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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Time Mag — Buttering up Believers: Why deniers brains can’t process climate change

Time Magazine, Cover, Satire. Time for Smug.

It’s self congratulation disguised as “science”. The insults are passed off as universal human failings but the unmistakable message is that those who do believe in “climate change” are exempt. (Only the unbelievers have smaller minds and more selfish cortexes. )

Time Magazine: Why Your Brain Can’t Process Climate Change

You’d have to be pretty stupid not to get this message:

…We know—at least those of us not in the grips of outright climate denial—how bad it is. But we can’t seem to act to save the future.

The Time readers who haven’t cancelled their subscriptions already may like to read this and give themselves a free shot of mojo, knowing that they can process climate change. Possibly they buy Time because it tells them they’re the gifted, superior beings they hope they might be. This is manna for those with low self esteem and meaningless lives.

This is not just some random author either, Bryan Walsh, who wrote this, was TIME’s International Editor, its energy and environmental correspondent and was the Tokyo bureau chief in 2006 and 2007.

As usual, it’s projection all the way down:

There are many reasons why [we fail to act], ranging from political polarization to the disinformation campaigns of major energy companies to the sheer technical difficulty of replacing carbon-based fossil fuels. But the biggest reason is found within our own minds.

The real victims of disinformation campaigns are those who think storms and floods are “new”, and every kind of weather is a magical omen foretelling doom. And the worst kind of political polarization is the sort which makes a scientific discussion into a tribal war — it’s not 1.2 or 1.5 degrees, it’s good man : bad man, expert and “denier”?

Would you like pity with that?

Bryan Walsh even manages an air of fake compassion and understanding while he soaks in first-class condescension. I mean, those poor normals, their brains really can’t process the risks.  Mere deplorables have mental flaws visible in fMRI’s:

When you think about yourself while inside the narrow metal tube of a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine, a certain part of your brain, called the medial prefrontal cortex, or MPFC, will light up like Times Square on New Year’s Eve. If you think about a family member, the MPFC will still light up, though less robustly. And if you think about other people whom you feel no connection to—like, say, the inhabitants of the South Asian island nation of the Maldives, which will likely one day be erased by climate-change-driven sea level rise—the MPFC will light up even less.

You don’t need a $3 million MRI machine to know that human beings are self-centered creatures.

You don’t need a $2 MRI machine to know that this article is buttering up the needy with baseless speculation based on imaginary brain scans. Who needs data when you can just fake it up?

Let’s take the easy risk-free conformist path but pretend we are above it all, smarter than the riff raff.

Adapted from END TIMES: A Brief Guide to the End of the World by Bryan Walsh.

 

 Image: Cerebral Hemisphere: wikimedia, Polygon data were generated by Database Center for Life Science (DBCLS)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (106 votes cast)
Time Mag -- Buttering up Believers: Why deniers brains can't process climate change, 9.5 out of 10 based on 106 ratings

330 comments to Time Mag — Buttering up Believers: Why deniers brains can’t process climate change

  • #
    Lance

    To help sane people better understand the referenced article above, highly recommend:

    “The Vision of the Anointed: Self Congratulation as a Basis of Social Policy”, by Dr. Thomas Sowell

    https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/55220-the-vision-of-the-anointed-self-congratulation-as-a-basis-for-social-po

    390

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Good appropriate quote. Thomas Sowell has the ability to get right inside today’s pathological behaviors and expose them for what they are. Pathological.

      260

    • #

      Sane is the operative word. When you observe how the believers behave (and this applies to all those who follow some form of ‘cult’ such as Vegans, animal rights activists, MAMILs, pro-abortionists etc), they all tend to be collectively anti-social in their behaviour. So when all things are considered, who should you really believe and follow?

      220

      • #

        And after posting this I note another story to illustrate the point:

        An animal-loving crossbench MP will campaign for the Victorian Parliament to go vegan every Monday, arguing there is a hunger in the community for measures that will avert a climate emergency.

        Someone explain how this is sane?

        360

        • #
          glen Michel

          I read that out to my wife as she was eating her soy linseed cereal.The question is: how many gullible,stupid people are out there.?

          172

          • #

            Enough to vote in this git.

            230

          • #
            Ian

            “How many stupid and gullible people are there out there?”

            Not sure but I am sure that climate change believers regard climate change deniers as stupid and gullible just as climate change deniers regard climate change believers as stupid and gullible.

            Each live on line in their own echo chamber where all members support one another’s prejudices without question.

            [So the flame war begins here. Ian starts his 460th comment with the "climate denier" insult and wonders why commenters respond to his denial of 7 years of debate here in anger. See my reply. The term “climate denier” has no scientific meaning and no place in a polite discussion. Just stop, both of you! -Jo .

            323

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Itz back.
              Quick, somebody get out the can of fly spray.
              Notice that little even handed nuance: be sure to spray left and right, he’s pretending to be caught in the middle, so spray there too.

              KK

              181

              • #
                Ian

                You’re a complete sad loser KK A big name here but nowhere else. All you can resort to is childish sarcasm. I’ve heard you’re a scientist. Obviously those that think you are have no conception of science or scientists. Perhaps you’d like to test my assertion on gullibility but of course you ain’t got the nous to do so. Why I bother to respond to your childish inanities escapes me but then none of us is perfect not even you KK

                (Oh my don’t you think you are overreacting? try staying on topic and ignore the comments that so easily upsets you and not on topic) CTS

                223

              • #
                AndyG55

                [snip. Andy, chill]
                Let’s see if you can produce one paper that shows empirically that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

                We can wait, while you consult up handlers.

                250

              • #
                AndyG55

                STILL the zero-science posts from Ian
                [snip]

                60

            • #

              Sorry Ian, but I am an engineer and in my job the projects I manage have to work, otherwise I get sacked. Hence I need to ensure that the data and methods I use will deliver. Those who believe in CO2 driven climate change are in a different world, where they engineers they would have been unemployed long ago…

              And I have been taking an interest in the “green house effect” and its “children” since the 1980s.

              Firstly, climate change is a meaningless concept, since the climate is always changing as the geological record shows.

              But if we take climate change to mean that temperatures are being driven higher and higher by CO2 then quite frankly the believers must be in the true echo chamber. Their Stalinist mindset is a dead giveaway, with ad hominem attacks, not wanting to debate the subject just shout slogans and having a reliance on very debatable science – they truly do not want to hear anything else. They are the deniers here…

              401

            • #
            • #
            • #
              theRealUniverse

              ‘Each live on line in their own echo chamber where all members support one another’s prejudices without question.’
              OK then. prejudices is it? So real data that proves that the (fake) global warming scam is what it is totally FAKE is a prejudice? The fact that there is NO geological geophysical correlation between CO2 and warming is a prejudice?
              REAL atmospheric physics is a prejudice?
              ALSO The FACT that this whole (climate scam) thing was deliberately setup (and provable by their own admission there are documents) in the 80s as a science fr@Ud to 1. eliminate half the worlds populace by denying good energy sources is a prejudice?
              Live on another planet.

              60

              • #
                Ian

                Nice sentences but any references?

                13

              • #
                AndyG55

                Asking someone else for references.

                So funny. :-)

                How about you produce some actual real science yourself. !

                Devoid so far !

                41

              • #
                George Mueller

                The best source documents are on the United Nations websites:
                http://research.un.org/en/docs/environment/unep

                There are others for the United Nations Framework Convention on Change:
                https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-convention/what-is-the-united-nations-framework-convention-on-climate-change

                Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: https://www.ipcc.ch/documentation/

                These three cover the bulk of the United Nations climate action.
                They were all founded by profoundly leftist leaders and have maintained a strong leftist bent in all their activities.

                None of bodies “do” science. They recruit scientists to prepare studies, basically to order on many topics. Most of the studies are highly slanted, as has been shown countless times.
                Christina Figueres(Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC) had this to say in 2015: “”This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

                Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year(2015), she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

                Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year(2015), she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

                30

            • #

              Ian,

              your comment makes clear you have been sold on the idea that skeptics deny climate changes or that it has not been warming since 1950, or 1979, when in reality these are packaged lies people are told to accept. It is propaganda sent through the Media, who say these lies over and over, which skeptics have been branded for years now. The indication that YOU have swallowed it means you are the uncritical lemming of media inspired attacks on free thought and speech.

              Here I am one of the “skeptics” who accepts that climate changes/global warming is happening, always have. I even accept the first part of the AGW conjecture too, which means that at the 415 ppm level, CO2 warm forcing effect is now at ZERO because the INCREASE of energy loss from the planet exceeds the increase in CO2 warm forcing effect, thus CO2 is NOT a factor for warming up the planet. It is warmists like YOU who out of date on this and that the other half of the AGW conjecture can’t happen because Water Vapor and water in general are dominant negative forcing effect, which means Run away warming is impossible.

              The warming effect is from the Ocean waters and little else with El_Nino phases as the dominant cause of that warming in the atmosphere. It if now cooling as the El-Nino is fading away to the Neutral zone. It is the Sun and Ocean system that dominantly drives the Weather all over the planet. CO2 and CH4 are irrelevant in the over all heat budget of the system.

              The AGW is now dead and irrelevant at the 415 ppm level.

              90

            • #
              Ian

              Jo This is third time in three hours I have posted this. Previous posts are still wawating moderation

              I thought my use of the terms “climate change denier” and “climate change believer” were perfectly acceptable in defining the two groups with opposing views. However I unreservedly apologise for not using the term Climate change doubter which I now know is the term preferred by Associated Press

              23

              • #

                Thank you. Understood. Gratefully acknowledged.

                Unfortunately I’ve been away from the desk. Sorry for the delay.

                For the sake of hypotheticals I’m guessing you would not like it if we classified you as a Data Denier? We’ve posted data repeatedly and you are welcome to disagree with our interpretation or meaning, but after nearly 500 comments, it’s bizarre not to acknowledge that we are driven by empirical evidence. I’m not suggesting people call you anything (other than Ian). But you get my point?

                91

            • #
              Ian

              I didn’t realise climate change denier was an insult as certainly a quick trawl of the internet searching for the term climate change denier came up with many examples of its use including one from today’s Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/media-air-time-climate-change-deniers-scientists-1454498)

              However I also discovered AP had forbidden its use preferring the term climate change doubter so I unreservedly apologise for using the term

              41

              • #

                Ian, we are citizens and scientists. We are “unconvinced”. Persuade us.

                We are not “climate change anythings”. They are all nonsense labels. Think about it. Who “Doubts” the climate changes? None of us. Believers in CAGW seem to think it never changed before 1850. The media and PR teams use these labels to fool good people into thinking that being skeptical is automatically as stupid as doubting an ice age.

                We call ourselves skeptics. Those who believe lightbulbs and car exhausts control floods and droughts are unskeptical scientists. Obviously.

                120

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yes Ian, tell us what we “deny” that you can produce verifiable real scientific evidence for.

                Start with the very basics, warming by increased atmospheric CO2.

                We are waiting.

                70

            • #
              Fred Streeter

              I am not a Climate Change Denier, I do not accept the argument that the increase in man-made Carbon Dioxide emission is changing the climate.

              The reason why I do not accept the CAGW argument is the paucity of supporting evidence of sufficient quality.

              As for Jo’s blog being “an Echo Chamber”, I am a person who seeks to limit their impact on the planet. (No car, no foreign holidays, a sufficiency of meat and dairy products, recycling, etc.) Green, I suppose, but not a card-carrying greenie.

              60

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Our society panders too much to noisy mnority goups…..

          350

          • #
            Ian

            Our society panders too much to noisy mnority goups…..”

            That’s an unusual comment here as climate change deniers in Australia are definitely in the minority in their attitude to climate change.

            A recent Lowy poll showed 64% of adults rank climate change number one on a list of 12 threats to Australia’s national interests, up six points from last year’s survey and a jump of 18 points since 2014.
            https://lowyinstitutepoll.lowyinstitute.org/themes/climate-change-and-energy/

            227

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              What’s a powy loll?

              Are they science?

              Zzz zzz :-)

              110

            • #
              AndyG55

              “A recent Lowy poll”
              [snip]
              Just ignore real science, little Ian, and go with whatever your far-left Marxist/socialist masters tell you to “believe”

              [snip. Enough! ]

              120

              • #
                Ian

                Did you look at the poll results or did you just decide to mouth insults because you’re unable to refute its conclusions? This site used to be a science based blog not a refuge for scientifically illiterate conservatives desperately fighting a rear guard action.

                224

              • #
                AndyG55

                [snip CAPS yelling. To get posted, stop shouting. ]

                120

              • #
                Ian

                What a sad liilte man you are. You got a PhD? I have. It’s a s laboratory based investigation of the role of steroids in breast and prostate cancer. I’m not a climate scientist but never a) claimed to be a climate scientist just a scientist who knows how science works and b) i did not give my views on climate change I just quoted facts. Clearly you’re not one whom thinks facts matter if they disagree with your prejudices. Back to the cave AndyG55 as you’re clearly a neanderthal and probably a little one at that

                322

              • #
                Carbon500

                Ian: you say that you got your PhD for studying the role of steroids in breast and prostate cancer. This means for example that any assays you used to generate your results are open to question, and that anyone ought to be able to duplicate your results in another laboratory. If they can’t, that of course gives rise to any number of possibilities as to why, such as assay variation of some kind, or perhaps population differences.
                Until the climate scientists come up with a laboratory based experiment that shows how much heating is caused by incremental increases of 1ppm in a system wherein water vapour concentrations can be varied as well, and that the results can be duplicated anywhere in the world, then I’ll reserve my judgment on the CO2 issue.
                We are told that the effects of CO2 are estimated from climate ‘models’, based on the assumption that CO2 has a warming effect.
                Digressing slightly,I got my PhD years ago for my work on a commercial vaccine research project. I could have modelled the molecules of interest and inferred all sorts of possibilities – but the true test is – do such molecules generate an immune response in animals and humans? ‘Model’ as much as you like, but it’s a waste of time if the vaccine doesn’t work.
                The failure to come up with a proper laboratory demonstration in an artificial atmosphere of the alleged effect of CO2 is surely the sand upon which the AGW story is built.
                There’s more – Micheal Mann’s tree ring paper. He claims to be able to deduce temperatures from tree ring diameters – yet given that you have a biochemistry background and have presumably done work with enzymes at some stage, you will be aware that enzymes work quite well even if the temperatures aren’t quite optimal – and this could affect the rings. Botanical biochemistry isn’t even on his horizon.
                Does Mann discuss such possibilities? No, he doesn’t. Another huge flaw in the CO2 tale.

                280

              • #
                AndyG55

                [Snip. This thread is not about Ian. Just stop! - jo]

                133

              • #
                Latus Dextro

                Each live on line in their own echo chamber where all members support one another’s prejudices without question
                — Ian 1.2.1.1.2

                What a sad liilte [sic] man you are. You got a PhD? I have.
                — Ian 1.2.1.2.4

                Ian, I very much doubt you have a PhD or many friends, judging by your comments, the ready resort to ad hominem polemic, and a reliance upon polls for support. Instead, I suggest it appears more likely that you are an unqualified, low grade part-time ‘tech’ and watermelon Green. No self-respecting scientist would behave in the manner you display, with perhaps the exception of Michael E. Mann and one or two like him.

                Paid for play puff pieces in florid comics like ‘Time’ may be ignored much as one might swat a cold slow fly, dismiss adjusted data, falsified theory, failed models, people who advocate eating insects and denigrate meat eating, and people desirous of imposing their will on others on the basis that somehow a World run at the end of a totalitarian bureaucratic gun barrel, CCTV and a social credit score is the epitome of sustainability.

                Maybe you come here to lay claim to a perverse sense of misguided purpose in an otherwise pointless existence. After all, why endure when you accept the World will end in a dozen years or so? Perhaps you are a despairing result of The Green Death and its claim upon the pinnacles of de-industrialisation, de-population and destitution. Your remarks remain nonetheless as revealing as they are excruciatingly consistent.

                Where did you lose your way?

                170

              • #
                Ian

                Carbon 500.

                Thanks for a comment that doesn’t resort to childish insults and sarcasm.

                I agree entirely that climate scientists haven’t got lab data to back their argument that CO2 causes global warming but equally, those that dispute the role of CO2 in global warming haven’t got lab data to back their argument either.

                So essentially there are two groups neither with empirical data arguing with one another that they are right. However it is prudent while hoping for the best, to prepare for the worst. It’s called insurance

                412

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘ … best, to prepare for the worst. It’s called insurance.’

                Its called the ‘precautionary principle’.

                On the question of CO2 in the atmosphere I have just discovered that the human input through the burning of fossil fuels is less than five percent and the rest is natural.

                So the rationale is that human emissions couldn’t be responsible for climate change. Do you agree?

                130

              • #
                AndyG55

                “those that dispute the role of CO2 in global warming haven’t got lab data to back their argument either. “

                Actually, there is verifiable empirical proof that CO2 DOES NOT trap heat in the atmosphere.

                1. OLR has not diverged from Global temperatures.

                2. ONLY warming has come from EL Nino events, therefore CANNOT be from CO2.

                Falling back on “the precautionary principle” just because your fantasies CANNOT be backed by real science.

                So much for your “science”, little Ian !!

                141

              • #
                AndyG55

                “to prepare for the worst. “

                WORST would be cooling with decimated electricity supply systems.

                We are dong the OPPOSITE of being prepared.

                Globe has been warmer than now for MOST of the last 10,000 years, and during that time the human species developed.

                The MWP and RWP were times of prosperity and human development.

                The two recent periods of “cold”, at the Dark Ages and the LIA were times of extreme hardship for much of the world’s population.

                Denial of actual climate history seems to be a major “theme” of the climate alarmist !

                100

              • #

                @Ian #1.2.1.2.8
                So essentially there are two groups neither with empirical data arguing with one another that they are right. However it is prudent while hoping for the best, to prepare for the worst. It’s called insurance

                Ian, after 467 comments here since 2012, this is either delusional or disingenuous (to put it nicely). You know that I post relentlessly on data from satellites, 28 million radiosondes, 3000 argo buoys, 6000 boreholes, hundreds of individual thermometers, 120 medieval proxies, 1000 tide gauges et al ad nauseum. Which is why your teflon coated science-nhilism generates frustration and anger here.

                The difference between skeptics and believers is that skeptics look at raw data, and believers think models “do experiments” and then adjust all the raw data to fit their own assumptions.

                The illusion of politeness depends on context. Repeating the same non-argument with denial of what we’ve said in 1000 different ways is not polite.

                You do have a PhD, and a real email, and so you get a free pass to comment. Please do challenge us — but with something new. I’ve snipped Andy, but it takes two to create a boring flame war — even if one superficially appears to be polite.

                230

            • #
              AndyG55

              “64% of adults rank climate change number one “

              Well I guess that gives a number on how many DUMB, IGNORANT and GULLIBLE people answered the Lowy Poll.

              About 64% of them.

              Thank for helping us with the stats on this, little-IOan.

              151

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘This site used to be a science based blog not a refuge for scientifically illiterate conservatives desperately fighting a rear guard action.’

                Sir we have already covered poll fabrication and Lowy is very dodgy, but I would like to know do you accept Saint Greta’s prophecy that we have only 12 years before the world turns to a crisp?

                This is a genuine question, as I’m a utopian socialist in need of direction.

                Another point, appealing to the authority of other disciplines is not a good look. None of us are qualified climate scientists, but we are all google masters and know how to debate.

                120

            • #
              truth

              How can the Lowy poll have any meaning at all when most if not all CAGW true believers simply won’t allow or take part in any way at all in… any discussion about inconvenient facts …inconsistencies…corruption of peer review …brazenly fake inquiries…fraud…refusal of FOI…hiding and ‘losing’ of raw data…the corruption of the absolute core tenets of science…the huge limitations and fragility of the temperature record…sackings and intimidation used to shut down alternative views and discourse.

              From day one when the high priests declared their consensus and ‘science closed’…’over’…no dissent tolerated..before the most important research had even been done…it was obvious that THEY weren’t interested in actually finding out what was happening and why.

              When science and real inquiry has been corrupted and abused as CAGW has been…when we’re told that with this post-normal science, ‘scientists and politicians must trade (normal) truth for influence and power’…you would have to be incurious to say the least…with the mind of a lemming…to swallow the garbage that this new normal is flogging.

              The true believers who go beyond just smugly declaring their belief in ‘the science’ will go on and on amongst themselves about what must be done about it…how the whole world has to be rejigged…we must relinquish our sovereignty to the poobahs of the UN and EU…Australia must de-industrialize etc etc …but most are deathly afraid to go beyond just their pious declaration…and for ALL of them any pesky interloper wanting to discuss is akin to Typhoid Mary.

              170

            • #

              Really??????I had no idea the majority of Australians were idiots!!

              100

            • #
              • #
                Michael Hammer

                Kinky Keith you asked for info on how I calculated the impact of CO2. What follows was something I wrote for someone else but hopefully answers your question although it is slightly cryptic – apologies. It is also very long again apologies

                SOME BASIC CO2 RELATED CALCULATIONS
                The impact of a GHG depends not only on its concentration but also how strongly it absorbs electromagnetic radiation. For this reason spectroscopists use the term absorbance. A layer of gas (or of course any solid liquid or gas) with an absorbance of 1 absorbs 90% of the incident light (at the line center of course). A layer of gas 2 absorbance thick is equivalent to 2 layers of gas each 1 absorbance thick placed one above the other. The first absorbs 90% passing the remaining 10%. The second layer absorbs 90% of this 10% passing 1%. A 3 abs layer would thus pass 0.1% absorbing 99.9% and so on. So the question is how many abs thick is the atmospheric CO2 column in absorbance. Heinz Hug measured the total absorbance of the atmospheric CO2 column at 280 ppm. At the line center it was 2000 abs!!!! Sure the P and Q branches are weaker (these are side branches to the main peak) at about 600 to 800 abs but that is still massive. 90% of surface emissions are reabsorbed by the atmosphere in the first abs; the first 1/2000 of the atmosphere ie: in the first 2-3 meters. Thereafter 14.7 micron radiation is continuously absorbed and radiated within the gas column. The intensity at any altitude is simply given by the temperature at that altitude using Planks law. It is only the last 1-2 abs of the gas column that is capable of radiating to space. These sort of large absorbances are typical for atmospheric GHG’s so in essence, a GHG blocks surface radiation to space at the GHG wavelengths and replaces it with radiation from the top of the GHG column. Since the top of the GHG column is colder than the surface, radiation to space is reduced thereby warming the planet.
                How big is the impact of CO2. That’s easy to determine at least roughly. The nimbus satellite data clearly shows CO2 absorbs from about 13.6 micron to 16.5 micron. Without CO2 about 50% of the radiation to space would be from the surface and the other 50% from cloud tops (since clouds also have high absorptivity/emissivity at this wavelength range). Surface temperature is about 288K (+15C) and cloud top temperature on average about 264K. Integrating Planks law from 13.6 to 16.5 microns gives, 54 watts/sqM for surface emissions and 39 watts/sqM for cloud tops so an average of 46.5 watts/sqM without CO2. The Nimbus data shows the actual emission temperature over this wavelength range is 220K (the tropopause temperature) giving 19 watts/sqM. Thus CO2 reduces energy loss to space by 27.5 watts/sqM which is very close to the widely claimed figure of 30 watts/sqM given the rough approximations.
                Once the line center of a GHG reaches around 2 abs one could say it is saturated (it is absorbing 99% out of a possible 100%). Thereafter incremental impact is due to concentration broadening. Each doubling is equivalent to convolving the absorption spectrum with itself and since the absorption spectrum is roughly gaussian (actually Lorenzian but its very close) the result of the convolution is a new gaussian spectrum with the same mean but larger standard deviation ie: the line broadens. This is the basis of the logarithmic relationship between concentration and total impact. 2000 abs represents about 10 doublings beyond saturation which would suggest about 2.75 watts/sqM per doubling. If earth was a black body at 288K its emission sensitivity would be 5.4 watts/sqM (1st derivative of Stefan Boltzmann equation). But earth would be emitting 390 watts/sqM not 234 watts/sqM as it actually does. So again using a very crude 1st approximation, earth’s emission sensitivity is about 5.4 * 234/390 or about 3.2 watts/sqM. Yes these approximations are very crude but the system is so complex that any attempt at further refinement is extremely problematic. Thus the DIRECT impact of doubling CO2 is about 2.75/3.2 C or 0.86C. This is very close to the widely touted value of around 1C per doubling. It hangs together.
                So how does 1C per doubling (to 560ppm) get to 3C or 4C or 5C? By the claim there is massive positive feedback in the climate system. This is how all environmental scares seem to operate. Start off with correct defensible science but then find ways to exaggerate the impact out of all proportion. If questioned, fall back on the defensible science as proof that the scare is real.
                Positive feedback reduces stability causing large responses to even minor input fluctuations. A system with enough positive feedback to increase the pre feedback impact by a factor of 3-4 would be massively chaotic (whereas our climate has been really very stable even including events such as the LIA and MWP). Indeed, virtually all natural stable systems exhibit significant negative (stabilising) feedback. What is the basis of the positive feedback claim? In the tropics a rise in temperature would mean more water evaporates (they claim constant relative humidity). And since water vapour is lighter than air they claim it would also result in stronger convection which would carry the water vapour higher into the atmosphere before condensing. Since water vapour is the dominant GHG more water vapour more warming. Also depositing the water vapour higher in the atmosphere would mean less low cloud (known to be cooling) and more high cloud claimed to be warming. Hence 2 sources of positive feedback. The extra water vapour condensing in the upper tropical troposphere would lead to a hot spot in that region warming at 2-3 times the rate at which the surface warmed – one of the VERY few concrete predictions of the warmists.
                2 problems – firstly 1000’s of balloon flights and satellite measurements show there is no such hotspot in the upper tropical troposphere. Secondly, if higher temperatures lead to higher absolute water vapour content plus stronger convection it means considerably more water is evaporating which must be matched by more rainfall. But rain only comes from low cloud and the prediction is for less low cloud. How can less low cloud lead to more rainfall? If then rain would start to come from higher cloud, the higher cloud would be denser which would mean more reflective hence cooling not warming.
                WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THERE WERE NO GHG IN OUR ATMOSPHERE?
                The warmists statement is that without GHG the Earth would be at 255K (from Stefan Boltzmann law at 234 watts/sqM absorbed energy) thus GHG make our world 33C warmer than it would otherwise be. This is utter rubbish. Firstly, if there were no GHG’s there would be no water vapour and thus no clouds. But clouds are responsible for most of Earth’s albedo, without them the albedo would not be 0.3 but more like 0.1. That would mean Earth’s surface absorbed more energy which from the SB equation would give Earth an average surface temperature of around +1C. So not 33Cof warming but 13C of warming. They must know this so their claim of 33C of warming is deliberately misleading. However the truth is FAR FAR worse. You see the atmosphere clearly generates mechanical work. It lifts water to high altitudes (we generate power by allowing the water to fall back to sea level through turbines) and it creates winds which can blow over trees, raise waves on water, and generate power via wind turbines. So where does all this energy come from? Obviously, it comes from thermal energy from the sun. The sun warms the surface which warms the lower atmosphere causing convection. That makes the atmosphere a classic heat engine, a system converting thermal energy into mechanical energy, no different in concept from a steam engine or a thermal power station. Heat engines are constrained by the laws of thermodynamics which state that no heat engine can be 100% efficient. The maximum efficiency is given by (Thot – Tcold)/Thot. Where Thot is the temperature of the hot junction and Tcold is the temperature of the cold junction. Heat enters the system at the hot junction and leaves the system at the cold junction. So where are the hot and cold junctions for the atmosphere? The hot junction is obvious, it’s the surface of the earth but where is the cold junction where heat leaves the system? There is only 1 place it can be and that is the tropopause (or lower stratosphere). Here heat leaves the atmosphere by being radiated away to space. This allows the atmosphere at that altitude to cool which is necessary if it is to fall again completing the convective cycle (and meeting the thermodynamic requirements for a heat engine). But by definition a gas that is capable of radiating (or absorbing) thermal infrared energy is a green house gas. Without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would not be able to radiate energy to space so the tropopause could not cool. Without that cooling the air at the tropopause could not start to descend again so there would be no convective cycle and the atmosphere would not be able to generate mechanical work. Thus no lapse rate, no convection, no net water evaporation, no wind, no rain, no clouds no weather and no life at least on land. The equator would absorb 1340/pi watts/sqM giving it an average temperature of about +24C (1340 watts/sqM is the solar constant in near Earth space). At Melbourne latitude 37S the average temperature would be +6C although there would be considerable diurnal variation in both cases of course. How come everyone seems to miss that little issue?
                Of course, one could argue that the cold junction would become the poles but for that to occur the atmosphere would have to transfer heat to the polar surface so the polar surface could radiate it away. Two problems with that, firstly Coriolis force would prevent the warm tropical air getting to the poles (its why we have 3 global convective cycles – the Hadley cell, the Ferrel cell and the polar cell instead of just 1). Secondly if the warm air from the equator cannot lose energy it could not descend to the polar surface, there would be a permanent temperature inversion just like in the stratosphere preventing convection. So the pole and the equator would be largely isolated from each other. There might be some weak second order effects which would give some minimal air movement but nothing like the sort of weather we have at present.

                30

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Ian, I read this blog to get a wider view about climate change and renewable energy. The best part is that it, like Agatha Christie’s Capt Hastings, always 180 degrees away from logic. However, it does for example, point out elements such as “climate models do not predict drought” which are informative. By the way climate models are not designed to predict drought, nor the ending of one either. This was all explained in the original material which is always linked to the blog topic. So if you have a spare 30 minutes or so, you can digest the source material which, and to this blog’s credit, a much better way to form an opinion than reading the traditional media.

              315

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                PF:

                Climate models predict only disaster.
                Where is the 3℃ warming we were told 30 years ago was coming by now?
                Where is the rising sea level that was trumpetted about the time Tim F, Al G, Julia G. Kevin R. etc. went out and bought seaside mansions?
                Where is the change in climate e.g. more storms, more droughts, more floods etc. that appear only in the MSM?
                And above all where is ANY PROOF that another 0.5℃ warmth would be a disaster? The world has been that warm 90-95% of the time in the last 10,000 years.
                Question: If you and fellow gullibles get your way, have you already purchased your cave?

                140

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                G3 – links please

                29

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Peter F:
                If you have a spare 30 minutes you could use Google, it is quite easy to check things, even with their built in bias.

                Try Temperature last 10,000 years, then images, which will bring up lots of graphs. Some even point out the current warming time although they usually have a compressed vertical scale. If that is a bother try Temperature last 3,000 years etc. although that starts at the end of the bronze age when things were colder and drier.

                90

              • #
                AndyG55

                Climate models have never been correct in ANY “predictions” or “projections”

                Their range is so wide that they can be dispensed of as purely a blind crap-shoot !

                The only model getting anywhere near close to REALITY is the Russian one that discounts CO2 as a major player in climate control.

                “a much better way to form an opinion “

                The ONLY result a rational mind could come to from real measurements is that CO2 has basically ZERO EFFECT on the world’s climate

                Why haven’t you got there yet, PF ?

                130

              • #
                sophocles

                ‘specially for you PF — watch and learn:
                Prof Will Happer on CO2 …
                [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8iEEO2UIbA]

                The Interpretations of the model’s outputs are as much at fault as the models …

                60

              • #
                el gordo

                “climate models do not predict drought”

                Climate models could predict drought if they took out CO2 and put natural variables back in.

                William Stanley Jevons published a paper in 1859 which showed a two decade cycle of drought then flood in south east Australia. This is extremely important and the modellers should take note.

                We can assume that at times there are more droughty El Nino followed by a decade or two of cool wet La Nina. Which could be showing early signs this time next year.

                70

              • #
                Latus Dextro

                Climate models not only failed to predict ‘the pause’ they fail and have failed to model temperature. This is a both an established fact and a truth, best referred to as epic failure.

                60

              • #
                Latus Dextro

                Imagine what societies reactions will be to proponents if CAGW turns out to be an incorrect biased and ideologically driven theory — Michael Hammer

                Amended: Imagine what societies reactions will be to proponents when CAGW turns out to be an incorrect biased and ideologically driven theory.

                The Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27C.
                (Lloyd PJ, Energy & Environment 2015)

                70

            • #
              Ian

              Commenters below are calling me a liar when I state I have a PhD. You could ask Jo Nova if I am telling the truth. But to those that are saying I’m a liar I got my PhD from UWA in 1988 .It is entitled Human Sex Hormone Binding Globlin. Here is a link to a paper I published from research conducted in my laboratory by a PhD student before I retired.

              https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960076005000269

              46

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Since most PhD’s are received about age 25 you seem to have retired early. Did you win Lotto?

                60

              • #
                Annie

                Hello Ian. I think it is right to have robust discussions, but rudeness should not come into it and some commenters here can be a bit OTT, to say the least. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me and spoils this thread on my favourite blog. Even when we disagree with you or Peter F, good manners are paramount, so I’m sorry if you are feeling under siege and I hope my fellow commenters moderate their language and argue robustly WITHOUT rudeness.

                111

              • #
                AndyG55

                Do you actually think a Lowy poll, from a far left institute, actually has any relevance at all to REAL science

                Seriously ????

                WOW!!!

                80

              • #
                sophocles

                Ian:
                A PhD is, supposedly, an advanced research degree. You should, therefore, appreciate the point of researching a topic before advancing an opinion on it — like Venus’s atmosphere, for example.

                Use your browser capabilities to the maximum. For example, I run up to 4 browser windows concurrently and up to 32 tabs in each window. Up to 8 of those tabs — more or less — are search engine tabs, and I use them heavily. Why so many windows? I organize them according to topic. You can devise your own strategies for that organization.

                Get some books, too. They can’t be modified by other people like NASA’s GISS.
                Global Warming, The Facts is a good start. The Skeptics Handbook is another and there’s The Neglected Sun Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Luning, The Delinquent Teenager by Donna Laframboise tells you all about the IPCC and how it works. by The Weatherman’s Guide to the Sun [Davidson] for advanced information. Half a dozen very useful References which can’t be modified.

                Sort out several websites which provide reliable information eg: Suspicious0bservers.org,
                Tony Heller’s site https://realclimatescience.com, and Gosselin, Vahrenholt and Luning’s https://notrickszone.com (good source of links to papers) and stay up to date with them.
                You’ll find others such as Watts Up With That https://wattsupwiththat.com as you go but these are a good foundation.

                That’s a start for you.

                Some here can be a bit rough with those who do not do their research.
                There is one rule about ad homs: if you don’t like or want them, then don’t use them — stay on topic and resist the urge to respond in kind. If you still get them: Ignore Them.

                90

              • #
                AndyG55

                [snip]
                We try to post facts etc on “alarmist” sites we get banned forthwith.

                Don’t expect to come here with you propaganda and expect not to be forcefully challenged on it.

                70

              • #
                AndyG55

                [snip repeat]

                30

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘ … like Venus’s atmosphere, for example.’

                Its still a good candidate to terraform, once we get CO2 levels down to 400 ppm.

                50

              • #

                Ian, the flame war starts with you. You can use “climate denier” if you can define it scientifically — which means naming the empirical evidence we deny. Links please. Or you can apologize for baseless namecalling. Your choice. — Jo

                Apologies to good readers who want to discuss something more interesting.

                150

              • #
                Michael Hammer

                Ian, I am bemused. There is clear indisputable evidence that CO2 causes warming. I have 40+ years working as a research scientist for a spectroscopy company and spectroscopy is the science describing the interaction between matter and electromagnetic radiation. I do know what I am talking about. CO2 is the second most significant green house gas and its quite easy to calculate how much energy it retains at present – I got a figure of 28 watts/sqM which is in accord with many other estimates I have seen. That by itself ie: before feedbacks would generate about 0.85C of warming per doubling ie: by the time we get to 560 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. But 0.85C of warming at 560 ppm CO2 is not catastrophic or even particularly concerning. None of this is contentious, what is contentious is the feedbacks.

                Warmists claim MASSIVE positive feedbacks while skeptics claim net negative feedback. Now positive feedback is very unusual, almost unheard of in stable systems let alone the massive positive feedback required to amplify 0.85C to 4C or 5C so it is prudent – to use your words – to question this claim in some detail.

                The first point is that the prediction flowing from this positive feedback claim is a hotspot in the upper tropical troposphere but 1000′s of balloon flights and satellite records show no sign of such a hotspot. A thesis which makes a prediction which is falsified is very seriously if not fatally weakened. But this is glossed over, why?

                Then again we look at the temperature record. Its not raw data but adjusted data. OK sometimes adjustments are needed but in this case all the adjustments seem to be going 1 way – supporting the thesis. When all adjustments made by proponents of a thesis are in the direction of better supporting the thesis any sane researcher would tell you its time to strongly suspect bias or worse. Far worse again when the people doing the adjusting seek every possible means to suppress the unadjusted record. In any other field that would be taken as prima facia evidence of fraud.

                I could go on through many further points (eg: the dismissal of the wet atmospheric CO2 determinations) but the post would get too long. Bottom line, if proponents want a thesis to gain traction they need to be prepared to be open, honest and engage in debate and answer critical questions. The warmists dont – they hide data, they misrepresent data and they seek to close down debate with invective. You mention prudence. Indeed a worthwhile point, it is very prudent to check facts and ascertain risks before embarking on major spending programs or societal changes. Its called due diligence. Warmists want society to commit to the expenditure of $100′s of billions of dollars but refuse to defend the basis for that desire. Since you are clearly a strong supporter of the precautionary principle can I suggest applying it to what is happening right now. Imagine what societies reactions will be to proponents if CAGW turns out to be an incorrect biased and ideologically driven theory

                200

              • #
                Gee aye

                Except it is being used in the context of the 7th word in the heading.

                51

              • #
                el gordo

                Henceforth only ‘denialati’ should be used, to avoid any misunderstanding.

                40

              • #
                Gee aye

                or “so called”

                40

              • #
                Gee aye

                Michael H. Positive feedbacks are very common but I think you are confusing a positive feedback with an out of control feedback loop. A positive feedback can lead to a new equilibria without going out of control.

                30

              • #
                el gordo

                Gee Aye, your ‘out of control feedback loop’ is a fantasy.

                Give me one example throughout the Holocene?

                30

              • #
                Latus Dextro

                What a sad liilte [sic] man you are. You got a PhD? I have. It’s a s laboratory based investigation of the role of steroids in breast and prostate cancer.

                Expect little mercy when you respond as above and make a veiled claim of intellectual or scientific authority.
                In any event, it is worth remembering that a PhD in anything other than atmospheric climate science is not deemed remotely relevant by the doyens of the climatism cult.

                80

              • #
                AndyG55

                Sorry Michael, you are neglecting all the other atmospheric processes.

                The so-called back radiation is a pittance compared to energy released in bushfires etc, yet that energy is just CONVECTED away.

                That is how the atmosphere operates.

                To cause warming , CO2 has to overcome the natural lapse COOLING rate,

                But it doesn’t.

                Only H2O is capable of affecting the natural temperature cooling rate of the atmosphere, but it transfers energy by latent heat instead, the actual energy rate of change is the same.

                There is no evidence of any divergence between outgoing radiation and lower atmospheric temperature.

                That means that NO heat is being trapped by increased atmospheric CO2.

                Basic facts.

                90

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Hi Michael @ 1.2.9,

                You work in an interesting area.
                Several comments are put up and it may be interesting to elaborate on them, but first I’m puzzled by the meaning of the comment:

                ” CO2 is the second most significant green house gas and its quite easy to calculate how much energy it retains at present – I got a figure of 28 watts/sqM which is in accord with many other estimates I have seen. ”

                I’ve recently pointed to the fact that human origin CO2 is quantitatively irrelevant even if the greenhouse effect was operational but the issue I see is that at STP, i.e. ground level, the gas known as the atmosphere must instantly come to equilibrium and then conduction and convection rule.
                CO2 cannot exist within the atmosphere in an elevated, heat trapped state: it must immediately come to equilibrium with the gases that surround it.

                The original question though, what does the 28 Watts per square metre refer to. A bit of background to that comment would be interesting.

                Thanks.

                KK

                KK

                50

            • #

              Ian,

              your Lowy Poll is of little value because it is a SINGLE ISSUE poll, thus can be misleading over what people really think about their world they live in.

              Here is a post I made at an Environment Forum in reply to a typical lover of misleading single issue polls:

              Here is one of the polls YOU IGNORED, that destroys your post one claims and supports my recurring narrative that when multiple concerns are allowed in a poll, global warming/climate change concern level drops to the bottom, or this case not a concern at all!

              New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate
              LINK

              “In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time? What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”

              LINK to the PDF
              =====

              Your insults and avoidance of the links I posted makes clear you have no argument to offer.

              Cheers.

              http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/poll-record-number-of-americans-believe-in-man-made-climate-change.701315/page-4#post-22887682

              and this older one I posted:

              More evidence that warmists can’t think rationally since your polls are a SINGLE issue polling, while my polls I posted allows multiple issues in their polls, which pushed climate change/global warming concerns near or at the bottom of the polling lists.

              Here is the Question from the Gallup poll you never read:

              “In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time? What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”

              PDF Link

              or this LINK from the Gallup website

              and,

              this UN poll:

              and, from the NYT poll:

              Why Young Adults Are Having Fewer Children Than Their Ideal Number

              Go look at the results in the link.

              Every time there are multiple concerns allowed in a poll, global warming/climate change are near or at the BOTTOM the poll list.

              http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/global-warming-is-not-peoples-most-pressing-concern.700331/page-4#post-22886904

              Your single issue poll claim is misleading and unimpressive.

              80

              • #
                Ian

                The Lowy poll has been taken each year since 2006. This is from the Executive Summary of the 2019 poll.

                “For the first time in the history of the Poll, climate change topped the list of threats to Australia’s vital interests in 2019, alongside cyberattacks, international terrorism and North Korea’s nuclear program. And although power blackouts and energy prices have dominated Australian headlines, policymakers may be surprised to find more Australians want the federal government to reduce emissions than prevent blackouts or keep prices down”

                As you can see the polls not a one off

                39

              • #
                el gordo

                Ian if we take Lowy at face value, can you see why the old people are angry and frustrated?

                ‘The results reveal a difference in attitudes between generations: three quarters of younger Australians aged 18-44 (76%, up six points from 2018) say global warming is a “serious and pressing problem”. By contrast, fewer than half (49%) of Australians aged over 45 share this concern.’

                80

              • #
                el gordo

                We are witnessing mass delusion and the cultural Marxists are winning. Judith Curry is angry that they are outing the Denialati so that journals won’t take them seriously.

                https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/14/the-latest-travesty-in-consensus-enforcement/

                60

              • #
                AndyG55

                Its a poll.

                It is totally irrelevant to any real science.

                70

            • #
              AndyG55

              Polls are totally irrelevant is any real science.

              You should know that.

              60

        • #
          Robdel

          As sane as switching off the lights on Earth hour.

          150

        • #
          RickWill

          The easiest way to save energy was recently endorsed by the Brazilian President – reduce the frequency of bowel movements.

          If you believe in the rhyme –
          If its yellow,
          let it mellow,
          if its brown,
          flush it down.

          Reducing the frequency of bowel movements saves water and energy. It could be significant if bowel movement frequency can be substantially reduced. The current record period between movements is 47 days, set earlier this year:
          https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/poo-47-drugs-chambers-lamarr-14381908
          The previous record was just over a month.

          Delaying bowel movements curbs the desire to eat. Imagine how much energy would be saved if everyone flushed monthly rather than the more typical weekly flush.

          However always remember that if you don’t 3.hit, you can’t eat and you die – as simple as that.

          101

          • #
            Chad

            Imagine how much energy would be saved if everyone flushed monthly rather than the more typical weekly flush.

            Weekly flush ??!
            You mmust have a very large loo !

            60

      • #

        And here’s a nice little example of mass insanity posted in Quadrant:

        Climate Emergency Officer
        Permanent Full Time (Flexible)
        Band 6 $87,105.55 – $94,943.91 + Super + RDO

        The City of Yarra has a proud history of environmental action and leadership. Yarra was one of the first local governments in the world to declare a climate emergency, recognising urgent action is required by all. We are now employing our first Climate Emergency Officer, to help respond to the climate emergency across the municipality and within the organisation.

        270

    • #
      Lance

      T. Sowell

      “One of the first things taught in introductory statistics textbooks is that correlation is not causation. It is also one of the first things forgotten.”

      “Evidence is fact that discriminates between one theory and another. Facts do not “speak for themselves.” they speak for or against competing theories. Theories can be devastated by facts but they can never be proven correct by facts.

      What empirical verification can do is to reveal which of the competing theories currently being considered is more consistent with that which is known factually. Some other theory may come along tomorrow that is still more consistent with the facts, or explains those facts with fewer, clearer, or more manageable assumptions.”

      ― Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

      310

      • #
        Phoenix44

        A great quote from a few weeks ago:

        Science is always provisional.

        I believe in gravity only until someone disproves it.

        110

        • #
          David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

          I dunno P44,
          I’ve done many experiments over time, mostly unintentionally, and I’ve always fallen towards the centre of the earth, never into the tree tops.
          Cheers
          Dave B

          70

    • #
      Geoff

      Its ALL media driven drivel.

      Democracy has defeated the elite.

      They thought they could create a one world government, saving themselves from the irrelvance they thoroughly deserve.

      The idea that the United States was going to roll over and agree with the EU elite after Brexit all went out the door with Trump.

      The US is becoming once again the beacon for hope it once represented.

      We will now see if Great Britain wants to be “Great” again.

      110

  • #
    Dave in the States

    From the Time article:

    Because they don’t exist yet, these people of the future have no voice, no way to lobby for their needs.

    Ah! the old your being selfish and not thinking about the generations to come angle. This is turning the truth upside down and backwards. Fossil fuels have lifted more people out of poverty than all the Big Gov programs ever conceived. They are the ones being selfish seeking to destroy the wealth and freedom, and the opportunities, of the yet unborn with these Malthusian and unnecessary climate action proposals which transfers wealth and control from the poor and middle class, working families, and the elderly, to the elites and government classes of today.

    440

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      I suggest they are NOT selfish. “Selfish” meaning seeking what is rationally best for themselves in the long run and avoiding what is harmful. Their total focus is to destroy the good for being good and ultimately seeking harm for both themselves and all others. All in an attempt to fake being “powerful” while being pathetically weak starting from the deepest part of their character to their every thought and action.

      190

    • #
      Bobl

      Dave,
      Actually it never ceases to amaze me that the left prattle on about how global warming will affect the as yet unborn but are happy, in the very next protest, to hold up signs in support of terminating the as yet unborn in the womb.

      Hypocrisy has no limits.

      250

    • #
      Phoenix44

      It’s poor reasoning. Who knows what future generations want? They may prefer to be richer but hotter. To assume they want what you think they should want is arrogant nonsense.

      120

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Back when I was a sophomore in high school (1953) I started reading Times magazine because I thought it was a good summary of news. When I read the first “news” article, I found it filled with obvious opinion rather than actual news. I never read Time magazine again.

    The offering of blatant opinion as news spread over all so called news media until I could no longer stomach the reading, listening, or watching the “news”. That occurred sometime in the late 1970′s. I do not trust ANY part of the MSM to tell the truth, the whole truth, and noting but the truth at anytime about anything. If it does, it is only by accident. I don’t even trust MSM for statements of honest opinion. Even Fox News should be taken with a hundred pound bag of salt.

    What I do is research many websites, blogs, opinion pieces, and the like. Look for consistency over the long term over many websites. Eventually the truth can be discovered. Especially if you can be an effective philosophical detective capable of deducing the foundational beliefs of the various special interest groups. That knowledge can be used to translate the massive distortions of language committed by the TRUE BELIEVERS of all political persuasions.

    361

    • #
      GD

      Lionel, I can’t match your story, but I did begin reading Time magazine (and Life magazine, for the glorious pictures) back in the mid 60s. Mum subscribed so us kids would have some quality reading of current affairs if we were so interested.

      To my joy, as I flipped the glossy pages, I found out that Time had music reviews. Sometimes it was opera, but on other occasions it would be a review and an analysis of the latest Beatles’ album.

      I was over the moon. The review always came out before the Beatles’ record was available in Australia, thus whetting my appetite for the long awaited album.

      Then came the interminable wait until I had saved enough money for the $5.65 LP.

      Many years later, spotting a deal on a Time subscription, with a bonus gift, I subscribed.

      What I received was a cheap plastic ‘gift’ and a flimsy ‘magazine’, if you could call it that.

      And that was in the early 90s.

      I’m surprised Time Magazine is still in business.

      170

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        GD:

        I too am surprised Time Magazine is still in business.

        150

        • #
          The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

          Gentlemen:

          I am not 100% certain, but I believe that the item referred to as “Time Magazine” is now strictly an on-line type of ‘publication’. Perhaps one of the other Yanks who post here on a irregular basis (Roy!! Got yo’ ears on?) can verify this, but I believe the last physical ‘dead tree’ magazine came off the presses about five or six years ago.

          Newsweek went all on-line a couple of years before Time did, and I believe that Newsweek is now 100% defunct, but I would welcome correction to that information, such as it is … … …

          Best regards to all,

          Vlad

          100

          • #
            Annie

            I’ve seen print version Time at a friend’s place this very week.

            60

            • #
              The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

              Thanks for the memory tickle, Annie. Yes, there is a print version offered, when one becomes a ‘subscriber’. I was remiss.

              Why anyone would want to have a print version (or even subscribe, for that matter) when it can be read on-line, is beyond me. It has been several years since I’ve seen a hardcopy for sale on any news stands or magazine racks (here in the USA).

              Thanks again,

              Vlad

              50

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Sorry to hear that.

              50

        • #
          Greg in NZ

          The only time I read TIME was in doctors & dentists’ waiting rooms, its mind-numbing verbiage perfect inoculation against the soon-to-be painful operation (however, the bill at the end always stung).

          Ironic how ‘time’ spelled backwards is ‘emit’, which is all these PR snot rags do – produce foul vapours. Talking of:

          https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/396711/jacinda-ardern-to-talk-frankly-on-climate-change-in-pacific

          “Tension is likely as leaders hash out the wording… push back… robust… common ground… frankly… transition… aspirations… consensus… climate change”. Ptew! Makes me want to puke.

          * Finally, photographic evidence of “the narrowest point on capital atoll Funafuti” as the ex-President of the International Union of Socialist Youth, adopting a coy yet serious pose, stands on the isthmus road. You may know her by her other name: Princess Jacindarella. Boy, has that girl has gone far!

          * * In September last year, Marc Benioff bought Time for just under US$200 million. Marc who? BSc in Business Administration, ex-Oracle VP, friend of Barry & Hillary, philanthropist of the chosen tribe. Emit…

          150

  • #
    Reasonable Skeptic

    Amusing. I do think of my kids future. I want them to have affordable electricity, modern conveniences, the option to eat meat, lower taxes, and the inheritance I can provide from my nice home and inground pool.

    If I trusted others to tell me what to do, I would be a liberal.

    350

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      Off Topic : Ken Carter is still at it, on his Blog Ken’s Kingdom.
      He’s now looking through Tasmania’s curious & dopily located
      BOMb weather stations
      Today it is Dover & Orford
      Which are exposed as non compliant
      BOMb site.
      In fact I think Ken has invented the new sport of “BOMb spotting”.
      Who else wants to take part ?
      It’s a bit of a giggle
      But very serious.
      As these dopy BOMb sites
      Are the ‘basis’
      Of BOM global warming hysteria.
      There are lots of BOMb sites to explore !
      https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

      :

      90

  • #
    Clyde Spencer

    97% of the lemmings going over the cliff think that they are right. The other 3% are too meek to resist and go along for the fall.

    210

    • #
      ColA

      97% of Aztec priests were convinced that a human sacrifice would change the weather!

      210

      • #
        Mal

        Alarmists have upped the ante.
        They now want to sacrifice western civilization to appease the climate/weather gods

        80

      • #
        sophocles

        … and in the 17th Century, at the height (or depths of the Little Ice Age), 97% of the clergy believed that burning witches at the stake would fix the bad weather.

        The bad weather eventually went away …

        Now we have Klimate Deniers holding everyone and everything back. Nobody notices the “weather as usual.”

        70

    • #
      Terry

      And I have no problem with ‘the 97%’ going straight over the cliff if that’s what they choose to do. Go right ahead and earn that Darwin Award you so richly deserve.

      I only object to them demanding I be chained to them for the ride while they do it – bugger right off psychopath.

      180

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Time magazine was once worth reading. Back then they knew their job was to document the world as it was. Then they threw all that down the drain and became advocates. They haven’t said a worthwhile word since.

    It happens to anyone who decides to speak about things they know nothing about, in this case science. They will have lots of company in that hell reserved for journalists gone astray.

    240

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      If you follow the link, which Jo has kindly provided, read all the way down, or scroll if you want, you find an online survey. Go to town

      013

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        No need to thank me

        114

        • #
          Bill in Oz

          Hadn’t even thought
          Of thanking you Peter.
          No need !
          Inevitably the links you provide
          Are only for believers
          Or Lemmings.

          130

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Belief has nothing to do with it

            015

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Belief ” is all that you have, PF

              You have absolutely ZERO SCIENCE to back up your cult-like “belief” in warming by increased atmospheric CO2.

              130

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                I can’t help but say this.

                I sometimes wonder what several of you (you know who you are) would do if Peter Fitzroy suddenly disappeared. You would have no one to kick around and you’d need to find someone else. How would you handle that? ;-)

                52

              • #
                AndyG55

                “and you’d need to find someone else.”

                Not at all.

                They would assign someone equally as dumb and ignorant to take his place. :-)

                70

              • #
                AndyG55

                In fact, it looks like they already have. :-)

                90

              • #
                sophocles

                Roy:
                we would do nothing. A couple of years ago, there was Professor de Havilland, and before that one was the Intellectually Deficient Equine (female).

                There seems to be a continuous supply of encapsulated Vacuums charged with Fervour and Excitement that they Will be the Chosen One who Will Convert this den (website) of Rabid and Raging Denialists (no such word, BTW) and further the Great Cause of Klimate Change and International Socialism by removing the Log Jam to the Propaganda, Wishful Thinking, Unicorn Farts and Fairy Dust so important to the management of the Credulous Gullibles.

                Peter’s vacuum is starting to appear a little less intransigent, thanks to the gentle and kindly guidance of AndyG55 and one or two others, but then, it’s very early days yet and such appearances so soon could be wrong.

                Should it fail, there will be another Idiot Simpleton Witling Radoteur who will step up to shoulder the Challenge. We won’t be without our entertainment for long.

                60

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Sophocles,

                No, you won’t be without “entertainment” for long. But is that all this is, entertainment? I went looking back from comment #1 a while ago and it looks almost like a fist fight broke out. That helps nothing. It may be fun while you’re doing it but I would think you’d have a hangover from it in the morning — or a black eye. And it looks like Jo got ticked off enough get involved. Is that all this blog is about?

                51

              • #
                sophocles

                You’re right, Roy. A fist fight almost did break out and Jo had to separate the protagonists.

                You ask: Is that all this blog is about? I should hope not.

                I find this blog entertaining. But my idea of Entertainment differs considerably from others ideas. I like/enjoy and am entertained by learning. Discussion — suitably supported by appropriate quotations from literature searches — is highly enjoyable, and I learn from it. I can pass on some of that learning to others. That’s entertaining.

                50

            • #
              glen Michel

              Peter, what the hell are you on about. Talk sense man!

              70

              • #
              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Sorry Glen, I thought it was obvious. There is a poll at the end of the article with questions like “is global warming man made” (that’s from memory). There seems to be no limits on how many times you can answer this poll – hence the go to town remark.

                110

              • #
                AndyG55

                Who gives a stuff about a “poll”, WASTE OF TIME.

                Polls are NOT about science, they are a measure of gullibility.

                Bring SCIENCE, PF

                You have been totally lacking in that department.

                Start with the very basics shall we.

                Where is your empirical science that shows warming by increased atmospheric CO2?

                You are STILL totally EMPTY !

                80

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Peter,

          Why would I have any interest in answering such a survey. I’ve seen so many that have questions with answers designed to box me in that I can’t count them. No one is interested in knowing what my actual opinion is and why I hold it. No matter what the subject is they want to find out if you’re with them or part of the problem.

          Now I don’t know how old you are but if you just read through this topic you’ll find out that I’m now 80. And long before I reached octogenarian status I had learned that there must be some evidence that can be directly linked to effect before I should believe what someone else tells me. Melting ice in Greenland is only evidence of meting ice in Greenland. Indirectly it’s evidence of somewhat higher temperature. But it is not evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused that higher temperature. You presumably know some math so here’s the major sticking point. CO2′s ability to increase temperature is logarithmic, actually inversely logarithmic so that the more CO2 the less effect adding more CO2 will have. In other words the ability of carbon to do any harm is saturated or so close to it that it’s a joke to cry, “Carbon, carbon, carbon…”

          Do you get the picture, there is insufficient evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can do what it’s being blamed for that I no longer argue the subject. I’ve made an exception for you. Take advantage of it.

          You ain’t got no evidence supporting your claim. And in fact water vapor in the atmosphere is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 yet no one argues about reducing water in the atmosphere or that water in the atmosphere is a problem. Why would that be, Peter? Could it be because they know that everyone would soon figure out that there is no way to control water vapor, there is no way to blame it on human activity? It’s useless as a scapegoat.

          Think man, think. Don’t buy into what anyone tells you until you study it yourself and know why you agree or disagree with what you’re told.

          120

          • #
            FijiDave

            Crikey, Roy, I hope my synapses are firing as well as yours in eight years’ time when I’m eighty!

            80

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Hi Roy,

            Are you really feeding the Troll?

            :-) KK

            40

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              The debate seems to be one liners in which Peter Fitzroy is simply dismissed. I don’t know about you but I find that rather dull reading. If I confront him with a sound argument based in sound science how is that “feeding” him? I’d call that putting him to the test. Let’s see how he handles the challenge. :-)

              30

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Evidence, I’ve presented that on numerous occasions here in the past.

            If you do not want to fill in a survey, don’t do it. All I was doing was
            (a) pointing out that no one commenting here had read the article, even though the link was there
            (b) There is an option of expressing your opinion at the end.

            17

            • #
              Bill in Oz

              Time has NO credibility
              Or any science either, PF
              So why would I wish to waste
              Time in my life on it ?
              Now will Time ever listen to my opinion ?
              No, it is run by ideologues
              With their own inaccurate view of the world.
              So again a waste of time
              But all means YOU
              Go right ahead and
              Waste your life on such rubbish

              60

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Evidence, I’ve presented that on numerous occasions here in the past”

              NO, YOU HAVE NOT.

              On no occasion have you presented any EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

              Best you have ever managed is to propaganda pap pieces and irrelevant non-science.

              Still waiting for that real empirical evidence of warming by increased atmospheric CO2

              Seem you don’t have the vaguest clue what constitutes actual SCIENTIFIC evidence.

              80

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Evidence, I’ve presented that on numerous occasions here in the past.

              I’ve given you the truth. You may say what you please but trying to get others to believe you is another matter.

              Now remind me again, just how does what you have said show that CO2 can do what you say it can?

              The whole climate change debate is hung out to dry for lack of that one piece of evidence that would show convincingly that CO2 can do what you say it’s doing. But you don’t have that missing link, do you?

              60

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                I’m in moderation with the list

                24

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                I’m in moderation with the list

                Then I shall await the release of your list from moderation. In the meantime, perhaps you can explain the Vostok ice core result showing that rise and fall of carbon dioxide lagged behind the rise and fall of temperature an average of 800 years. Funny thing is that if CO2 is to be a cause of warming then its rise must lead the warming not lag behind.

                What say you?

                40

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Peter Fitzroy,

                I see your evidence is now visible above. But I don’t find your response to my question about the Vostok ice core problem. I would think you would have a ready answer to that or you would capitulate on the spot because the much heralded examination of ice core data that both sides of this dispute agree can accurately measure both temperature change and CO2 change, when made into an accurate graph does not show what would be necessary if CO2 is responsible for the warming but shows exactly the opposite, that it cannot be responsible. In addition to that, the well known properties of water and CO2 provide a ready explanation for what the graph does show.

                In the meantime, every paper you list has one gaping hole in it. You may not start by making it a given fact that CO2 is causing warming and then go about discussing, examining, researching why your given fact is a fact. It’s dishonest. Read them carefully. They do not start from a neutral position but from one biased in always the same direction, carbon is killing the planet.

                I look forward to your reply. And if I have missed anything I look forward to being corrected.

                30

              • #
                AndyG55

                So true, Roy

                Using a model, based on the assumption of warming by atmospheric CO2, to attempt to prove that CO2 causes warming, is probably the very worst sort on non-science nonsense there is.

                But its all they have.

                20

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                But as of now, Peter Fitzroy is silent.

                10

          • #
            Slithers

            Hi Roy, I am 81, I am also an avid researcher of facts. There is one startling obvious fact about water vapor as increased by human activity.

            Air Conditioners are a modern invention, Yes we knew and used evaporative cooling of substances in ancient times, but the increased use of electric air conditioners is significant over the periods involved.

            Air Conditioners produce water vapor, zillions of liters of it.
            Could this be the ‘Elephant’ in the room?

            10

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Good question. Consider the size of the natural source of water vapor in the atmosphere relative to human caused water vapor. Earth is covered about 75% with open ocean surface from which water evaporates constantly. I have no numbers showing how much water human activity puts into the atmosphere but a quick guesstimate says natural evaporation swamps anything caused by human activity.

              Refrigeration actually condenses water out of the air it cools but I suspect that over time all that water just evaporates again. So over time there’s no net difference.

              Does that answer your question?

              10

      • #
        AndyG55

        Now why would anyone want to WASTE TIME doing a far-left opinion survey for the brain-dead !!

        I saw Weepy Bill and couldn’t stop laughing at the pre-pubescent twerp.

        That was enough hilarity for one evening.

        100

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Equally, why waste time in flame wars, which is your incessant habit

          16

          • #
            Bill in Oz

            Because many of us feek very annoyed
            At your contamination
            Of this blog with
            your ignorance and
            Blinkered PC advocacy
            Of junk science.

            61

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Now Bill, I don’t actively denigrate anyone on this site, and my opinion is worth as much as anyone else’s. If your position is such that you can not accept a contrary view without resorting to abuse, that is more about you than me.

              110

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            It’s not a war.

            It’s just marker flares being deployed to mark a problem.

            You’re a smoothe talker Peter, even though you don’t say anything, c’mon PF admit it.

            We’re just marking the weird zone so that newbies to the blog won’t think you are representative of the generally well informed members of the blog.

            After all, who would bother to go to war against a scientifically inept presence such as Marker Flare Pete?

            KK

            40

          • #
            AndyG55

            Why do you waste your time here, PF?

            You refuse to actually LEARN anything,

            You don’t seem to have a purpose except attention-seeking and deliberate distraction.

            60

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘Why do you waste your time here, PF?’

              We all have our strengths, weaknesses and particular interests. His is energy.

              ‘You refuse to actually LEARN anything.’

              Perhaps your teaching method is flawed.

              60

              • #
                AndyG55

                Haven’t you noticed that he is wilfully determined NOT to learn ;-)

                30

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Andy, haven’t you noticed that some people take a position on some issue and then find great difficulty in adjusting as needed.

                It called inertia and has several modes of operation.

                One of the weird things in this blog recently was the comparison in treatment of Joelle Gergis and the two trolls, Troll-I and Troll-PF.

                Why is it that when all three behave the same way in relation to the Global Warming issue, only one is attacked and ridiculed? Is it because she’s a Woeman?

                Whatever: I will avoid commenting on TI and TPF from now on since I’ve made my point about what they contribute.

                KK

                30

      • #

        Big tip, equation with 97.97% mathematical certainty: SURVEY = LAZY, UNSCIENTIFIC, MANIPULATIVE SHILLING, RESULT OF LAME BOX-TICK EDUCATION. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

        No need to thank me. Actually…nah…go ahead, thank me.

        40

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    People have completely lost contact with reality.

    Reality is standing with both feet on the ground.

    Reality is stamping your foot and feeling that jarring impact when the concrete refuses to give way.

    That was 1950. Reality.

    Feeling aggrieved because the concrete refuses to give way under our attack, well that’s so 2019.

    We have rights, we heard about it on T.V. and other histrionic social media sources.

    Hillary, Bill and Barak confirm that my feelings are true and valid, and no, I’m not suffering from confirmation bias, and I have a PhD in social inequality, so I must be right. Sorry, that should be left.
    Whatever that means.

    KK

    190

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      People have completely lost contact with reality.

      And it’s getting worse as they vie to outdo each other on the scale of abysmal ignorance.

      170

      • #
        • #
          Roy Hogue

          The last time I said what was on my mind about something like that I got jumped all over by a moderator. So this time I’ll abbreviate it. BS!

          80

        • #
          Annie

          I shouldn’t have read that, it is utterly depressing. The stupidity is beyond belief. I’m trying to imagine what your real, unwritten thoughts are Roy. :(

          100

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Annie,

            At 80 the things I miss the most are honesty and due diligence. I was born at the end of the depression and my parents and grandparents Hogue were sharing a house in order to keep the rent paid and food on the table. My birth certificate actually gives my father’s occupation, chauffeur for a private party. That can’t have paid well. My grandfather was a dentist which would make him a prosperous man, until the depression hit. Since people could put off dental work his income fell way off and they lost the home they owned, hence the living situation when I was born.

            The war came along and changed things for the better employment wise But I grew up understanding that no one was going to give me things and I was going to have to work for what I wanted. College? I did that the hard way. My first job out of high school had me working 7 days a week in the back end of the local bowling ally maintaining the pin spotting machinery for a whole $35 take home pay every week. I could drive my father’s car but that’s hardly freedom so I saved until I could buy a broken down old 1950 Chevrolet. That car meant everything to me because it opened up a world of opportunities. By the way, I walked back and forth to that job until I had wheels.

            I went to work to make myself worth something to everyone I ever worked for I studied, no matter the job. I got myself a BS then an MS in computer science. I was always ready and willing to take on a new responsibility or a new challenge both for the sake of the challenge itself and for the possibility that it made me more valuable to my employer.

            I’ve ended up solvent and comfortable in retirement. I can go to any local restaurant and order any meal I want, at least as long as I don’t do that too often. I can vacation where and when I want, again as long as I don’t do it too often.

            The present whining and crying generation has never known hardship. They have never known the value of the things they have. Things come to easily to them and so they don’t appreciate what they have. While they think they have so many complaints they, in fact have the time to dabble in climate change among many other wasted causes, throwing away their time without consequence because they actually live in the most prosperous generation the world has ever seen. If this was not a prosperous time they would suffer immediate consequences of their foolishness. But of course they don’t suffer for the wasting of time, energy and resources.

            They disgust me.

            220

            • #
              OriginalStece

              Roy , agree with what youve said.

              I work in IT ( database stuff ) and hate how smartphones guarantee a dedicated channel of ( mostly ) drivel to everyone.

              Most people would go spare if they coujdnt get thier daily fix of complete rubbish.

              I sometimes suggest whining blokes should hand in thier man card if they dont stop whining.

              My favourite movie – Grand Torino. It embodies old school “right stuff”…

              70

        • #
          Phil R

          According to Dr Inoue, teachers should “calculate course grades by labour completed and dispense almost completely with judgements of quality when producing course grades.” And so “critical information literacy” – a term deployed with an air of satisfaction – actually entails not being critical, or indeed literate.

          Apparently, the way for minority students to flourish as writers is for them to dismiss any criticism of their prose, and any attempt to improve it, as a racially motivated “microaggression” and an “oppressive practice,” and thus proof of “an inherently racist society.” You see, students with brown skin needn’t be articulate, verbally self-possessed, or precise in their thoughts. And that ungrammatical job application, the one enlivened with incomprehensible sentences and lots of inventive spelling, will do just fine. And by the time the real-world consequences of this “social justice” posturing become difficult to avoid, Dr Inoue will have been paid – and be merrily exploiting the next batch of suckers.

          critical information literacy; I have no words…

          90

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Spot the satire:

    1. Update: We Now Have Only 12 Seconds Left Until Climate Change Destroys The Planet

    https://babylonbee.com/news/update-we-now-have-only-12-seconds-left-until-climate-change-destroys-the-planet

    2. Australian scientists explain what the latest predictions about climate change mean for the future

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report, written by 100 scientists from around the world and commissioned by the United Nations*, was released on Thursday.

    It appeared to dash hopes that global warming could be contained to the 1.5C agreed to in the 2016 Paris climate deal.

    https://www.kidsnews.com.au/environment/australian-scientists-explain-what-the-latest-predictions-about-climate-change-mean-for-the-future/news-story/3eac689736f8db23dcc4bad0150a119b

    >> The cruelty is their target audience who can’t spot the satire:

    ‘Climate Despair’ Is Making People Give Up on Life
    “It’s super painful to be a human being right now at this point in history.”

    https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/j5w374/climate-despair-is-making-people-give-up-on-life

    180

    • #
      Maptram

      Particularly the third one about the climate despair of the woman in Ontario, Canada where average daily maximums in July can be as high as 28°C and average minimums in January can be as low as -14°C

      90

      • #
        Zane

        Cults employ the same techniques of mind control as the climatists. It’s pretty evil stuff. It also shows how many ordinary people believe any set of lies they are told, as long as the lies are repeated often and loud. A Vietnamese farmer was once interviewed regarding the effectiveness of Viet Cong propaganda. He said, well, the first time you hear something, you don’t necessarily believe it, but after hearing it repeated 10,000 times, it starts to sink in.

        Communist countries used to have loudspeakers attached to telephone poles in towns blaring out commie nonsense all day long.

        The average Westerner hears climateprop at least 20-30 times a day.

        90

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Well, their 12 seconds is up and where is the end of the world? Do you see it? Or you over there, do you see it?

    Uh oh! It seems to be missing. I wonder what that means. Must be something sinister afoot in satire land.

    130

    • #
      PeterS

      It’s much simpler than that. Those who advocate action on climate change just can’t think for themselves and so rely on those who shout the loudest, which are of course the scam artists and the left. Of course there are probably a few hidden figures who do have a sinister goal in all this. Some of them would even like to see another world war so they can profit from it no matter who wins. In general though the climate change alarmists are just gullible lazy m0r0ns.

      140

      • #
        Another Ian

        “If two people get along and never argue then only one of them is doing the thinking” Baxter Black

        70

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          And conversely if two people disagree about something it is highly likely that both of them are at least partly wrong about whatever they disagree about.

          How are we ever going to reconcile those two things?

          30

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Roy H:

            Never.
            We “deniers” claim that the Climate has always changed and there is considerable evidence for that in the last 10,000 years (and before). The “believers” claim that the climate has only changed in the last 50 years because of human activity. They either refuse to believe any evidence/temperature records/eye witness writings/ archaeological finds/ even the ice core analyses once their find out that they cast doubt on “The Science”.
            They are left only with slogans which they chant to convince themselves.
            Several of the less forward thinking “believers” come on this blog apparently believing that those slogans will cause us all to convert to The Science. Then, when they face ridicule, they accuse us of stubbornness, ignorance and a lack of deference to their superiors. Ultimately they return to their coven for consolation by the remainning few who still refuse to accept facts. Worse, fewer and fewer people are convinced that Climate Change is “the Great Moral Problem of out Time”. Sadly, suicides will result.

            60

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Graeme,

              Your answer, never, is correct. You win an all expenses paid trip to Jo Nova’s blog to watch it all happen. Also a green thumb and a bright shiny smile.

              :-)

              And now that we have that settled I’m left wondering what the next great moral problem of our time is going to be. Probably prohibition against eating, maybe even thinking about eating meat. I keep wondering when open warfare is going to start and exactly where it will hit. Somewhere there are probably enough hothead types who will say, “Oh no you don’t,” or, “Oh yes you do,” and then start shooting. I’d like to be a million miles from that when it starts. But the details of the future are as dark to me as they are to everyone else. :-(

              40

              • #
                The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

                Apparently you missed it: the next great battle of our time is the “War on Bowel Movements”.

                I won’t expect much action until the Second Movement … … …

                40

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Vlad, only a symphony has a second movement. Who wrote the, “War on Bowel movements.”? I’d like to get a recording of it.

                Why it would be a great battle I don’t know. Seems like such a fitting subject for today’s politics.

                20

              • #
                The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

                Hi Roy,

                KK got the pun: ‘second’ (as in a “number two”) ‘movement’ to coincide with the more polite form of what we humans call that excretory function … … …

                There was an earlier post about the President of Brazil suggesting that we all do … … … less do-do … …. ………..

                … … to combat ‘global warming’, doncha see … … … …

                And, if I may, upthread there is your discussion about A/C and water vapor and what-not. Might I posit that the combustion of hydrocarbons is a more important source of (for lack of a better term) ‘juvenile’ water. Consider that just here in the US, we consume about 17 – 18 million BOE (barrels of oil equivalent; meaning that even the methane and other refined gaseous hydrocarbons [to include ethane, propane, butane ... ] are included in the total ), which means that about half of what comes out of your tailpipe (or gas furnace) is water vapor, so a few tens of millions of litres of water are added to the atmosphere just from what the US consumes, each day. I realize that a few million litres of water is, no pun intended, just a drop in the bucket, compared to the volume of the oceans, but we have been doing it for nigh unto a century, give or take. The hydrocarbons sequestered in the ground, until now, were formed from algal photosynthesis, which included the existing water back then, those millions of years ago, and the existing carbon dioxide back then. We are re-creating the water they used, and putting it back into the overall system.

                We’re adding a ‘spot of bother’ of CO2, and a smidge of H2O back into an ancient system, so it’s really a form of ‘re-cycling’. With all this CO2 and the existing (or new) H2O, algae are free to go make more hydrocarbon fuel for us (in a few million years, cooking in the proper subsurface ‘kitchen’ … … … … )

                Think GOM Miocene … … … … …

                10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                I got it too but I couldn’t resist tweaking you a little. Chalk it up to being tired this evening.

                10

            • #
  • #
    el gordo

    The MPFC is not strongly activated when you are thinking 12 years ahead, because the end of the world as proclaimed by Saint Greta is vey vague and visualisation poor.

    90

  • #
    Ruairi

    The dogma alarmists are fed,
    Like a drug, goes straight to their head,
    Whereas skeptics discern,
    Discover and learn,
    Thus informed, they are not easily led.

    260

  • #

    I would love to watch the MRI of a main stream ‘climate scientist’ as I rip their pseudo-science to shreds.

    160

  • #
    pattoh

    Seriously?

    Was it not he case that the very TOP of the list for Vanguard Marching Standard Bearers of the whole Operation Mockingbird started with the owners & editors of this very magazine?

    This is the sort of impeccable source piggybacked by The View & The Drum to bolster their cred.

    Uncork another Chardi & plan more infomercials with former celeb politicians & Hollywood A- Listers spruiking windmill ponzies.
    /sarc.

    120

  • #
    PeterS

    Our world has turned up-side-down as a result of our leaders telling too many fibs and breaking their promises. Fewer and fewer people trust them. As a result people will do their own thing and say whatever they like, which leads to chaos. Time Mag is a prime example of this. The MSM is another. Without a trusted leader to point out the truth on a daily basis a society collapses. Will we ever have a leader who we can trust? I doubt it. History is proof enough.

    170

  • #
    WXcycles

    Translation: “On why the propaganda isn’t working – It’s them, not us!”

    140

  • #
    el gordo

    They are really clutching at straws with this yarn, its vulgar propaganda for the mindless troops.

    ‘ … how much economic damage each ton of carbon dioxide is estimated to cause …’

    My MPFC lights up as I think of our world in the foreseeable future and the great benefits from human induced CO2 as we enter a mini ice age.

    I guess its all about seeing.

    120

  • #
    David Maddison

    Remember that the Left will stop at nothing to get their way. When propaganda doesn’t work they start killing people just like the communists (international socialists) and nazis (national socialists) have previously done.

    160

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Time has been a rag for years.
    Its all about the framing cool memes for simpletons.
    I dont think the writer is being dishonest..they just are clueless and writing stuff that has been repeated so many times..that it has induced a trance like state and an inability to think.
    All we can keep doing is to point out the idiocy of $CAGW$ claims.
    On a side note..who would like to apply for a job as a :”Climate Emergency Officer” . :)
    https://australianclimatemadness.com/2019/08/13/victoria-yarra-city-council-advertises-for-climate-emergency-officer/

    130

  • #

    A broader knowledge of the science might reveal how CO2, in spite of being a ghg, does not, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate:
    1. A huge population gradient for water vapor molecules exists from average about 10,000 ppmv at surface to 32 ppmv at and above the tropopause.
    2. Significant radiation below ~wavenumber 600 can only be absorbed/emitted by WV molecules and at higher altitudes much of the outward directed emission goes directly to space. This is demonstrated by the ‘hash’ in TOA flux vs wavenumber graphs.
    3. Thermalization allows much of the energy absorbed by CO2 below the tropopause to be redirected to WV resulting in the ‘notch’ centered on CO2 in TOA vs wavenumber graphs.
    4. CO2 is ~410 ppmv all the way up and dominates absorb/emit above the tropopause, partially refilling the ‘notch’ in TOA flux vs wavenumber.
    5. The increase in water vapor, which is about twice that calculated from temperature increase of the liquid water, accounts for the part of the increase in warming attributable to humanity.

    Average global temperature tracks water vapor, not CO2.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAbq6CaVUAAPdos?format=jpg&name=small
    http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com

    The good news is double:
    1. The added WV my mitigate or even prevent another LIA.
    2. The increased WV and thus the increased warming is inherently self-limiting.

    131

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      The other oft ignored issue relating to CO2 arises from quantitative analysis.

      Assuming that the “warming effect” is real, and it’s not, then since water and CO2 function essentially in the same wave band area, water dominates any real or imagined effect.

      CO2 is quantitatively irrelevant, but to make things worse for “warmers” only about 4% of the total CO2 is of human origin.

      The demonisation of human origin CO2 is absolutely dishonest, malicious and unscientific and simple quantitative analysis proves that it is a complete irrelevance if the claimed heating Mechanism was real: it’s not.

      Thou shalt not worship false gods.

      KK

      171

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘ … only about 4% of the total CO2 is of human origin.’

        Law Dome disagrees with you.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Law_dome_co2_levels_1000_AD_-_2000_AD.JPG

        24

        • #
          Chad

          Law Dome disagrees with you.

          that Law dome data says nothing about the % of human induced CO2 ?
          For that you need the isotopic analysis results which suggest human / fossil based CO2 is a minor fraction (<20ppm). of of the total 410 ppm atmospheric CO2

          91

          • #
            el gordo

            The thing about Law Dome is that it doesn’t show the Medieval Warm Period, so its dodgy.

            I’ll follow up your suggestion.

            30

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              el g:

              why does that graph of CO2 not show the influence of known temperatures being moderated by the oceans i.e. if the Earth is warm surely Henry’s law woud apply and warmer oceans would emit more CO2.
              Granted that a long ocean turnover time would ‘average out’ the effect somewhat, but 5,000 years of warm temperatures (mostly) in the holocene optimum should surely have shown a rising CO2 level, not a flat level. Similarly a colder time should show a reduced CO2 level after some time which MIGHT be why a (smoothed) level starts about 1170 AD to 1570AD. By why does the graph show a rapid anticipation of the Maunder minimum? And why does it show a recovery from the Little Ice Age from about 1770AD (with immediate response to the Dalton Minimum)?

              50

          • #
            el gordo

            Thanks Chad, I stand corrected.

            ‘Present human emissions add an equilibrium level of 18 ppm, which is the product of human carbon dioxide inflow of 4.5 ppm per year multiplied by the carbon dioxide residence time of 4 years. Present natural emissions add an equilibrium level of 392 ppm, to get today’s 410 ppm.

            ‘If human emissions continue as at present, these emissions will add no additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If all human emissions were stopped, and nature stayed constant, it would remove only 18 ppm. The natural level of 392 ppm would remain.’

            edberry.com

            91

    • #
      Zane

      The Left and the climateers are unfortunately not interested in the science. Their minds are made up, and are closed to anything resembling factual knowledge.

      101

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘The added WV might mitigate or even prevent another LIA.’

      Increasing water vapour would indicate a cooling climate with strong negative feedback.

      41

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Never did like Time magazine . . .
    I would happily burn a stack of them if I could!
    No loss to anyone.
    GeoffW

    130

  • #
    TdeF

    When I read such drivel, I am fascinated to know why people believe it?
    Bryan Walsh, self employed. A 4 year degree in English.

    So the same undergraduate degree in English as Professor Tim Flannery, Nobel Prize winner Al Gore. Illustrious company.

    Obviously then someone who understands mathematics, chemistry, physics, rational science, computer modeling,
    geology and all the rich field of meteorology.

    Not a science neuron in there anywhere. In the original Oregon petition 33,000 scientists up to the likes of Manhattan project leader
    Oppenheimer signed a verifiable document with their real name and address and twenty years ago declared this all rubbish.
    A few leftists signed too with silly names to discredit it but it still stands as a testament to leftist politicians to ignore the advice
    of tens of thousands of real scientists in the US. Instead they quote 97 people out of 100 as representative of scientific opinion, the fake 97%.

    Nothing has changed. It is still arrant rubbish. And so is the near defunct Time magazine. After 40 years, I cancelled my subscription. The
    Age in Melbourne lasted 42 1/2 years before I could stand their leftist dictum, non reporting and abuse no longer. The exraordinary National Geographic
    is going the same way, but I consider them innocent victims who believe what they are told. This Time magazine article is just abuse.

    MRI scan Mr Walsh and you will find science has an explanation. Nature ahbors a vacuum.

    260

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      TdeF, I think the short answer to your question ‘why do people believe this stuff’ is simply that it gives them the feel good sensation that comes with the conformity to the perceived majority or group that they identify with. They make little or no attempt to think for themselves. The majority must be right and they want to be part of that majority. Anyone who says differently must be wrong and as such is castigated.
      GeoffW

      170

  • #
    beowulf

    Here’s a pair who aren’t unbelievers. Spare a thought for the exertions and privations of poor Harry and Megan, climate warriors and signallers of acute virtue.

    A fortnight after their Google billionaires shindig and Harry’s oh-so-sincere barefoot speech on curbing our lifestyles to save Gaia, they have rowed from London to Ibiza in the Balearic Islands in the middle of the Mediterranean for a quick holiday with young Archibald.

    As those of you who have rowed a small boat from England to the Med with a 3 month old baby will know, it isn’t fun. Two months’ worth of organic nappies to store; dairy-free baby formula; soy milk for mum and dad; non-farmed vegetable protein meals; 50 summer outfits to keep uncrumpled; plus the bare necessities of a nanny, a lady’s maid and 3 footmen, all in a 12 ft tinnie.

    Thank goodness they didn’t fly there or they could be seen as brazen hypocrites.

    https://www.msn.com/en-au/entertainment/celebrity/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-take-baby-archie-on-secret-holiday-to-ibiza/ar-AAFNxq2?ocid=spartandhp

    140

  • #
    joseph

    Having the Time of my Life.

    70

  • #

    See-saw whether… time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601770131,00.html

    60

  • #
  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Keep that issue of Time Magazine so you can show our descendents how you made it onto the cover. Geoff S

    90

  • #
    pat

    17 Sept 2018: CBS: ***Marc Benioff, co-founder of Salesforce, buys Time magazine
    Meredith announced that it was selling Time magazine for $190 million in cash to Benioff, one of four co-founders of Salesforce, a cloud computing pioneer and an executive known for ***social activism…
    The Benioffs are purchasing Time personally, and the transaction is unrelated to Salesforce.com, where Benioff is chairman and co-CEO and co-founder…

    ***The announcement by Meredith said that the Benioffs would not be involved in the day-to-day operations or journalistic decisions at Time. Those decisions will continue to be made by Time’s current executive leadership team, the announcement said…
    Circulation at Time magazine has declined sharply, with the magazine cutting its circulation from by about 700,000 to 2.3 million for the six-month period ending June 30, The Wall Street Journal noted…
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marc-benioff-co-founder-of-salesforce-buys-time-magazine/

    “others” includes Elon Musk, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, Michael Bloomberg, Hyatt heir J.B. Pritzker, Tom Steyer, Mark Cuban:

    2 Jun 2017: Forbes: Zuckerberg, ***Benioff And ***Other Billionaires Sound Off On Trump’s Decision On Paris Climate Accord
    by Kate Vinton
    Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, who posted a letter on Twitter Wednesday night signed by a number of companies begging Trump not to leave the Paris Accord, followed up Thursday to say that he was “deeply disappointed” with Trump’s decision. “We will double our efforts to fight climate change,” he tweeted…TWEET…

    The President himself, meanwhile, issued a triumphant tweet hours after his decision was announced:
    TWEET: Donald J. Trump
    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
    2 Jun 2017
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2017/06/02/zuckerberg-benioff-and-other-billionaires-sound-off-on-trumps-decision-to-leave-paris-climate-accord/

    24 Apr: Time: TIME CEO (and Editor-in-Chief) Edward Felsenthal Toasts ‘People Who Do the Impossible’ at TIME 100 Gala
    By Megan McCluskey
    Read the full text of his toast below…
    (excerpts) Hoesung Lee (IPCC Chair) is here. His landmark report on our dangerously warming planet finally woke up the international community to the reality that we need collective action on climate change, not in 2050, not in 2040, but now…

    And welcome Madam Speaker. Nancy Pelosi this year made history as the only woman to serve as Speaker of the House twice…

    Please join me in thanking ***Marc and Lynne Benioff, our new owners and co-chairs. From the first moments we sat down with Lynne and Marc to discuss TIME’s future, we knew that this was not just a meeting of minds and goals but a union of purpose. Our shared objective is to ensure that TIME will expand and thrive, providing trusted guidance for humanity as we approach our 100th anniversary just four years from now…
    Influence is a powerful gift. It’s not a gift to be polished and placed high on a shelf somewhere.
    We challenge you, all of you, to spend it, spread it, share it, use it, and we congratulate you, not just for how far you’ve come, but for what you’ll do next.
    https://time.com/5576751/time-100-2019-edward-felsenthal-toast/

    60

  • #

    First flatter the mugs with an irrelevant but sciency-sounding discourse on MRI…then patronise with a juvenile simplification (“light up like Times Square on New Year’s Eve”)…then congratulate them on being among the non-deplorable elect who don’t need a $3 million machine to understand….er, selfishness and stuff…uh, guys…you know what I mean…

    Who writes such slop and who can possibly be the market for it? TIME was always a spook front with a bit of info and entertainment included, but it made dough and got subscriptions. My guess is that it’s now purely a dirt-funded spook front and nothing else.

    Have a laugh at this before it gets memory-holed or sent to Snopes Re-education Camp:
    https://tinyurl.com/y293882p

    90

  • #
    pat

    VIDEOS: 15 Aug: Daily Mail: Google whistleblower reveals tech giant DOES blacklist right-wing news sites and says the company called police when he leaked the evidence, leaving him ‘fearing for his life’
    •Engineer Zachary Vorhies released hundreds of documents to Project Veritas
    •He says he added a ‘dead man’s switch’ to the files in case he was ‘assassinated’
    •One of the files leaked by Vorhies is a ‘news black list site for Google Now’
    •He claims it is a list of the web pages Google restricts including conservative leaning websites such as The National Enquirer, Media Matters and Infowars
    •Another file appears to show a ranking classifier to ‘define channel quality’
    •Images show Vorhies walking towards officers after ‘Google called the police’
    •’Google is not who they say they are’, he warns in a chat with Project Veritas
    •CEO Sundar Pichai’s told congress that Google is not biased in December 2018
    By Lauren Fruen
    Whistleblower Zachary Vorhies spoke to Project Veritas after claiming the company called police in San Francisco to perform a ‘wellness check’ on him when he originally leaked files on their activity…

    Vorhies says the company’s actions are ‘hypocritical at the least and it’s perjury at the worst’ after CEO Sundar Pichai testified to Congress to say they do not promote left-leaning, Democratic news over that of more Conservative outlets or merely outlets it does not rate.
    The insider said he spoke out amid fears the ‘entire election system was going to be compromised forever by this company that told the American public that it was not going to do any evil’…READ ON
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7357201/Google-whistleblower-reveals-tech-giant-DOES-blacklist-news-sites.html

    14 Aug: TrendingPolitics: Mitt Romney Forms Alliance With Top Dem To Go After Trump
    The Daily Beast reports that Romney held a secret meeting former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — and they discussed how to get rid of Trump.
    While speaking with The Daily Beast, Reid lamented that he was “pretty damn worried” about Trump winning re-election in 2020.

    Reid has also reportedly been reaching out to certain congressional Republicans in an attempt to persuade them to publicly rebuke Trump.
    So it’s not too surprising he went to Romney, one of the most notorious Never-Trumpers in Congress, to discuss how they can dump POTUS…
    https://trendingpolitics.com/mitt-romney-forms-alliance-with-top-dem-to-go-after-trump/?utm_source=stonewall&utm_medium=twitter

    14 Aug: Townhall: Judicial Watch Finds Documents Showing Fusion GPS Working Directly With Obama’s DOJ to Frame Trump
    by Katie Pavlich
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/08/14/judicial-watch-finds-documents-showing-fusion-gps-working-directly-with-doj-to-frame-trump-with-ties-to-russia-n2551685

    60

  • #
    pat

    unbelievable:

    14 Aug: Phys.org: China may be on track to meet its carbon emissions goals early
    by Leah Burrows, Harvard University
    China, the world’s largest carbon emitter today, may be on track to meet its emission goals up to a decade early, according to a recent study on the cover of Nature Sustainability led by researchers from Nanjing University in Nanjing, China, and Harvard University.

    The research focuses the relationship between urban economic growth and CO2 emissions. Fifty cities in China account for about 35 percent of China’s total emissions and 51 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). By examining the emissions from these cities from 2000 to 2016, the researchers found a close relationship between per capita emissions and per capita GDP. The team found that carbon emissions for most cities stop rising and then begin to decline when GDP reaches around US $ 21,000 per person.

    Using data on future population size and level of economic development from the World Bank, the researchers suggest that the nation’s total emissions could peak between 2021 and 2025 at 13-16 gigatonnes of CO2, well ahead of the 2030 commitment made by China under the U.N. Paris Climate Agreement…
    https://phys.org/news/2019-08-china-track-carbon-emissions-goals.html

    22

    • #
      pat

      14 Aug: InsideClimateNews: Global Warming Is Worsening China’s Pollution Problems, Studies Show
      By Phil McKenna
      Increased heat waves and more periods of stagnant air resulting from global warming will worsen existing air pollution across much of China, the scientists concluded…

      “Stagnant air masses are in a way the worst conditions for air pollution to really bite,” said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director emeritus of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a co-author of the study.
      “It is a bit like the 19th Century when the London smog happened, because it was a combination of the pollution from the chimneys and the factories and the other thing was the atmospheric conditions,” he said…

      “Our results indicate that future climate change is likely to increase the risk of severe pollution events in China,” Qiang Zhang, a chemical engineering professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing and a co-author of the study, said via email. “Managing air quality in China in a changing climate will thus become more challenging.”…

      China’s commitment to the Paris climate agreement calls for its carbon emissions to peak by 2030. Given climate’s role in health, Schellnhuber said, policymakers may want to increase their greenhouse gas reduction goals.
      https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14082019/climate-change-china-pollution-smog-soot-jet-stream-global-warming

      11

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Meet their targets early!!????
      I thought their target was just keep on producing CO2 to their hearts’ content until 2030, when they’d think about what they’d do next.
      And I’m sure they’ll successfully do that. But call that a target? No way.
      (But I guess that would meet current university standards.)

      Or does it mean China will have completed its building of coal fired power stations at the current rate by then?
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      50

  • #
    pat

    even more unbelievable…and it’s an AFP piece which has been picked up by Japan Times, Global Times China, Saudi Gazette, Straits Times, France24, Yahoo etc:

    14 Aug: Phys.org: Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study
    by Marlowe Hood, AFP
    PIC: Trump-mocking “climate protest”
    Climate deniers have garnered far more media attention than prominent climate scientists over the years, fuelling public confusion and slowing the response to global warming, researchers reported Tuesday.
    From 2000 through 2016, hundreds of academics, business people and politicians who doubted global warming or attributed rising temperatures to “natural” causes got 50 percent more ink than an equal number of top scientists, according to a study in Nature Communications, a peer-reviewed journal.

    Even in a more select group of mainstream English language news outlets with high standards of evidence—from the New York Times and The Guardian to The Wall Street Journal and the Daily Telegraph—sceptics were still cited slightly more often…
    “Climate change contrarians have successfully organised a strong voice within politics and science communication,” noted the authors, led by Alexander Petersen at the University of California at Merced…

    Last week, for example, US business magazine Forbes published an article on its website entitled “Global Warming? An Israeli Astrophysicist Provides Alternative View That is Not Easy To Reject”.
    The “alternative view”—that warming is caused by the Sun and not CO2 emissions—is thoroughly discredited, and the magazine was compelled within hours to remove the piece.

    Last week, for example, US business magazine Forbes published an article on its website entitled “Global Warming? An Israeli Astrophysicist Provides Alternative View That is Not Easy To Reject”.
    The “alternative view”—that warming is caused by the Sun and not CO2 emissions—is thoroughly discredited, and the magazine was compelled within hours to remove the piece…

    In the new study, Petersen and colleagues scanned 100,000 news items published from 2000 through 2016 for bylines, citations and mentions of 386 scientists, and 386 “contrarians”.
    “Tallying across all media sources we find climate change contrarian media visibility to be 49 percent greater than climate change visibility,” they wrote.
    The imbalance was made worse by the amplifying effect of social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, they added. LINK
    https://phys.org/news/2019-08-climate-deniers-media-scientists.html

    21

    • #
      pat

      oops – the forbes articles section has posted twice. apologies.

      20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Perhaps Forbes reprinted it after they “were compelled within hours to remove the piece” ?

        From limited reading I have always found Forbes more realistic than The Guardian. When visiting the UK in 1977 I got a copy of The Daily Mirror and The Sun and decided that neither were worth reading again, despite their reputation as the most used wrapping for fish and chips. The Guardian, despite no bare boobs on Page 3, followed, but not to the status of desirable wrapping paper.
        I settled on The Times and The Daily Telegraph. When I went back in 2013 & 15 The Telegraph was useful for their Puzzle page as I had become a Sudoku addict and they supplied 4 versions. The rest of the paper was barely worth reading.

        I assume from the comments in Time that The Australian doesn’t get their approval because they publish occasional, but increasing numbers, of sceptical articles. I also notice that their circulation isn’t declining nearly as fast as Time, The SMH, or The AGE. Perhaps something to do with their Editorial policy?
        The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal are not on my reading list.

        40

  • #
    Zane

    We are living through an extraordinary episode of mass delusion.

    90

  • #
    pat

    14 Aug: PR Newswire: Former President of the United States Barack Obama to Keynote the 2019 Greenbuild International Conference and Expo
    News provided by Greenbuild International Conference and Expo
    The world’s largest convening of green building and sustainability leaders takes place Nov. 19-22; registration is now open
    This year’s conference will take place Nov. 19-22 in Atlanta, Ga. at the LEED Gold Georgia World Congress Center…

    ???Barack H. Obama is the 44th President of the United States. He took office at a moment of crisis unlike any America had seen in decades – a nation at war, a planet in peril, the American Dream itself threatened by the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. And yet, despite all manner of political obstruction, Obama’s leadership helped rescue the economy, revitalize the American auto industry, reform the health care system to cover another twenty million Americans, and put the country on a firm course to a clean energy future – all while overseeing the longest stretch of job creation in American history…

    Previous Greenbuild keynote speakers have included Ret. Gen. Colin Powell, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, famed architect Bjarke Ingles, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, human rights activist Amal Clooney, former Vice President and climate activist Al Gore, and many others…
    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/former-president-of-the-united-states-barack-obama-to-keynote-the-2019-greenbuild-international-conference-and-expo-300901161.html

    21

  • #
    pat

    14 Aug: Nature Editorial: Teenage activists and an IPCC triumph
    The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a well-timed blueprint for action. Decision makers must now pay attention — a nascent youth movement is showing them how.
    When it comes to the role of international political leadership in tackling climate change, the record of achievement leaves much to be desired. But now, because of the IPCC’s findings, and with the help of a vigorous youth climate movement — which, unlike adult policymakers, seems to actually pay attention to the IPCC — an opportunity has arisen for real action…

    Young people care about climate
    As each of the UN conventions faces continuing challenges, the IPCC can at least be assured of support from the next generation. It has garnered a following among the growing international youth climate movement. Members keenly absorb every new report, including participants in the school strike for climate, led by Swedish teenage activist Greta Thunberg.
    Thunberg makes a point of namechecking the IPCC and quoting paragraph and page numbers in speeches, as she did in an address to the French parliament at the end of last month…

    The youth climate movement’s members are brave, and they are right…
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02425-7

    11 Aug: Daily Beast: THE PHYSICS OF DISSENT: To Take Down Trump, Take to the Streets
    The formula p=mv might just be the E=mc2 of protest. A new study shows it’s not how many turn out for a demonstration that counts, it’s also how often.
    by Christopher Dickey
    The examples of mass demonstrations that have taken on, and in some cases taken down, terrible leaders show there are formulas that can be applied in many places, including the mainland of the United States of America. There’s even an illustrative equation.

    In a study published this month by the scientific journal Nature, Erica Chenoweth and Margherita Belgioioso look at what they call “the physics of dissent” drawing on the simple law that momentum equals mass times velocity (p=mv)…

    Maybe the American opposition to the Trump regime really isn’t as impassioned as many rants on Twitter might suggest. Or maybe those are just onanistic ends in themselves. There’s been a lot of obvious passivity: waiting for Robert Mueller to take care of everything, or pretending that the symbolic act of impeachment will squeeze the sleaze out of office…

    But as things stand right now, if the economy’s sugar high continues through November of next year, Trump probably will be re-elected…
    Tweets won’t avert that outcome. Nor by itself will the flaccid exercise of impeachment proceedings in the House.
    But p=mv, the E=mc2 of protest, might just do the trick.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/to-take-down-trump-take-to-the-streets-7

    behind paywall:

    5 Aug: Nature: The physics of dissent and the effects of movement momentum
    by Erica Chenoweth & Margherita Belgioioso
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0665-8

    11

  • #
    pat

    14 Aug: Bloomberg: London Finds No Easy Answers After Once-in-a-Decade Blackout
    By Will Mathis and Jeremy Hodges
    Power failures underpin need for more batteries, hydro backup
    Some electricity outages will remain unavoidable, analysts say
    As National Grid Plc, the regulator Ofgem and plant operators investigate what happened, last Friday’s failure underlined the need to bolster an electricity grid increasingly fed by intermittent flows from renewables such as wind and solar. One way is by encouraging construction of new storage assets such as hydropower and batteries that can be called upon almost instantly.
    “The power outages boost the case for better system flexibility in the U.K.,” said Emma Champion, an analyst at BloombergNEF. “For instance, competitive sources of dispatchable generation, like batteries, can help manage intermittency and unplanned outages.”…
    “There’s no point when you’re covered for everything that might go wrong,” said Tim Green, co-director of the Energy Futures Lab at Imperial College London. “You’re only covered for the things you foresaw and the things you paid for. There’s no gold-plated solution where no one would ever get a power cut.”…

    To improve the power system’s ability to cope with plant failures, the government should change its capacity market, a backup system, by guaranteeing prices for storage assets for 10 to 12 years to help attract institution investors, according to Peter Dickson, a partner at Glennmont Partners, a clean energy investment firm in London.
    That would unlock “huge orders of capital” to fund storage projects for renewable energy sources, he said…

    National Grid Plc dismissed any notion that the intermittency of renewable energy played a role in the power cuts.
    “It is a product of low inertia and not the fuel mix delivering the power, it is an electrical engineering issue,” said Erik Nygard, chief executive officer at Limejump Ltd., a virtual power platform owned by Royal Dutch Shell Plc that can be called on to help balance the market in almost real-time. “There are solutions that exist, so it’s just a question of how these solutions are incentivized in the market.”…

    National Grid does have plans in place to pick up the slack when one source goes down, but there may be a limit to what’s practical. The company could pay for enough capacity in case two power stations go out in a few minutes, but that cost would fall to the consumer. And then what if a third goes out?
    “It’s not that the grid doesn’t plan for this,” said Tom Edwards, an analyst at Cornwall Insight. “It is possible to essentially never have these things happening but you’d have to ask who’s going to pay for that?”
    The price tag might not be too painful. Doubling the current spending on frequency response, which helps balance supply and demand in the grid, would add about 2 pounds ($2.4), or about 0.4%, to an average annual household bill for electricity, analysts at Aurora Energy Research Ltd. wrote in a note Tuesday.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-13/london-finds-no-easy-answers-after-once-in-a-decade-blackout

    14 Aug: SanAntonioExpressNews: Energy Secretary Rick Perry says an all-renewable energy policy is a ‘fantasy world’
    by Jeremy Wallace
    Democrats trying to ban fossil fuels for an all-renewables energy policy are living in a “fantasy world,” Energy Secretary Rick Perry said during a speech in Austin on Wednesday in which he scoffed at the Paris Climate Accord.
    Perry said the U.S. economy and energy sector are booming under President Donald Trump while the nation pursues an “all-of-the-above” energy policy that includes traditional fossil fuels that produce fewer emissions and renewable energy sources.

    Speaking to attendees at the annual American Legislative Exchange Council, the former Texas governor said he finds those wanting to ban every type of fuel besides renewables “astonishing.” .
    “It completely ignores how, through innovation, we have already become a clean energy leader without surrendering one single fuel, one bit of rope, one iota of opportunity,” Perry said. “Through innovation, we’re taking energy that is free of emissions and generating more of it. And yes, that includes wind and solar, but we can’t rely upon intermittent sources alone.”

    Perry scoffed at the nations that signed the Paris Climate Accord, which Trump has pulled the United States out of, saying they are well behind when it comes to reducing energy-related emissions.
    “I tell them, when you catch up with us in reducing emissions, then you come talk to me about joining” the accord, Perry said to a loud round of applause.
    A diverse pool of energy sources is not just good economically for the United States but improves national security by assuring the country is not overly reliant on any one source or nation.
    https://www.expressnews.com/news/us-world/us/article/Energy-Secretary-Rick-Perry-says-an-all-renewable-14305094.php

    31

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      pat:

      how can you read such **** day after day?
      Thanks for your efforts, but think of taking a break every so often to keep your sanity.

      So, the “solution” to wasting billions on “renewables” which turn out to be (surprise! surprise!) unreliable, is to spend more billions (of the plebs money) on storage, which will somehow make “renewables” cheap.

      90

  • #
    pat

    14 Aug: Financial Times: National Grid feels the heat after power cuts
    Government investigation raises far-reaching questions about company’s performance
    by Nathalie Thomas in Edinburgh and David Sheppard in London
    For the thousands of rail passengers who were stranded on trains scattered across Britain last Friday evening, a £2 charge might have seemed a bargain to escape their predicament.
    Energy analysts have estimated that is all it would cost, added to an average annual household energy bill of more than £1,200, to prevent the kind of power cuts that incapacitated large parts of England and Wales.

    The power cuts hit rail services alongside almost 1m homes and businesses, and are now the subject of a government investigation that is raising far reaching questions about National Grid’s ability to manage Britain’s electricity system…

    Crucially, the investigation will ask whether National Grid has a sufficient buffer of rapid-response back-up power supplies to prevent similar outages in the future, particularly as the UK increases its reliance on renewable energy such as wind and solar…

    But Mr Pettigrew has conceded that spending more on back-up power technology, which kicks in within seconds of a generator going offline to stabilise the electricity system, could be one outcome of the investigation.
    “You could hold more [back-up power] . . . there’s no doubt that you could. [But] customers would pay for that,” he told the Financial Times. “So, in effect, the question that I’m sure the investigation will look at is: it worth spending hundreds of millions of pounds more per annum to reduce the risk of a once in 30 years event?”
    Electricity experts are increasingly arguing that it is.

    National Grid spends £170m a year contracting owners of technology such as batteries to be ready in the event of a sudden drop in frequency — a measure of power intensity on the company’s network — to quickly help stabilise the electricity system.
    Harry Sturgess, an associate at Aurora Energy Research, said doubling the amount of rapid-response back-up power would add £2 to the average annual household energy bill…
    Others argue that National Grid should foot the bill to secure more rapid-response back-up power, rather than households…

    The other area that will likely influence the outcome of the investigation is whether the failure of the two power generators in quick succession was linked.
    If it was, National Grid’s argument that Friday’s blackout was “rare and unusual” could be severely weakened…
    …some analysts have speculated that the failure of the RWE plant and the consequent fall in frequency may have in turn wrongly prompted the Orsted wind farm to automatically go offline as a self protection measure…

    One person familiar with the distribution network operators said their systems should have prevented trains and hospitals suffering power failures on Friday.
    But UK Power Networks, the operator covering the south-east of England and whose customers were among those affected, said that from its perspective the loss of power was down to National Grid. “We were not aware of any issues with our systems,” said the company in a statement, adding it was “unable to comment on why the trains were not able to operate quickly after this event”…

    Renewable energy increases volatility on grid
    When a wind or solar farm fails, the frequency of the electricity system can drop very quickly away from the 50 hertz level at which National Grid tries to stabilise it in order to avoid damage to equipment or, in the worst cases, power cuts. By contrast faulty coal or gas-fired plants normally take longer to cease generating electricity entirely…

    John Pettigrew, chief executive of National Grid, insisted the volatility of the system “hasn’t changed”.
    However, he did acknowledge that the company has had to alter its approach to how it manages frequency in recent years, using technologies such as batteries to provide rapid-response back-up power to help stabilise the system.
    https://www.ft.com/content/7276eea0-be5b-11e9-b350-db00d509634e

    31

    • #
      RickWill

      Get used to it – “load management” is part of modern life as the world shifts to a more sustainable path where the rich become the filthy rich and the rest willingly bow to the wishes of the filthy rich. The rest are encouraged to consume less; less energy, less food and less travel. That allows the filthy rich to consume more, living in vast mansions with every energy intensive convenience, more luxurious food, more travel in private jets and eye wateringly expensive yachts.

      I wonder if Greta will get a private jet back to Europe after her Atlantic crossing on the EUR5m fully crewed yacht. She is already on the right path to becoming filthy rich.

      110

  • #
    TdeF

    More generally, Mr Murphy is typical of a new world where journalism and print journalism in particular has collapsed to a new low.

    It’s not just Climate crap but everything. They are not even going near facts. There are no insights. For his position as a major editor and bureau chief in Japan this article shows how print journalism is now rubbish. Even on major newspaper sites like news.com.au, copy is being written by teenagers. The money in reporting is vanishing, the professionalism, the standards and reporting has become a travesty.

    Worse, they report their own group think opinions as news. So you get fact free rubbish like this, presented as hard hitting journalism? Not a fact in it. Not a conflicting view. Just unjustifiable random abuse of any other view. Unfortunately this is killing previously world class newspapers like the New York Times and the Age and many people are turning to blog sites for real news. As we saw last week, if the old Newspapers they do not stick to group think leftist view of the world, the editors get abuse on social media and people threaten to cancel their subscriptions. This is bad simply because the few people who still read these pulp fiction newspapers are exclusively from the left. Perhaps within a few years, most of these newspapers and Time will not exist.

    Sites like Breitbart.com are driving the new world. Of course they are called extreme right, which is what the extreme left calls anyone who disagrees. And the people in the middle are Hillary’s Deplorables, Nikki Savva’s Deluded Conservatives. That’s most of the population as Clinton, Shorten and Corbyn have realised. It was so funny when Savva had to retitle and rewrite her book about how her hero (and her husband’s employer) Malcolm Turnbull was their only hope.

    110

  • #
    Power Grab

    All this insanity looks, more and more, to me like the schemes of the Coyote in those old Roadrunner and Coyote cartoons. The Roadrunner always escapes unscathed, while the Coyote ends up battered, or fried, or smoked (take your pick) as he falls prey to his own destructive schemes.

    Take, for instance, the Gillette company’s slap at masculinity in its ads, which cost them dearly in business. (They’re not the only manufacturer of shaving razors and blades.) I’ve gotten to where I start looking at such announcements through the eyeglasses of a investor who wants to buy low and sell high. Just wait a bit, the company that trumpets how virtuous they are like that will end up on the cut-rate chopping block–prime for the picking.

    And like the Coyotes of the world, whatever schemes they undertake to try to eliminate their competition, it will always end up the same as shooting themselves in the foot.

    90

  • #
    J.H.

    The unhinged writing for the gullible. Actually I’m being being kind to Walsh and unkind to the readership. He’s not “unhinged” or in leave of his senses. Nor are the people entirely gullible, they’re mostly too busy.

    Nope, he has no excuses. He is a paid political shill writing propaganda to divide and damage our society and to further ruthless political ideologies contrary to a Free and informed society.

    There will be a reckoning…. for when his readership stop being “too busy” and finally have to decide whether they wish to live in a Nth Korean society without energy or a Western society, they’re going to ask him what the hell he is on about.

    50

  • #
    Doonhamer

    Is that Hillary on Time’s front cover again?
    She’s looking better.

    60

  • #
    Phoenix44

    For Alarmists, black is white and is down. Sceptics are called blinkered for not accepting dogma and anti-science for trying to be scientific.

    These people are non-scientists accepting authority yet believe that makes them open-minded and scientific.

    110

  • #
    Craig

    Jo,

    Apologies for being off topic but do you and David know where the Cool Futures Fund is now at? I would’ve have thought that the latest research by Professor Nir Shaviv and Professor Henrik Svensmark regarding global cooling would be an important time for this fund to be active on the market?

    51

    • #

      Craig, I have no knowledge of or interest in the subject, but I’m curious to know how your direct inquiry to the Fund in question went. (I’m assuming you’ve inquired at the Fund’s easily found contact page otherwise your off topic comment here might be viewed as just a typical GeeUp-style gotcha.)

      So, what was the Fund’s response to your inquiry?

      60

  • #

    Going to university taught me two valuable things:

    1. don’t subcontract your thinking

    2. don’t be over awed by people who have impressive letters before or after their name.

    130

  • #
    R.B.

    The sort of people who fall for this couldn’t even start a conversation on the physical principles beyond it acts like a blanket, somehow. I’m not talking about failing a quick quiz but no idea of how you would go about testing the hypothesis or what a sceptic disagrees with. His many complained about Bjorn Lomborg stressing that he wasn’t a climate scientist?

    60

    • #
      R.B.

      Should have proof read
      “How many complained about Bjorn Lomborg, stressing that he wasn’t a climate scientist?”

      40

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        And since Bjorn Lomborg has always said that he wasn’t a climate scientist, their criticisms don’t get much traction.

        So, if you are a scientist but don’t agree with the dogma, you will be attacked as not a climate scientist.
        If are a climate scientist but don’t agree with the dogma, you will be attacked as not a climate scientist.
        If you admit that you aren’t a climate scientist but don’t agree with the dogma, you will be attacked as not a climate scientist.

        But If you state that you are a climate scientist (whatever your actual qualifications) but do agree with the dogma, you will be welcomed as an infallible font of wisdom.

        90

  • #
    D S

    An acquaintance’s family member is studying for a Masters and has decided to do their research into dietary choices and climate change. They put together an on-line survey that they want members of the public to complete so the data can be used in their thesis. I completed the survey and was shocked at how poorly constructed it was. It was full of so many leading questions that it might as well have just had one question: “Are you an evil meat-eating denier who doesn’t care that we are in a climate crisis?”. Who ever is the supervisor for this Masters should be fired, but they are bound to be a virtue-signalling Professor with a far-left agenda.
    To help counter the mis-information, I think it would be helpful of some of you guys filled out the survey ;)

    Here’s the link:
    https://www.esurveycreator.co.uk/s/f6a8a58

    It’s anonymous and relatively brief. It’s very UK centric with regards to politics but anyone from outside the UK can choose “None” when it asked who you voted for. If you do complete it, please be polite – we don’t want them to think sceptics are uncouth!

    90

    • #
      Gee aye

      D S could you give an example of a leading question and what it is leading the person answering to answer?

      11

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Everything assumes that humans are causing global warming hence climate change. My answers will get me deleted.

        30

        • #
          gee aye

          that isn’t true. you are able to answer in the negative.

          The studidist question is “what class are you”

          00

  • #
    Tel

    You can go a very long way in life … doing nothing more than telling people exactly what they want to hear.

    80

  • #
    pat

    14 Aug: TechCrunch: Huawei employees reportedly aided African governments in spying
    by Brian Heater
    A new report from The Wall Street Journal (LINK) could be another damning piece of evidence for a company already under a good deal of international scrutiny. The paper is reporting that technicians working for Huawei helped members of government in Uganda and Zambia spy on political opponents…

    A representative for Zambia’s ruling party confirmed with the paper that Huawei technicians have helped in the fight against news sites with opposing stances in the country, stating, “Whenever we want to track down perpetrators of fake news, we ask Zicta, which is the lead agency. They work with Huawei to ensure that people don’t use our telecommunications space to spread fake news.”

    Huawei has, naturally, denied any involvement, stating that it has “never been engaged in ‘hacking’ activities…
    https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/14/huawei-employees-reportedly-aided-african-governments-in-spying/?renderMode=ie11

    30

  • #
    pat

    two taxpayer-funded writers, five ‘DRAGGED’. XR guaranteed massive, positive coverage by theirABC:

    VIDEO/PICS: 15 Aug: ABC: Extinction Rebellion protesters disrupt WA Parliament, demanding climate change action
    By Jacob Kagi and James Carmody
    Environmental protesters from the Extinction Rebellion movement have been dragged out of WA’s Parliament after interrupting the Lower House’s sitting by chanting and throwing materials.
    One woman was dragged out of the Legislative Assembly in handcuffs while a handful of others were escorted out by police officers after holding up proceedings for nearly half an hour…

    Police warned the protesters inside the Legislative Assembly public gallery that they would be charged, before journalists were escorted out of the chamber…
    Protesters dragged out of Parliament…
    Protesters dragged out of Parliament
    Some protesters left voluntarily while others were dragged from the public gallery by police.

    One man was carried out of the chamber by four officers, one carrying each limb, where he was greeted by supporters…
    PIC: Some protesters were dragged from the public gallery by police…
    The protesters also briefly lay on a road behind Parliament, blocking traffic…
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-15/extinction-rebellion-protesters-disrupt-wa-parliament/11417898

    40

  • #
    Ian

    Jo I haven’t been here for a while. It used to be a good blog but childish insults from the likes of KK and AndyG55 who apparently lack the ability to understand the points made really do little for your scientific credibility.

    116

    • #
      The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

      I’m trying to make sense of this: the people who post comments here are a reflection of Jo’s (and Dr. Evans’) ” … scientific credibility.” Last time I checked, just about anyone, who does not violate site policy, is free to post a comment here. Not to mention, a lot of them are scientists and engineers.

      Maybe Andy and Kinky are a bit, shall we say, ‘over the top’, but at the same time, when they ask for definitive proof that carbon dioxide is THE thermostat, responsible for ALL control and regulation of the Earth climate system and temperature, and this definitive proof is not forthcoming, then I think they have a right to heap some derision upon the likes of yourself.

      Hint for you: the geological record is replete with evidence that carbon dioxide, if it does anything at all, is little more than a bit player in global climate, global climate change, and temperature regulation. Anyone who seeks a singular cause for global climate change is on a fool’s errand. A coupled, non-linear, dynamic system is not, and cannot be, ‘regulated’ (in the first place) by a single variable. To state so is to show massive ignorance.

      Once you come to the realization that you’ve been fed a massive dose of lies and other misinformation, feel free to acknowledge the same. You can find a great deal of paleoclimate data at Anthony’s WUWT; click on “Reference Pages”, and find the ‘Paleoclimate’ tab. Bill Illis’ 750 million years of climate change is most informative.

      Regards,

      Vlad

      150

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Hi Vlad,
        sadly from past experience there’s little point trying to communicate with either “Ian” or “PeterFitzRoy”.

        I understand that Jo thinks that they add life to the blog, and while that may be so, it avoids the main issue which is their complete lack of interest in debate, learning or advancing the understanding of the background to the man made global warming issue.

        All they do is stand at the door and yell;

        “Youse Are All Wrong!”

        Look at the latest piece of victimhood;
        “this used to be a good blog”.

        The only useful thing to come out of this is to show how effective politically inspired indoctrination has been.

        We have two shining examples here. Why are they still here?

        KK

        100

        • #
          The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

          Greetings to you (and yours), KK:

          Agreed; I’ve watched PF for quite a while, and while I admire Roy’s attempt (up at #6), if nothing else, I’ve thrown out the proposition that the evidence is against what Ian and PF simply assume to be true.

          True, they do not seek to provide evidence, or engage in thoughtful debate, or examine other’s data and evidence, but, if nothing else, any refusal to examine the chart(s) available at Anthony’s (available for free, by the way) will cement them once-and-for-all to be closed-minded climate-change deniers, the very thing they accuse us of being. I accept that climate has and always will change, and the presence or absence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have no measurable effect on global climate, global temperatures, or temperature changes.

          Since they provide no definitive proof, then their belief system is simply that: they believe this to be true, and cannot examine and weigh dissenting evidence.

          Or perhaps, more correctly, I should state that they will not examine any contrary evidence, since it would destroy their (religiously) held beliefs. Their loss, not mine.

          Let us resolve to encourage them to post here as much as they want (and Jo can tolerate); after this, I am unlikely to make any response to any post, unless and until either Ian or PF can debunk what is presented at Anthony’s (not that they’ll bother to look at it … … … )

          Regards,

          Vlad

          70

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Why are they still here?’

          I’m dumfounded by your desire for exclusivity, talk about smug. You should get out more.

          Beijing understands the meaning of charm school.

          ‘Beijing’s charm offensive came as Prime Minister Scott Morrison stood his ground against Pacific leaders who called for a global ban on new coal-fired power stations and mines.’ SMH

          30

    • #
      AndyG55

      Poor IAn,

      You have NO scientific credibility.

      You came in with insults to the whole forum in your very first post.

      Then expect to get let off scott free.

      Stop being such a whinging LOSER. !!

      Now, where is your empirical evidence for warming by increased atmospheric CO@

      Bring science , not pathetic whimpering !!!

      91

    • #
      AndyG55

      STILL waiting for some actual science, Ian.

      Empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

      Waiting, waiting.

      70

  • #
    pat

    unsurprisingly unattributed. pics attributed to PA Media, Getty, Reuters; the “crowd” laughing at Trump were quite likely mostly MSM. embarrassing yourselves again, Beeb?

    VIDEO/PICS: 14 Aug: BBC: Greta Thunberg: Climate change activist sets sail from Plymouth
    Fans gathered to wave her off on her voyage across the Atlantic.
    The 16-year-old made a speech ahead of departing from Plymouth on the Malizia II, a solar-powered racing yacht with underwater turbines.
    Greta said she was dedicated “to do everything I can” to tackle climate change which was a “very big problem”.

    The teenager, who refuses to travel by air because of its environmental impact, said of climate sceptics: “There’s always going to be people who don’t understand or accept the united science, and I will just ignore them, as I’m only acting and communicating on the science.”…
    She added she thought people’s mindsets were changing “even if it’s not enough, and not fast enough, that’s something, it’s not for nothing”…

    Greta was asked if she could make US President Donald Trump listen, and she answered with a simple “no”, prompting laughter from the crowd…

    She told the BBC that travelling by sea shows “the climate change crisis is a real thing”…

    ‘My daughter wants to be her’
    PIC: no ages provided, so check the pic
    Laura Jackson and daughters Cicely and Tilia, who took part in the school strikes, are planning to strike again on 20 September.Ms Jackson said: “It’s very exciting for them to be part of this.
    “They often feel that they’re too small to make an impact and the strikes make them feel really empowered.
    “My daughter Cicely wants to be a Greta.”…

    Kerrie Roche-Walker, from Plymouth, said she believed in what Greta was doing…
    Her grandson Eric, eight, added: “I’m excited to see Greta.
    “She’s doing her best for climate change. Waters are rising and people keep littering.
    “The waters could rise too much. She’s basically saving lives.”…
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-49330423

    20

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      What was the name of that plastic-fantastic carbon-fibre pond-scum racing yacht again – Hypocrisea?

      Greta the Twit, dressed in synthetic waterproof clothing, astride a plastic/steel/carbon rich man’s toy, utilising satellite technology (rocket fuel, beryllium, etc) and plastic/lithium phone comms (child labour in the Congo)… this mental midget definitely has a “very big problem”.

      Hopefully she doesn’t fall overboard – the ocean couldn’t handle any more toxic human pollution – prompting laughter from the crowd.

      40

  • #
    pat

    ***rules out wind, but will now investigate what it was!

    plays down number of people affected – states a million people, not customers, says nothing about the time people were stuck on trains:

    14 Aug: SkyNewsUK: National Grid rules out wind power as cause of power cut
    Nearly one million people (CUSTOMERS, SKY) were affected by an outage for up to an hour caused by two power generators failing simultaneously.
    By Ganesh Rao, business reporter
    Britain’s power grid operator has ruled out renewables as the reason behind last week’s power cut.
    The boss of National Grid told Sky News there was “nothing to indicate there is anything to do with the fact that we’re moving to more wind or more solar” power…

    John Pettigrew, chief executive of National Grid said: “At this point in investigation there doesn’t seem to be anything about the technology. It is about the size of those two generators failing.”…
    Mr Pettigrew also hit out at critics that suggested there have been numerous ‘near misses’ in the past saying it was ‘scaremongering’…

    ***The Government has said an emergency committee will investigate what caused the power cut and if correct procedures were followed, as well as whether improvements are needed in the future…

    Following the loss of the two large power generators, National Grid said an automated trigger designed to protect the grid kicked in to reduce load by 5%.
    However Mr Pettigrew questioned whether the country’s critical infrastructure, such as the railways, hospitals and airports should be the ones facing a loss of power in such a circumstance…
    https://news.sky.com/story/national-grid-rules-out-wind-power-as-cause-of-power-cut-11785089

    40

  • #
    pat

    About UKERC (UK Energy Research Centre)
    UKERC is funded by UK Research and Innovation Energy Programme. UKERC reports to a Funders Group convened by UKRI, and is advised by an independent Advisory Board. Find out more about UKERC Governance (LINK)…
    Contact us: University College London
    http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/about-us.html

    brings forward initial event to ***16:52:

    14 Aug: UKERC: What happened to our electricity system on Friday August 9th 2019?
    Unfortunately, on Friday afternoon at soon after ***16:52, two sources of power were lost within less than a minute of each other: 790 MW from Hornsea 1 offshore wind farm and 660 MW from Little Barford gas-fired power station, the latter due to what its owner, RWE, said was a ‘technical fault’. The combined total loss of 1430 MW was significantly greater than what appears to have been the largest single infeed loss risk at the time…

    A frequency trace to which we have access at Strathclyde shows that the fall in system frequency was arrested by the combination of responses on the system but dropped to below 49.2 Hz (Figure 1). However, the trace also shows a second drop in frequency about a minute after the first one. With much of the scheduled frequency response capacity having been exhausted and not yet replaced, system frequency subsequently fell to less to 48.8 Hz at which point the first stage of ‘Low Frequency Demand Disconnection’ (LFDD) operated…READ ON
    http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/news/what-happened-electricity-system-fri-aug-9-2019.html

    20

  • #
    Zigmaster

    I have always been disturbed by the use of the term “ denier” in reference to climate change besides its insulting reference to holocaust denial the only denial seems to be from the warmists. The default climate is one that moves in natural cycles through centuries of time. Warmists seek to deny this occurrence and use models to create an alternative universe in denial of reality. The world of climate change perceptions iis crazily inverted.

    100

  • #
    pat

    the self-destructing MSM:

    13 Aug: PressGazette: ITV News launches ‘major’ climate change series at top of News at Ten to ‘make people sit up and take notice’
    By Charlotte Tobitt
    ITV News devoted two-thirds of its flagship programme last night to a “major” new series on the impacts of climate change after deciding the issue needed to be made more “tangible” to its heartland viewers.

    ITV News acting editor Rachel Corp told Press Gazette the “really rare” decision to lead the News at Ten with segments from the new Earth on the Edge series was made to “make people sit up and take notice” and show them the issue is “not just the stuff of reports”.
    ***Corp (pictured) said the impact of climate change can often not feel very tangible “yet it does feel that the world is at a bit of a tipping point”.

    “This is clearly a huge important story,” she said. “Obviously climate change and man’s impact on the planet is one of the biggest stories of our age.
    “Our response to it has clearly been a big story this year, particularly with Extinction Rebellion, so it’s been coming more to the fore as a news story…
    “But to our viewers and a lot of other people, climate change can feel very remote like it’s happening to other parts of the world or different communities or reports come out about what could happen.”
    Despite this, “real and irreversible” damage is being done now, Corp said, which she was keen to get across to viewers…
    Future programmes – with a big segment planned at least monthly from now on – will look at issues including water shortages, extreme heat, rising sea levels, overpopulation and pollution…

    Last month the Guardian became one of a handful of UK media organisations to back a US-led initiative aiming to “break the climate silence” that the project claims “has long prevailed within too much of the news media”…
    Corp added: “People have been covering the story for decades so I don’t think people have been [ignoring it]. This isn’t a response to the gap in the market.”…

    Rival UK broadcaster Sky News last month appointed its first dedicated climate change correspondent to “continue to set the agenda” on what it described as a “crisis”.
    https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/itv-news-launches-major-climate-change-series-at-top-of-news-at-ten-to-make-people-sit-up-and-take-notice/

    20

  • #
    pat

    BRICS, BASIC countries not interested; will continue with coal, etc…READ ALL:

    14 Aug: ClimateChangeNews:
    By Chloé Farand
    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/08/14/un-chiefs-climate-asks-fall-flat-emerging-economies/

    20

  • #
    pat

    lol:

    14 Aug: UK Independent: Europe has space for enough wind turbines to power the entire world, study finds
    Europe could create 100 times the energy it currently produces through onsshore windfarms
    by Phoebe Weston
    Europe has enough space to create millions of wind turbines that could power the entire world until 2050, according to a new scientific analysis.

    An international team of researchers say there is 4.9 million square kilometres of land – 46 per cent of Europe’s total land – that would be suitable for wind turbines, according to the paper published in Energy Policy.
    Building 11 million additional wind turbines could create 497 exajoules of power which would supply the world’s energy needs until 2050 when there is expected to be a global demand of 430 exajoules…READ ON
    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/europe-wind-turbines-power-world-renewable-energy-a9057251.html

    20

  • #
    pat

    hmmmmmm! behind paywall:

    15 Aug: UK Times: Subsidy hits headwind
    by Emily Gosden
    Plans for the next wave of offshore wind farms have been thrown into confusion after it emerged that the government’s subsidy scheme to support the projects is facing a legal challenge.
    The government confirmed yesterday that the competition to award subsidies for up to six gigawatts of new offshore wind turbines was being delayed after the legal challenge from an unnamed complainant…

    read all:

    15 Aug: Energy Voice: ‘Legal challenge’ to hold up UK offshore wind auction, BEIS confirms
    by David McPhee
    A bizarre legal challenge is set to hold up the third UK offshore wind auction until the end of this month, according to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).
    It is understood the claim has caused the National Grid to delay the bidding window for the Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction, due to close on August 15, until August 29.
    Few details have been provided by BEIS, but it is thought the legal challenge has not come from one of the competing developers.

    However, BEIS did defend itself, claiming that it runs the scheme “lawfully”, adding that it would be “contesting this claim”.
    A BEIS spokesperson said: “Our Contracts for Difference scheme has supported the investment of £490m annually in renewable technologies and more than 50% of our energy now comes from low-carbon sources – a vital part of our move to becoming a net zero emissions economy by 2050.
    “We run the scheme lawfully and will be contesting this claim.”…

    Luke Clarke, head of external affairs at trade body RenewableUK, added: “The auction is a competitive process and firms in the sector understand that dates can change for different steps in the process.
    “We want to see the CfD auction concluded as quickly as possible so that companies can move ahead with billions of pounds of new investment in UK infrastructure, and the government is committed to awarding new contracts next month.”
    https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/205524/legal-challenge-to-hold-up-uk-offshore-wind-auction-beis-confirms/

    21

  • #
    pat

    huh!

    14 Aug: IOP EnvironmentalResearchLetters: The global and regional impacts of climate change under representative concentration pathway forcings and shared socioeconomic pathway socioeconomic scenarios
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab35a6

    11

  • #
    pat

    Sky Australia is depressed:

    TWEET: Frank Bainimarama, PM Fiji
    #PIF2019: We came together in a nation that risks disappearing to the seas, but unfortunately, we settled for the status quo in our communique. Watered-down climate language has real consequences –– like water-logged homes, schools, communities, and ancestral burial grounds.
    15 Aug 2019
    https://twitter.com/FijiPM/status/1162001343176855557

    ABC tried their best, but it wasn’t good enough:

    15 Aug: ABC: No endorsements come out of Tuvalu Declaration, falling short of Pacific leaders’ hopes
    By foreign affairs reporter Melissa Clarke in Tuvalu
    But the communique comes with a qualification that means the leaders do not support all of the declaration from the smaller nations…
    But Australia expressed reservations about several sections, and New Zealand at least one, so the final communique endorses the Smaller Island States “with qualifications.”
    That means no country has fully committed to endorsing the Tuvalu Declaration…
    That has disappointed the PIF chair, Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga, who said as he left the meeting: “we tried our best.”
    “It was a negotiated outcome, I think it still contains some references to the (UN) Secretary-General’s message to accelerate actions against climate change and it’s a way forward,” he said.

    Mr Sopoaga has invested significant time and energy in making climate change the central focus of this meeting.
    The outcome falls short of what he and some other Pacific leaders had hoped.
    “I think we can say we should’ve done more work for our people.”
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-15/no-endorsements-come-out-of-tuvalu-declaration/11419342

    31

    • #
      PeterS

      It appears they are going soft on the “climate emergency” message and moving on to demanding a halt on any new coal. Good luck with that one. How about coming down to earth and admit it’s a waste of time even talking about reducing our reliance on coal while countries like China are large users of it and increasing. The forum and all it’s participants are an embarrassing joke.

      50

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      And Frank thinks that $500 Million of our hard won dollars is Nothing.
      Thanks Frank, that’s what most of us think about the Climate Change Business Model.

      70

    • #
      el gordo

      What is this climate change reality they speak of?

      ‘All references to coal were removed from the communique and the climate change statement, though references to the “climate change crisis”, which Sopoaga had earlier told the Guardian were disputed and looked likely to be replaced with “climate change reality”, remained.

      ‘Greenpeace said Australia’s plans to water down the communique could make it “the pariah of the Pacific”.

      Guardian

      40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Fiji is going to disappear below the seas????? Has anyone else flown over the main island at lowish altitude and can back me up when I state that some of Fiji will still be visible when most of Australia is underwater.
      And Viti Levu isn’t as rugged as Vanau Levu. And come to think Ovalau isn’t allow lying atoll, and speaking of low lying Frank?

      70

      • #
        PeterS

        Even if it were sinking due to man-made climate change, which of course it isn’t, there is nothing we can do about it. It would be like standing in front of nuke that was detonated and started to explode and demanding it stop. It really is time the government started educating the people the truth instead of being so vague about climate change. One minute Morrison sounds like an alarmist saying reducing emissions is necessary and the next minute he’s very reasonable and is critical of the climate change alarmists. I wish he was consistent because I’m getting dizzy listening to his speeches.

        40

  • #
    Bob Cherba

    I read Time magazine from 1954, when it was a great magazine, to about 1990 when it finished going all-out leftist. That’s when I cancelled my subscription spanning 30 years. Unfortunately, this happened to all the news and business periodicals in the USA.

    I’m a retired engineer (30y nuclear power) and believe my brain can still take an intelligent look at climate data and reports and conclude that mankind is not significantly influencing climate change. Mother Nature is doing what Mother Nature does.

    110

  • #
    Zane

    I can see China smelling an opportunity to boost its influence and push Australia out of the South Pacific by building a few windmills and exporting some solar panels to Fiji and the like and crowing about how green they.

    Unfortunately many fools and corrupt political types will fall for the schtick.

    60

  • #
    Zane

    I can see China smelling an opportunity to boost its influence and push Australia out of the South Pacific by building a few windmills and exporting some solar panels to Fiji and the like and crowing about how green they are.

    Unfortunately many fools and corrupt political types will fall for the schtick.

    50

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    15 Aug: UK Telegraph: Wind farm behind massive blackout awarded £100,000 in compensation day after powercut
    By Steve Bird and Victoria Ward
    The wind farm which contributed to a massive blackout was awarded nearly £100,000 in compensation after being ordered to reduce its output the day immediately after the power cut, the Telegraph can reveal…
    After getting back online, National Grid ordered Hornsea to reduce the electricity it supplied the network on Saturday night and Sunday morning entitling its owners, Orsted, to compensation…

    National Grid, which owns the country’s electricity infrastructure, makes millions of pounds of so-called “constraints compensation” payments every year. The system pays out if a supplier with a contract to produce a certain amount of power is then told less is required. While this affects home and business owners’ bills, National Grid insists it is the most effective way of cutting costs because it avoids the need to build more energy infrastructure…

    An Orsted spokeswoman confirmed Hornsea was asked over the weekend to reduce production, adding it was a condition of its Ofgem licence intended to guarantee efficiency, security and value for money.
    “To put this into context, on Saturday the National Grid made over 1600 such requests to generators of all kinds.”…
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/15/wind-farm-behind-massive-blackout-awarded-nearly-100000-compensation/

    30

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    16 Aug: UK Times: Lightning strike and wind farm fault triggered blackout chaos
    by Emily Gosden
    A technical fault at the world’s largest offshore wind farm was among a series of failures that resulted in Britain’s worst blackouts in a decade, according to initial analysis by National Grid.
    Hornsea One wind farm off the coast of Yorkshire and Little Barford gas-fired power plant in Cambridgeshire both suddenly reduced their electricity output shortly before 5pm last Friday.

    This removed about 5 per cent of national power supplies and contributed to blackouts that left a million homes without power and caused paralysis on the train networks…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lightning-strike-and-wind-farm-fault-triggered-blackout-chaos-sbsvcft50

    (another excerpt found)
    Erik Nygard, chief executive of Limejump, which provides batteries as back-up, said the speed of frequency drop seen was “extremely rare” and that if two plants had tripped within milliseconds of each other that this would be “a black swan type of event”.

    21

    • #
      RickWill

      Erik is a dingbat. Anyone who believes in “black swan events” deserves that recognition. The lack of rotating inertia in the system is the problem

      All wind generators connected to the grid use electronics to rectify AC from the variable speed generator to DC. The DC is then inverted to AC at the prescribed frequency and voltage. That AC circuit is usually rated just above the rated capacity of the wind turbine. If the wind turbine is working near capacity there is no head room to feed a disturbance as the electronics are already near the limit.

      Contrast the wind turbine to a steam turbine. Under fault conditions, a steam driven generator can produce 6 to 10 times its rated capacity for the period needed to correct the disturbance; usually within a fraction of a second. Typically the generator transformer is chosen to limit the fault level.

      Any time wind turbines are operating near capacity and the grid is devoid of high rotating inertia from conventional fired generators, there is high risk of system collapse. Such “load management” will become ever increasing events (maybe like white swans) as the market share of wind generators increases.

      30

  • #
    pat

    15 Aug: RenewEconomy: Feather dust-up: Energy institutions fall out over wind’s role in S.A. blackout
    by Giles Parkinson
    A huge disagreement has emerged between Australia’s major energy institutions over the role of wind energy in the lead up to the South Australia blackout, and over the measures that should be introduced to protect against a repeat event.
    In what is emerging as a major flash-point, and one sure to be exploited by the anti-renewables brigade in the government and the media, the Australian Energy market Commission has urged new mechanisms to be introduced, and supported a push by the regulator to have the variability of wind and “feathering” in high wind speeds classified as a “contingency event.”…READ ON
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/feather-dust-up-energy-institutions-fall-out-over-winds-role-in-s-a-blackout-82359/

    16 Aug: ABC: Cyber attacks and weather among risks to power grid in the wake of SA’s big blackout
    By Nick Harmsen
    Australia’s power grid operators should be given more flexibility to deal with unpredictable events including cyber attacks and extreme weather, which could affect the output of wind farms and solar panels and cause system-wide blackouts, a new report has suggested.
    The proposals have been put forward by the state and federal governments’ key energy adviser, the Australian Energy Markets Commission (AEMC), in a review of South Australia’s September 2016 statewide blackout.
    The AEMC’s review has been released just days after another government body, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER), announced it was taking legal action against the owners of several wind farms over the blackout…READ ON
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-16/cyber-attacks-and-extreme-weather-among-power-grid-risks/11420110

    40

  • #
    pat

    ***ILI Group have over 2GW of Pump-storage Hydro in the pipeline with their first 450MW development Red John at Loch Ness currently in planning.

    15 Aug: Inside.co.uk: Energy company boss calls for National Grid rethink
    Mark Wilson, chief executive officer of ILI Group has called for investment in energy storage infrastructure
    by Kenny Kemp
    Energy blackouts will be a regular feature of our lives without a major rethink by National Grid and investment in energy storage infrastructure, claims the company behind Scotland’s Pumped Storage Hydro projects…
    Mark Wilson, chief executive officer of ***ILI Group , said “National Grid have described this as an ‘incredibly rare’ event, however blackouts have been predicted for years. Last year the Institute of Engineers in Scotland (IESIS) predicted just such events would happen.”

    “As we increase reliance on intermittent renewable power sources such events could become the new norm. National Grid are supposed to have enough back-up generators they can call on quickly for these frequency events, whether its battery generators, pumped storage hydro, or more conventional thermal generators.
    “It is clear going forward a greater capacity of these fast frequency response services will need to be available.
    “Pumped storage hydro (PSH) is ideally suited to provide the fast, large scale, response to mitigate such events, and more PSH capacity will mean the risk of power cuts and disruption will be reduced”…

    Former UK Energy Minister, Brian Wilson , said: “There has to be back-up to the intermittency of renewable generation, and this creates a huge opportunity for UK industry. In Scotland, Pumped Storage Hydro – which provides 95 per cent of storage around the world – is the obvious answer instead of relying on imports via interconnectors…
    https://www.insider.co.uk/news/energy-company-boss-calls-national-18938435

    21

    • #
      RickWill

      Pumped storage hydro (PSH) is ideally suited to provide the fast, large scale, response to mitigate such events, and more PSH capacity will mean the risk of power cuts and disruption will be reduced”…

      The rotating inertia of a water turbine driven generator is relatively low compared with multi-stage steam turbine generator. The recent issue in the UK was due to lack of rotating inertia at the instant of the disturbance. A water turbine has higher inertia than a wind generator, solar generator or even a battery but is not as good as a steam turbine. Also, if the turbine is not connected at the instant of the disturbance then it offers no benefit.

      As the grid vandalism continues, I expect SA’s proposed solution using always on synchronous condensers will be the technology of choice to supply the required grid inertia I do not think there is another network in the world that has the connected intermittent capacity relative to load as SA. It will remain the crash test dummy and continue to be the world leader in electricity prices.

      61

      • #
        Another Ian

        Diverging somewhat but still power – batteries this time

        “Let’s say you “only” wanted to run L.A. Country for one day.”

        https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/w-o-o-d-1-august-2019/#comment-115802

        30

        • #
          RickWill

          LA county 67E12Wh/year
          186E9 Wh/day. (Average of 7.7GW, about 30% of the entire east coast of Australia)
          A typical car battery stores 1E3Wh
          That means 186E6 batteries for 1 day.

          The quoted 4,650T of lead/acid batteries appeared ridiculously small to power LA county for 1 day – and it is. It needs 1000 batteries that size.

          There are 200,000,000 light passenger vehicles in operation in the USA. Take all the batteries from them, connect them into 1 large battery and you could power LA county for 1 whole day – 24 hours.

          40

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    15 Aug: UK Times: National Grid boss Sir Peter Gershon flew to US after blackouts
    by Emily Gosden
    The chairman of National Grid has come under fire for flying to the United States to work on the company’s new wind farm venture two days after it presided over crippling UK blackouts.
    Sir Peter Gershon, 72, is understood to have travelled to California on Sunday to attend an event with Geronimo Energy, a renewable energy developer acquired by National Grid’s unregulated commercial arm this year.
    At the same time the company, which is entrusted with keeping the lights on in Britain, was still struggling to explain the worst blackouts in more than a decade, which resulted in a million homes losing electricity and chaos on the rail networks on Friday evening…
    Rebecca Long-Bailey, shadow business and energy secretary, said it “beggars belief that after…”…

    15 Aug: Daily Mail: National Grid’s £600,000-a-year chairman Sir Peter Gershon flew to US on windfarms trip while firm was still struggling to explain blackouts that left 1m UK homes without power and caused rush hour chaos
    •National Grid chairman Sir Peter Gershon flew to California on Sunday afternoon
    •Friday the network suffered its biggest outage in a decade affecting 1m people
    •Sir Peter, 72, earns around £600,000 a year for his two days a week as chairman
    •He met a windfarm company the Grid’s unregulated arm bought earlier this year
    By Joel Adams
    Sir Peter Gershon earns at least £600,000 in pay and benefits for what is nominally a two-day-a-week job chairing the board of the country’s regulated energy network…

    Rebecca Long-Bailey, shadow business and energy secretary, told the Times it ‘beggars belief that after the biggest power outage in a decade, the chairman of National Grid is prioritising commercial ventures in the United States over the UK’s energy security’.
    National Grid is a FTSE 100 group with annual profits of £1.8 billion, most of which comes from regulated businesses in the UK and US…
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7359625/National-Grids-600-000-chair-Sir-Peter-Gershon-flew-windfarms-trip-2-days-blackout.html

    21

  • #
    pat

    15 Aug: Bloomberg: When Good Green Energy Ideas Go Bad
    Six innovations that seemed brilliant but didn’t catch on.
    By Will Wade
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-15/green-flops-why-some-promising-cleantech-ideas-didn-t-work-out

    13 Aug: BusinessInsider: The world’s first solar road has turned out to be a colossal failure that’s falling apart and doesn’t generate enough energy, according to a report
    by Ruqayyah Moynihanand Lidia Montes, Business Insider España
    Two years after the world’s first solar road — the Normandy road in France — was set up, it’s turned out to be a colossal failure, according to a report by Le Monde (LINK).
    The road has deteriorated to a terrible state, it isn’t producing anywhere near the amount of energy it had previously pledged to, and the traffic it has brought with it is causing noise problems.
    Though a US-based solar road has suffered a similarly discouraging fate, a Dutch project has provided a silver lining on the future of solar roads.

    The original aim (Normandy Road) was to produce 790 kWh each day, a quantity that could illuminate a population of between 3,000 and 5,000 inhabitants. But the rate produced stands at only about 50% of the original predicted estimates.
    In its second year, the energy production level of the road further dwindled and the same downward trend has been observed at the beginning of 2019, indicating serious issues with efficiency…
    https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-first-solar-road-turned-out-colossal-failure-2019-8/?r=AU&IR=T

    30

  • #
    pat

    15 Aug: CBS Philadelphia: MacBook Pro Laptops Banned From Flights Over Concerns About Battery Catching On Fire
    by CBS3 Staff
    A popular Apple laptop may have to be left at home the next time you fly. The Federal Aviation Administration has banned the MacBook Pro due to concerns about the lithium battery catching on fire.
    MacBooks that were sold between 2015 and 2017 were recalled by Apple earlier this summer for the batteries overheating.

    The FAA says if Apple can fix the problem the laptops will be approved to fly again.
    https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2019/08/15/macbook-pro-laptops-banned-from-flights-over-concerns-about-battery-catching-on-fire/

    60

  • #
    pat

    ???

    9 Aug: Essex Live: Romford fire: 60 firefighters tackle blaze at block of flats
    Around 60 firefighters were at the scene
    By Paige Ingram
    PIC: (solar panels in flames)
    The whole of the roof, which had a number of solar panels, was damaged by the fire and photos taken at the scene show the flames and plumes of thick smoke filling the sky…
    https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/romford-fire-60-firefighters-tackle-3191439

    Updated 14 Aug: Romford Recorder: ‘No fire alarms, no sprinklers… It’s a miracle no one died’: Residents claim Romford block devastated by fire had no working safety measures
    PIC: The entire roof of the block of flats in Raven Close was destroyed by fire. Picture: Submitted
    The Recorder understands that, as the fire broke out on the roof of the block of flats, investigators at L&Q believe the smoke rose away from the sensors installed inside the building, and so these were never tripped and no alarms activated…
    “Investigations are ongoing but we believe that no smoke or fire entered the flats prior to the evacuation of residents and smoke alarms would not have sounded before this.”…
    https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/raven-close-fire-residents-slam-lack-of-safety-measures-1-6213788

    Updated 12 Aug: RomfordRecorder: Romford fire: Residents to spend weekend in temporary accommodation after huge blaze on block of flats’ roof
    The London Fire Brigade (LFB) confirmed that eight fire engines and around 60 firefighters were called to a fire at the block of flats in Raven Close at 4.25pm
    An LFB spokesman confirmed the entire roof of the block of flats was damaged by fire. There were no reports of any injuries.
    Station manager Dean Wilkinson, who was at the scene, said: “Crews worked hard to bring the fire under control.”

    Crews from seven different stations – Hornchurch, Harold Hill, Dagenham, Romford, Ilford, Hainualt and Barking – were called to the fire, which was deemed under control at 7.01pm.
    The cause of the fire has not been determined.
    https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/romford-fire-raven-close-residents-to-stay-in-temporary-accommodation-1-6208158

    60

  • #
    Another Ian

    Need for more buttering of brains?

    “Nails It – Economic Analyst El-Erian: The Era of “De-Globalization” is Here…”

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/08/15/nails-it-economic-analyst-el-erian-the-era-of-de-globalization-is-here/#more-168393

    Looks like Oz might need to learn to make things again

    50

  • #
    Hanrahan

    Oh dear, Flannery’s back:

    10% of me isn’t me.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqSPT16i8wg

    30

  • #
    Another Ian

    Maybe Time Magazine editors ought to read this?

    “Visibility and Invisibility”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/15/visibility-and-invisibility/

    I wonder if Jo made the list? We’ll have to wait till it reappears at WUWT as Nature has deep sixed it (see comments)

    40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      YES, JO IS ON PAGE 3. No pun intended, so is Cory Bernadi.

      Try http://climatlas.com/tropical/media_cloud_list.txt

      I should add that some of those banned won’t make adverse comments about the AGW scam due to them being dead.

      60

    • #
      Another Ian

      Link to the list here

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/15/visibility-and-invisibility/#comment-2771536

      Jo is on it, so are some familiar names. In comments

      ” Bloke down the pub
      August 16, 2019 at 1:18 am

      If you’re on a list along with Freeman Dyson, you must’ve been doing something right.”

      50

      • #

        Yes, thanks. Delighted to be in the top 100. David Evans too. Would have been so disappointing to miss out. Post coming.

        40

        • #
          Latus Dextro

          So the formalised descent from science and civilised discourse is almost complete. We all know that lists frequently precede loss of liberty, barrels and gulags.

          Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: 13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

          But, and it is a big but, on a more heartening and positive note however, the authors of this Nature Communications article polemic, Petersen, Vincent and Westerling (2019) state in their abstract

          Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale.

          Bravissimo to ‘new media sources’ and the internet, whose freedom we must fight to protect and maintain.
          The abstract ends with the predictable clarion call of faux justification to exert greater authority and silence dissent.

          This is an extraordinary article to publish and should be withdrawn. It is as flagrantly anti-science as it is anti-civilisation. I am amazed that it would make publication.

          40

  • #

    The first detail I noticed was “metal tube of a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine” – demonstrating that the writer has no clue about how MRI (of any type) works. Apart from the superconducting magnets, it’s all plastic in there. In fact the operators go to extreme lengths to ensure no metal comes anywhere near the machine. Ferrous metal, anyway.

    But that’s a minor demonstration of ignorance. The larger one, is that the phrase “climate change denier” is actually a rubbish propaganda smear. The central basis of AGW-skepticism, is that Earth’s climate has _always_ been highly variable. An endless series of wildly alternating warm and ice ages, sea levels going up and down hundreds of meters repeatedly as ice caps recede and advance over vast regions, massive climate shifts for multiple reasons: solar variability, volcanism, continents and oceans rearranging over time with continental drift. Also atmospheric CO2 levels have been on average about 3000ppm over the history of life on Earth. (And plants evolved to like that level, not the near-starvation low of 300-400ppm of this century.)

    The only real ‘climate change deniers’, are those ignorant of geological & climate history, who think the (temperature record fudged) last century is both ‘unchanging’ and in any way a ‘normal’ that could be relied on to continue. A delusion/lie, of which the ‘hockey stick’ deception is a prime example. M. Mann had to distort the data severely to fabricate that ‘flat interval’ of his hockey stick, hence his refusal to let anyone see his data and working.

    Anyway, I say ignore the fools. Sit back, get yourself several years supply of popcorn and some nice warm clothes, and enjoy the Warmists’ ideological panic and dismay as Earth slips further into the present ‘surprise’ (to them) New Little Ice Age. Or not so little, as time may tell.

    Make yourself a list, of Warmist idiots most deserving to be delegated to shoveling snowdrifts as Earth gets much, much colder.

    Some references: http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_links.txt

    90

  • #
    Richard Ford

    It’s standard operating procedure to disparage the intellect of skeptics. Ironic isn’t it to use pseudoscience, fabrication and lies to claim that skeptics are stupid and anti-science

    10

  • #
    observa

    But we can’t seem to act to save the future.

    You can say that again but maybe it’s time to give up the ham acting and engage in science

    10