill out and take some advice from Joe Dolce – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFacWGBJ_cs .

    10

  • #
    Tel

    You know how there’s this folklore that the Left think that the Right is evil, and the Right think than the Left are freaking stoopid?

    Well, let’s just say that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does not exactly challenge anyone’s assumptions.

    Off topic: RIP to George “CIA man” Bush, who also fits the theory surprisingly well.

    00

  • #
    AndyG55

    headless chook routine!

    You know NOTHING of even basic science

    CANNOT produce empirical scientific evidence

    57

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    I see the quality of Andy’s thread-bombing hasn’t improved.

    48

  • #
    Mark D.

    To be expected with Craig: another pot – kettle argument and without agreeing with your premise,Craig, notably you have not improved either.

    What the F is with the left? do they all go to they same school somewhere? The definition of hypocrite is now: LEFTIST. Attempting to define their opposition with terms that apply unequivocally to themselves!

    62

  • #
    AndyG55

    I see CT’s zero substance posts haven’t improved.

    Any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 yet, CT ?

    45

  • #

    two wrongs don’t make a right of course. I still think IKs comments are only deemed trolling because of the audience who give as much as they take although most of what they give is never seen by the people they are throwing abuse at.

    21

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    And you don’t suspect that the new “IK” is not the original “I” whose behaviour in abusing me and manipulating Jo was very distasteful?

    That episode a few months ago was a sad event. It would seem that the person involved, despite being older, was keen to conform to the new idiom of the in crowd and play the victim.
    No doubt he boasted at the upheaval he had created.
    Another happy traveler, Carey or Carney?, suggested that somebody bite his “b,,,, s,,,,” (scrotum).

    Gee Aye I take it you approve of the disgusting items mentioned, be sure they were not provoked responses, just “influencers” plying their trade.

    For those of us here as regulars, who in many cases are well educated in the areas covered by climate science, find the CTs and Is and IKs a useful exercise in coming to understand the education deprivation that exists in the “cli sci ” community.

    It can be discouraging to see the many graduates of the university of SKS displaying their rote learned responses.

    KK

    62

  • #

    I agree it was distasteful and should be moderated.

    20

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    Meow

    24

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    Who’s a leftist?

    35

  • #
    AndyG55

    YOU, to the bone.

    53

  • #
  • #
    Ian Knows

    CT,

    Awww come on, people are mostly OT here. The overarching topic here is ‘ climate science is crap, here’s some “evidence’,please comment’, I was cutting to the chase.

    You started the accusation of name calling, which is rife here, why so touchy about “deniers”?. You wont last long in the real world with such a thin skin.

    18

  • #
    AndyG55

    You have NOT produced any evidence

    No matter how often you have been asked.

    Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributed to human CO2 ?

    Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

    Q3. What do we “deny” that you can prove scientifically?

    WAITING..

    for more ducking and weaving ;-)

    34

  • #
    the adorable Gee Ayeeee

    I love it when the thread breaks down and no one has any idea whether the comment was made to them. I’m talking to you Gee Aye

    10

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    The only mechanisms available to remove the energy implanted in the Earth and sea are:
    . Direct radiation from ground to space.

    . Conduction of energy from ground level by the atmosphere.
    And Yes! A hundred times yes, the atmospheric Water and CO2
    aid in getting the general air mass to a higher temperature faster so then it can expand and rise. The point is, the so called greenhouse gases, water and CO2 cannot trap or store heat while in contact with other gases. That’s physics; Equilibrium Rules.

    By convection or direct radiation, the Earth loses energy to space.

    If the greenhouse gases did not exist that same amount of energy would be lost each night totally by convection to higher altitudes.

    On top of this simple physics, a quantitative analysis of the place of human origin CO2, in the scheme of things, shows that even IF the heat effect was real, there is no way that humans can influence the system.

    Water is most of it, a very small part is natural CO2 and a hard to find, very piddling amount is of human origin.

    It’s a scientific reality that Humans cannot influence Earth’s atmospheric temperature.

    End of story.

    Why are we paying so much for our electricity?????

    KK

    52

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    Thank you.
    It’s one thing to have political activists here criticising and pushing a barrow that they have no understanding of.
    That’s educational but difficult. That’s life.

    But to have physical threats made (that comment seems to have been removed) and offensive suggestions dumped here, that’s unacceptable.

    The Science is really quite simple but it’s currently hiding behind the doors of our universities because to discuss it openly might lead to loss of income.

    KK

    42

  • #
    Serp

    Because Robert Hill’s RET legislation deems coal “not eligible” KK; but you know that. Let’s kill the RET. (broken record I know, sorry for that)

    10

  • #
    Mark D.

    Leftist cat. Cool man cool.

    10