The WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) wants every new project to aim for carbon neutrality, costing billions, almost certainly increasing pollution overseas, but hoping to lower temperatures over WA by 2100 AD.
The EPA is a scientific advisory body — the government doesn’t have to follow their advice — but if it does, and the advice was wrong — who is responsible for loss and damages which are foreseeable? The IPCC favoured models do not include solar magnetic, spectral or particle-flow parameters, and repeatedly fail. They are unaudited, unvalidated, and unaccountable. If the sun controls the climate these models will not show that. If the EPA is not doing due diligence on reports of a foreign committee, which person representing Western Australians is?
— Jo
Submission for the EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Guidance – Consultation
Joanne Nova, Sept 2, 2019: Submission ID: ANON-1TDB-D593-G.
___________________________
Question 1: Has the EPA done due diligence on the IPCC Climate Report?
The EPA’s core role is to “protect the environment and abate pollution”, Section 15 of the Act (s.15)
Therefore, the EPA would be legally obligated to assess the scientific evidence. The question upon which everything hinges was stated in the Background Paper thus:
“How serious are the projected environmental impacts of further greenhouse gas emissions?
“The EPA declares that human emissions are driving changes to the climate and the scientific data is “robust and compelling”. However the EPA does not list or discuss any data at all. It quotes The 2018 State of the Climate Report from the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, and the October 2018 IPCCs Special Report on Global Warming.
“Taken together, this information is of concern and cannot be dismissed as speculative or incorrect…
The EPA is not quoting evidence or data in the background paper. It is merely repeating committee reports. Given that management of the West Australian environment depends upon these forward projections, and billions of dollars depends upon the EPA guidelines, the onus of due diligence surely rests with the EPA, not with a foreign unaccountable organization such as the IPCC. While the media and activists may claim “thousands of scientists” are involved, in actuality, the number who have checked the key conclusions is small. For example the number of listed reviewers of Chapter Nine of the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report was only 601 , and these scientists only have to have read the draft chapter to be included. They don’t necessarily need to have critically audited it. Thousands of other scientists involved in the IPCC reports are specialists in adaption, mitigation, biology, markets, or some smaller aspect of climate science. They have assumed the assumptions and conclusions of Chapter Nine were correct.
Question 1: Has the EPA assessed or audited the IPCC Climate Report?
Question 1.1a: If so – which observational data sets shows that man-made CO2 causes dangerous warming? Or is the EPA policy dependent entirely on reports based on unverified and unvalidated climate models with a proven record of failure? (see below).
Question 1.1b: If the EPA has not independently assessed the data and evidence, will the EPA take responsibility for any damages that occur to the state (flora, fauna or citizens) if it recommends action based on unverified, unaudited climate models that peer reviewed papers already describe as “skillless”?2
Model failure is well documented
The one flaw that wipes out the crisis. Click to enlarge.
The direct warming effect of doubling CO2 will only lead to 1.2 °C of warming3 according to James Hansen, and the IPCC4 . Skeptics largely accept that, the contentious point is whether that warming is amplified by feedbacks as the IPCC contends5 , or dampened by feedbacks as the empirical evidence from 28 million weather balloons suggests.6 7 8 The CCSP Chapter 5, mentions “fingerprint” or variant of that, not just once, but 74 times. If the models are wrong on this one key feedback we would expect to see evidence from many sources, which we do.
The model predictions fail on almost every level and aspect. They are unable to predict temperatures on global scales, and also on regional, local, short term 9 10 , polar11 , and upper tropospheric scales12 13 too. They fail on humidity14 , rainfall15 , drought 16 and they fail on clouds.17 The common theme is that models don’t handle water well. This is obviously a big problem on a planet covered in water. Water holds 90% of all the energy on the surface,18 and both NASA19 and the IPCC20 admit water is the most important greenhouse gas. Furthermore the predictions of upper tropospheric water vapor, which are the most important feedback in the coupled climate models have been repeatedly and completely incorrect.21 22 This particular aspect of model predictions is known as “the missing hot spot” – the section of the atmosphere above the tropics around 10km altitude. It’s more important than any other single aspect, even than the direct effect of CO2. The amplification is called positive feedback, and this particular feedback from water molecules is one of the biggest single factors in climate models23 . There are claims that it doubles the effect of all other forms of warming24 .
The CCSP (Climate Change Science Project) published the predictions and observations as graphs in separate parts of its large 2006 report
Many top climate scientists have admitted and discussed the differences between modeled and observed trends on the most influential feedback system in the climate models:
“…‘potentially serious inconsistency’ between modelled and observed trends …discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.” (Karl et al., 2006)
“Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. (Sherwood et al, 2008)
“… the tropical troposphere had actually cooled slightly over the last 20 to 30 years (in sharp contrast to the computer model predictions… (Santer 2008)
… (most) models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere…The cause of this bias remains elusive. IPCC, 2013 (IPCC) 25
Models systematically overestimate nearly every other aspect
As expected, when the models are wrong on a key factor the predictions are systematically wrong in many outcomes. This includes sea-levels, where 1,000 tide gauges show the rise is only 1mm a year, far less than predicted. 26 27 Seas around Australia were rising just as fast around the time of the Great Depression as they are today.28 The raw satellite data agreed with this29 until it was adjusted in 2003, allegedly to match one subsiding gauge in Hong Kong. Satellites are now tracking every 20m rolling sandspit above the seas — and if seas were rising the beaches would be shrinking. Instead, when 709 islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans are studied, 89% have either stayed the same or got bigger.30 Not one island large enough to have human inhabitants was getting smaller. Sea levels also started rising long before human emissions of CO2 became significant. The IPCC favoured models can not explain why this warming started around 1800AD. 31 32
The models cannot explain the warming during the Medieval Warm Period either. There are claims this was not global, but scores of proxies from all over the world show that it was. 33 34 Furthermore, 6,000 boreholes drilled around the world agree that the warming effect was global. 35 36 37 38
In the oceans, the warming isn’t statistically significant, sea-levels started rising too early, aren’t rising fast enough, aren’t accelerating, nor are warming anywhere near as much as they predicted. Antarctica was supposed to be warming faster than almost anywhere but they were totally wrong. The vast Southern Ocean is cooling not warming. The only part of Antarctica that’s warming sits on top of a volcano chain where 91 new volcanoes were recently discovered.
There are many reasons the IPCC work can be dismissed as “speculative”
Argument from Authority or Ad Populum is fallacious reasoning and though skeptics are independent and vastly outnumber convinced scientists, that does not make them right, and does not form any part of the scientific argument put forward here. However, it does show that the EPA has not critically investigated the IPCC conclusions and forward projections. If they had, the EPA would be aware that the IPCC work is very much a speculative extrapolation with unverified, unvalidated modeling.
To that limited end, it’s worth noting that thousands of independent scientists are actively protesting the IPCC assumptions. Survey’s show most engineers and geologists39 , and half of the worlds meteorologists,40 and climate scientists do not agree with the IPCC’s level of certainty.41 Skeptics include Nobel Prize winners of Physics, and Freeman Dyson and 3 of the 4 surviving astronauts who walked on the moon. Unlike the IPCC, their opinions cannot be dismissed as “speculative”. Their claims are modest (that the climate is likely to continue changing at a similar rate to the last century and that IPCC is exaggerating the effect of CO2 by a factor of 2 – 10 fold). On the other hand the IPCC claims involve “unprecedented” changes, and rapid acceleration which is not shown in any dataset, only in model projections.
If the evidence was so overwhelming, and the debate not even worth having, why do the small number of officially recognized climate scientists find it so hard to convince other scientists? The laws of science are the same regardless of the branch of science. Atmospheric physics is still physics.
It is worth noting that the IPCC assessments are dependent on a few scientists who have behaved in profoundly unscientific ways: for example, hiding data, declines, history, adjustments and methods.
The BOM admits that its methods cannot be replicated: If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science
The Bureau of Meteorology admits its methods cannot be described in full42 . Each station is adjusted by techniques that are not fully published. In their own words their methods of adjusting the data are:
“…a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required some level of expertise and operator intervention.”
…several choices within the adjustment process remain a matter of expert judgment.
Does the EPA endorse scientific work that cannot be replicated and whose methods are not described in full? If the EPA does not carry out due diligence, it is implicitly accepting these profoundly unscientific standards.
Australia has always been a hot land. Our environment is surely adapted to that?
50 degree temperatures occurred right across Australia. Click to enlarge.
Archival history from Australian news reports suggests extreme heatwaves were common in the 1800’s. CO2 was low in the 1800s yet there are scores of references to 125F “in the shade” in our national newspaper archives, which is an astonishing 52°C. This was measured on non-standard equipment, but was sometimes done by expert scientists. Early explorers were trained to measure temperature. Charles Sturt recorded temperatures in the shade of 127F, 129F and even 132F, reporting that the ground was so hot, if matches fell on the sand they would ignite spontaneously.43 44 In 1846, Sir Thomas Mitchell also recorded 129F.45 He was afraid the thermometer would break as it “only reached 132F.” In 1860 John Mcdouall Stuart’s party measured 128F in the shade.46 Heat was so common that miners in 1878 had a policy to “knock off” work if the thermometer hit 112F (44.4°C). No air conditioners then. Despite the spikes of heat in the 1800s, by 1952 Australian scientists were discussing the cause of mysterious long cooling trends across a large part of the continent.47
Conservatively, even if some of these many recorded temperatures are overestimating the heat by 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, these temperatures would still show that Australia has always had extraordinary heatwaves.
There are many examples of Australian thermometers being inadequately sited, mysteriously adjusted, and readjusted. E.g. Streaky Bay, South Australia48 . For other examples see Climate Change: The Facts 2017.49
Parts 2 and 3 coming.
NOTE: The three images above are discussed in the submission, but not included. Next time…
REFERENCES
1 McLean, John (2007) An Analysis of the Review of the IPCC 4AR WG I Report, http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf. Updated: McLean, John (2009) The IPCC can’t count its “expert scientists”, http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
2 Hans von Storch, Armineh Barkhordarian, Klaus Hasselmann and Eduardo Zorita (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? Academia
3 Hansen J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163 Abstract
4 See also Bony et al 2006, and the IPCC, AR4 Chapter 8, p 631.
5 Predicted “hot spot” changes 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25, based on Santer et al. 2000;
6 Hadley Radiosonde record: Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP,, Chapter 5, p116, recorded change/decade, Hadley Centre weather balloons 1979-1999, p. 116 , fig. 5.7E, from Thorne et al., 2005.
7 28 million radiosondes: NOAA, Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive, May 28th, 2010. https://web.archive.org/web/20100528012708/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/igra/index.php?name=coverage
8 Durre et al (2005) Overview of the Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive, Journal of Climate, vol 19, page 53, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3594.1
9 Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 PDF
10 Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A.(2008) On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J. 53(4), 671–684. changes PDF
11 Previdi, M. and Polvani, L. M. (2014), Climate system response to stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc.. doi: 10.1002/qj.233
12 Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 PDF
13 Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 PDF Discussion
14 Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). PDF
15 See 10 Anagnostopolous 2010
16 Sheffield, Wood & Roderick (2012) Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, Letter Nature, vol 491, 437
17 Miller, M., Ghate, V., Zahn, R., (2012) The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel 1 and its Controls: A Perspective from 2 Observations and Global Climate Models. in press Journal of Climate abstract PDF
18 Pielke Sr., R.A., (2003): Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.
19 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WaterVapor/water_vapor3.php
20 IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. PDF Page 632 online
21 Santer, B. D. (2006). US Climate Change Science Program 2006, Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences.
22 Singer, S. F. (2011). Lack of Consistency between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends. Energy and Environment, Vol 22 No. 4, pp. 375 – 406.
23 Soden, B.J., and I.M. Held, 2006, An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. J. Clim. 19, 3354–3360.
24 Sherwood, S., Kursinski, E.R., Read, W.G. (2006) A Distribution Law for Free-Tropospheric Relative Humidity, Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 24 (December 2006) abstract
25 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, second order draft, Chapter Nine, page 218
26 Michael Beenstock, Daniel Felsenstein,*Eyal Frank & Yaniv Reingewertz, (2014) Tide gauge location and the measurement of global sea level rise, Environmental and Ecological Statistics, May 2014 Abstract
27 Nils‐Axel Mörner (2014) Deriving the Eustatic Sea Level Component in the Kattaegatt Sea, Global Perspectives on Geography (GPG). American Society of Science and Engineering, Volume 2, 2014, www.as‐se.org/gpg
28 White, Neil J., Haigh, Ivan D., Church, John A., Koen, Terry, Watson, Christopher S., Pritchard, Tim R., Watson, Phil J., Burgette, Reed J., McInnes, Kathleen L., You, Zai-Jin, Zhang, Xuebin, Tregoning, Paul: (2014) Australian Sea Levels – Trends, Regional Variability and Influencing Factors, Earth Science Reviews, doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.05.011
29 Morner. N.A. (2004) Estimating future sea level changes from past records, Global and Planetary Change 40 49–54 doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00097-3 PDF
30 Duvat, V. K. E. (2018). A global assessment of atoll island planform changes over the past decades. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, e557. doi:10.1002/wcc.557
31 Jevrejeva, S., A. Grinsted, J. C. Moore, and S. Holgate (2006), Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records, J. Geophys. Res., 111
32 Jevrejeva, S., J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted, and P. L. Woodworth (2008), Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611. PDF
33 Christiansen, B. and Ljungqvist F. C. (2012). The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability. Climate of the Past, 8(2):765–786, 2012. abstract PDF NASA copy Discussion on CA noted a lack of complete archives and code
34 Ljungqvist, F. C., Krusic, P. J., Brattström, G., and Sundqvist, H. S (2012).: Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries, Clim. Past, 8, 227-249, doi:10.5194/cp-8-227-2012, 2012. abstract PDF or try this PDF CO2science discussion
35 Huang, S., H. N. Pollack, and P. Y. Shen (1997), Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world‐wide continental heat flow measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24(15), 1947–1950. Abstract, PDF Discussion
36 Huang, S., H. N. Pollack, and P. Y. Shen (2000), Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures, Nature, 403, 756– 758. PDF
37 Huang, S. (2004), Merging information from different resources for new insights intoclimate change in the past and future, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L13205, doi:10.1029/2004GL019781.
38 Huang, S. P., H. N. Pollack, and P.-Y. Shen (2008), A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat
flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L13703, doi:10.1029/2008GL034187 PDF
39 Lefsrud and Meyer (2012) Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change, Organization Studies, vol. 33, 11: pp. 1477-1506. , First Published November 19, 2012.
40 Maibach, E., Perkins, D., Timm, K., Myers, T., Woods Placky, B., et al. (2017). A 2017 National Survey of Broadcast Meteorologists: Initial Findings. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication
41 Bart Strengers, Bart Verheggen and Kees Vringer (2015) Climate Science Survey, Questions and Responses, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, pp 1 – 39
42 BOM Technical Advisory Forum report, June 2015. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_report.pdf Discussed: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/06/if-it-cant-be-replicated-it-isnt- science-bom-admits-temperature-adjustments-are-secret/
43 http://www.knowledgerush.com/paginated_txt/etext04/xpcst10/xpcst10_s1_p479_pages.html
44 Charles Sturt, Narrative of an expedition into Central Australia, 1844, Chapter 12. The University of Adelaide Library. https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/sturt/charles/s93n/chapter12.html Discussed: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/charles-sturts-time-so-hot-that-thermometers-exploded-was-australias-hottest-day-in-1828-53-9c/
45 Lt. Col. Sir Thomas Livingstone Mitchell Kt. D.C.L. Surveyor-General of New South Wales, Journal of an Expedition into the Interior of Tropical Australia, 1846. The University of Adelaide Library. https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mitchell/thomas/tropical/complete.html
46 Mr Stuart’s Party, The Cornwall Chronicle, Wed 23 Jan 1861, Page 5. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/65567656,
47 Deacon, E.L. (1952) Climatic Change in Australia since 1880, Australian Journal of Physics, Volume 6, Pages 209-218. PDF
48 Streaky Bay’s Thermometer — Over Hot Bitumen for 31 long Years, (2019), http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/feast-your-eyes-on-streaky-bays-thermometer-over-bitumen-for-31-long-hot-years/
49 Chapter 8, Mysterious Revisions to Australia’s long hot history, Climate Change: The Facts 2017. The Institute of Public Affairs, Connor Court. https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/books/climate-change-facts-2017-ebook-now-sale
“Has anyone?”
I was accepted as an expert reviewer for the next IPCC report and I did a significant amount of due diligence. The IPCC couldn’t be more wrong about the science if they tried. To be sure, they’re trying very hard because the scientific truth is an existential threat to both the IPCC and UNFCCC, hence the conflict of interest that broke climate science in the first place and has kept it broken for so long.
620
I downloaded a previous report, specifically looking for the half life of CO2 in the Atmosphere. I found they now have so many reports and summaries, it is hard for me to find what constitutes the actual science report, not the summary for governments. Can please you point me to the most recent volume of scientitic reports?
On the one report I searched, the half life was mentioned twice, once as 80 years and in another place that man made CO2 stayed in the atmosphere for ‘thousands of years’. As this is the single most number in the concept of man made Global Warming or Climate Change, it is critical. You see if the half life is under 15 years as I know to be true, the CO2 is in rapid equilibrium and we humans cannot change CO2 levels at all, up or down. However the IPCC will probably do their best to ignore taht our yearly CO2 emissions vanish rapidly into an equilibrium system 1,000x larger.
40
tdef,
The CO2 residence time is only important if you accept the IPCC’s wildly inflated sensitivity and it’s this sensitivity that’s the most important number. It’s important because it determines whether or not CO2 emissions have enough of an effect to obsess about. The laws of physics are unambiguously clear that they definitely do not. The IPCC proactively denies this unavoidable truth by falsely asserting that the absurdly large sensitivity they claim is based on actual science when nothing could be further from the truth.
The science report is called the scientific assessment while the political report is called the assessment for policymakers and prepared primarily to fake out support for the policy goals of the UNFCCC. The closest thing to science is chapter 7 on the sensitivity and feedback, which like the rest of the so called scientific assessment, is chock full of speculation, misdirection, misinformation and fabrication.
I can’t send you the next report as I’m under NDA. What I can say is that they’ve definitely ramped up the alarmist rhetoric in the scientific assessment which frequently refers to the UNFCCC’s policy goals as they shape the how the science is assessed.
30
co2isnotevil,
You say to tdef,
Actually, there are three assertions made by the IPCC to obtain its ‘projections’. Each of these assertions pertains to greenhouse gases (GHGs notably CO2) in the atmosphere and are stated in terms of ‘CO” equivalence’ (stated as “CO2” for convenience).
These three IPCC assertions are
(1) The contribution of human CO2 emissions to the observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration,
(2) The time taken for atmospheric CO2 concentration to return to its start condition after a change,
(3) The climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration
Disproof of any one of these assertions would disprove the entire IPCC case for significant anthropogenic (i.e.human-made) global warming (AGW). And there are good reasons to reject each of them.
The CO2 residence time is pertinent to determinations of both of the IPCC assertions which are listed here as (1) and (2). And the effect of climate sensitivity (i.e. IPCC assertion (3) ) is only significant if both of (1) and (2) are correct.
I repeat for emphasis, there are good reasons to reject each of the three IPCC assertions and disproof of any one (or more) of them would be disproof of the entire IPCC case for significant AGW.
Richard
10
CORRIGENDUM
‘CO2′ equivalence’ not ‘CO” equivalence’
Sorry.
Richard
10
Those who feed off
guv-uh-mint benefi-cence,
(I could say this more crudely,)
are compromised most truly.
Science it ain’t.
00
“The IPCC couldn’t be more wrong about the science if they tried.”
What science ?
The IPCC is a political organization asked to prove humans are causing a fossil fuel related climate crisis.
The UN wanted to be the global government for something — they chose climate change / energy use.
They gained power by scaring people about the future climate, claiming there was a crisis.
The IPCC was formed to study the imaginary “crisis”.
But real science does not start out with a conclusion.
Real science does not make repeated ( for 30 years ! ) wrong wild guesses of the future climate, and then, every few years, claim they are even more confident in their predictions, as if WRONG predictions INCREASE their confidence !
Real science studies the past and present climate hoping to figure out the causes of climate change, and maybe learn how to predict the future climate, if such a prediction is possible.
00
Man, there’s a helluva lot of work gone into this post, Jo!
Well done!
520
But Jo it is also important
To be short, sharp and understood
By most Western Australians
The Western Australian EPA has adopted
The “Bullsh$t baffles Brains” strategy
To disarm and confuse
And thus the appropriate response Is
“They are fanatical Greenist idiots
Who will destroy the economy & employment
Of all West Australians.”
120
Nobel price Ivar Giæver denies Global Warming, with examples and understandable for everybody:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKr5KDI3gPw
English with Spanish subtitles.
[It’s a half hour to watch the video. I could only watch part of it but as far as I went he’s making sound arguments against global warming.] AZ
100
The WA EPA is reporting from authority, a result of backing the “consensus” was a given being part of the CAGW think tank.
170
A great piece of work.
Ultimately it all boils down to one very clear and scientifically real point that is being deliberately obscured.
To deliberately cover up core science with hokey “models”, sincere sounding Enviro_Verbalism, Church Endorsement of the Holiness of the Quest is Bad enough, but all of this pales in comparison with the real issue; the failure of humanity to progress.
The history of the last two thousand years is full of examples of human errors and collectively we are endorsing the latest one in The Human Origin CO2 cult. Had we evolved in any way the cult would never have gotten off the ground because the science is quite clear; there is No operative mechanism possible in the conditions of the Earth’s atmosphere whereby human origin CO2 can in any way, cause World Warming.
There being no link between CO2 and temperature the models have no scientific or engineering basis.
In every way the concept is a scientific nonsense and is a deliberate political invention created to enslave the plebs.
It has always been about Money and Control.
KK
270
In April 1856, 15-year old Nongqawuse claimed that the spirits had told her that the Xhosa people should destroy their crops and kill their cattle, the source of their wealth as well as food.
Nongqawuse claimed that the ancestors who had appeared to her said that multiple benefits would happen in the near future if they did.
The Xhosa believed her and many starved to death.
In April 2019 16 year old Greta …..
150
There is no consideration of the fact that the human species itself is a warm climate animal which regulates its temperature through clothing. The majority of the human population lives between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn — where it’s warm. By far the majority of plant and animal species exist between the tropics where it is warm. Chemical reactions proceed more thoroughly and better in higher temperatures and as all life is chemical, it’s not hard to deduce why life forms concentrate between the tropics. They’re all chemical factories of one sort or the other (animal or vegetable).
If it gets warmer, for humans, we can remove clothing and if it cools, we can add extra clothing. Where’s the `existential threat’ coming from? In a word: Food. It’s not yet as warm as it was during the Minoan Warming. It didn’t affect the Minoans at all. Some people think they even sailed around the Atlantic, reaching North America. It wasn’t Global Warming which crashed the Minoan civilization but a big local volcano: Thera on the island of Santorini. That was very local. It was some opportunistic Greek pirates which trashed the remains.
Globally, it’s cooling which kills. That’s the big existential threat. It doesn’t matter if it’s from weather, volcanic eruption or a Big Rock from Space or any combination of those. It’s the effect of cooling. What is happening in our weather is the start of cooling. We’re on the cusp where some temps remain elevated from past warming and others are falling from present cooling. The cooling is already affecting agriculture around the world, more in some places than others. Anything affecting agriculture affects food. When crops start failing, and failing regularly, people move to areas where there is more plentiful food, which just happens to be warmer climes. Hunger is the Great Motivator.
Looking back at history, kingdoms, empires and dynasties collapsed in every GSM (Grand Solar Minimum). Temperature and precipitation (rainfall) controls crops. And the band of plenty waxes and wanes accordingly in step with warming and cooling. Dr Willie Dansgaard’s climate forecast made back at the end of the 1960s (1):
is still far more accurate than any of the climate models.
Dansgaard also discovered, in the Camp Century ice core that:(2)
That sure wasn’t the Holocene, but it was fast and a deep spike. The WA EPA seems to be preparing for the wrong problem: the problem they see which isn’t a problem. That lack of preparation for what is actually happening could be fatal for WA. Lowering temperatures may well proceed far faster than it can cope with, over five to seven years instead of their expected eight decades. There is a possibility it could go further with a return to ice but I have no reason to think so. Not just yet. A prediction of a 400 – 500 year cold interval has just come out of China (sorry, no reference yet) Warming out to 2100 is seeming to be more and more of a fantasy.
America is just starting to realize their food may be being affected by the last few cold winters.
Corn in North America is now being rationed in some areas. ( https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=K1luk5APTCI ). So what is happening this year in America is just the start. From a similar source, our food reserves are being rapidly consumed. I can only warn that that is hearsay so far.
Social planning and control is preceding crop failures. Watch national economies. Rice is up 45%, and shortages in peas and beans have been reported (also hearsay) … the weather and cooling is starting to bite. Some breads in my local supermarkets have suddenly jumped in price (June) by nearly 20% while the NZ government tries to tell us that inflation is low — less than 4%. Ah hah. Wheat prices rising? Much wheat is imported into NZ.
It begins …
(1) CALDER Nigel: Restless Earth page 127;
1972 British Broadcasting Corporation ISBN: 0 563 12123 8
(2) CALDER Nigel: The Weather Machine and the Threat of Ice page 100
1974 The British Broadcasting Corporation ISBN: 0 563 12646 9
120
Yes its going to be the cold that will do the damage, esp in food production.
50
Shorter growing seasons too.
40
The North and South magnetic poles are wandering at a spectacularly rapid rate and the Earth’s magnetic field is weakening at c. 5% per decade. That’s per decade not per century nor per millenium. It could be just a geomagnetic excursion, or, like the Laschamp Event of 41400 years ago, it could be be a full reversal. We don’t really know yet. Liverpool University says it’s an excursion. We’ll see.
It will affect the weather or it already is. The weakening magnetic field gives the Solar Wind deeper penetration into the atmosphere’s Ionosphere layer where it can stir up bad weather which affects the Troposphere. Tropical Cyclones are created along with weak Solar magnetic field, means that the Cosmic Ray count is now at an historic high and may still be increasing. The Laschamp reversal may have been short but it was very cold and very destructive. If you’re pregnant, don’t fly anywhere.
The Earth’s magnetic field fell to 5% of its normal strength during the transition period at each end of the reversal and remained at about 25% during the reversal (400 years approx). There was a pronounced Svensmark effect from the increased Cosmic Ray bombardment affecting/creating cloud cover. Lot’s of cloud pulled temperatures down.
Have you ever wondered why our cousins, Neanderthal Man, went extinct? It happened c. 41,000 years ago.
I little — near zero — confidence in current predictions of “warming out to 2100.” by the IPCC and the WA EPA. Poor things. They’re all akin to ostriches, with their heads in the sand.
A few papers as references:
Channell J. E. T, & Vigliotti, “The Role of Geomagnetic Field Intensity in
Late Quaternary Evolution of Humans and Large Mammals.” 2018, AGU100
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018RG000629
Downloaded 2019-07-22.
– references: over 250 (c. 275 ) (about extinctions)
Channell J. E. T., C. Laj, “Geomagnetic Excursions” [2007] Elsevier B.V.
https://booksite.elsevier.com/brochures/geophysics/PDFs/00095.pdf
Downloaded 2019-07-22.
– references: over 300
Petrelis F, Besse J, & Valer J-P; “Plate Tectonics May Control Geomagnetic
Reversal Frequency.” Geophysical Research Letters [2011]
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2011GL048784
Downloaded 2019-07-25
Kitaba I, et al,”Geological Support for the Umbrella Effect as a Link Between
Geomagnetic Field and Climate.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40682
Downloaded 2019-07-25
Gubbins D; “The Distinction between Geomagnetic Excursions and Reversals”
(School of Earth Sciences, Leeds University)
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/137/1/F1/701015
V. A. Dergacheva, S. S. Vasilieva, O. M. Raspopovb, and H. Jungner:
“Impact of the Geomagnetic Field and Solar Radiation on Climate Change.”
https://bigbangpage.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/10.1134_S0016793212080063.pdf
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. 2012. Vol 52, No 8 pp: 959-976. Pleiades Publishing. 2012.
(not yet read).
Earth’s Magnetic Field is not about to Reverse.
University of Liverpool April 20, 2018.
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-earth-magnetic-field-reverse.html
-we’ll see.
Enjoy your reading …
60
I thought that post went a little too well:
Errata:
The line:
I little — near zero — confidence in current predictions
should be:
I harbour little — as in near zero — confidence in current predictions
50
I’d guessed something of the sort Sophocles!
30
Thank you Annie.
My computer’s keyboard plays nasty little games: I have XXXL hands (that’s my glove size for my motorcycle gear) and despite it being a large IBM (yep: original branded keyboard from the 1980s – weighs a ton) it still messes up. You should see the messes I make on a modern light weight one!
20
“Plate Tectonics May Control Geomagnetic Reversal Frequency.” I was wondering if the reverse may also be true. Geomagnetism controls the Tectonics. Olivine is electromagnetic, (responds to magnetic fields), and it forms a large part of the composition of the mantle. This maybe a factor in geomagnetic correlation with earthquakes, some suggest.
20
THis http://www.sidc.be/images/wolfjmms.png , remember we are at the minumim of SC24 (which was a flop compared with the giant 21 and 22) and it dont look like they are getting bigger.
10
Here is the story for Greenland this last month
https://electroverse.net/greenland-forecast-to-be-as-much-16c-below-average-for-the-majority-of-september/
You can see how the story that Greenland is ‘thawing out’ due to ‘climate change’ was cherry picked, probably reporting from a spot that has ice loss from a couple of places (by the BBC ,BS cooporation) and replayed on Aunty the other day..Most of it has ice GAIN.
30
Temperatures have been generally rising here in the UK since 1695, although over the last 20 years they have marginally declined from a high plateau. (Met Office ‘Central England temperatures’)so there has been no ‘warming’ at all this century
The ‘climate emergency’ and the need to spend vast amounts of money in a panic induced hysteria is difficult to detect when looking at the broad sweep of wildly fluctuating climate history, rather than the 40 year long satellite records..
That Britain’s Co2 output is irrelevant to the world climate can be seen in data provided by New Scientist, that if the UK achieved net zero co2 emissions by 2050 it would provide three hundredths of a degree reduction in global temperature compared to 2020. Theresa May (our idiotic former PM) pledged 1 trillion pounds to achieve a result that is not measurable..
In Australia your co2 footprint is even smaller, mind you I am sure that all the very green audience here would agree that, like Britain, spending a trillion dollars in 0rder to reduce global temperatures by 300th of a degree is a worthwhile and noble endeavour.
I am humbled by your anticipated sacrifice in order that Mother Earth does not die of a fever.
tonyb
270
“…it might theoretically provide three hundredths of a degree reduction in global temperature compared to 2020.”
170
The interpretation is clear. The data is to be selected, adjusted, and re-re-interpreted so that government aggrandizes still more power over we mere mortals. That way, they can tax, tax, tax, regulate, regulate, regulate any activity that gives the power of choice to the mere mortal out of existence.
All is to be enslaved to all wherein all excess wealth that is produced is to be transferred to the government coffers. From thence to the unelected and unaccountable self selected elite so they can continue to exist without actually having to be productive. Why? Just because they are THE ELITE and for no other reason.
200
And that is the heart and soul of this sad story Lionell.
We have the visibles like the Pope, the head of the United Bloody Nations, world Presidents, Chancellors and various EEU functionaries all doing very well in this man’s world, but beyond that is vague.
Who controls these “important” people? The more I see of politics and power the more obvious it becomes that these “leaders” are simple stooges being guided by others operating at a level we know nothing about.
The world’s superstructure needs a serious audit and clean out.
KK
180
“Who controls these “important” people?”
First reaction….The Devil?
110
Yes Annie, for sure the Devil is in the DATA!! 🙂
90
The thing is, The Elite cannot stand without we mere mortals holding them up with our productivity. Take that way, they will collapse to cannibalism within a month or so. They cannot produce for themselves.
Keep in mind, if nothing is produced their stolen wealth will have nothing to buy. Trying to eat a pile of paper money or even a huge pile of gold is not at all nutritious. Hence, they will end up eating each other. Our challenge is to survive until that glorious day. The less we help them, the sooner that day comes.
100
Maybe we could dump a truckload of salt on him.
Totally dehydrated Devil.
50
So the DEMS aided and abetted by CNN in their set piece ‘townhall’ event have embraced the idea that life as we know it will conclude in eleven years, after which the planet will be irredeemably screwed. All vague, calamitous and archly metaphysical.
The UN (UNEP, UN ECOSOC, UNFCCC) intend to implement global administrative control by 2030. The ‘transformational agenda’ and Habitat III are all locked and loaded for 2030.
Make no mistake, the corporatist globalists will shovel their manure down our collective throats one way or another by 2030, unless or until they are stopped. I do so hate leaving things to the last minute, but it seems unavoidable now.
Make no mistake, we’re in for the fight of our lives, for freedom, happiness and prosperity,
120
Look at the Canaanite city of Hazor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVh-72a6YsY&list=PLYnDkuQJxXztMayqgFJm7NqI35bnAwizZ 26:40
30
Interesting but too much ‘atmospheric’ muzak for me. I didn’t persist; prefer books really.
50
I’m with you Annie; a written presentation can be perused in a fraction of the time eaten up waiting for the youtuber to get to the point.
30
I agree about the music: it’s an American production so the music is necessary to prevent the audiences from rioting in the theatre. I found the second half better than the first half.
Books — mankind’s best invention. I’m a bibliophile … but I sacrifice that for the occasional worthy video.
20
An excellent starting point. Unfortunately we used a similar argument when litigating against the U.S. EPA’s endangerment finding, that EPA could not simply use the IPCC reports, rather it had to do its own research, and this did not fly. The Court said that since science is global the IPCC work did not have to be redone.
Still it is vital to get this point on the record.
180
I can understand the courts position, but this is the very epee-centre of the problem.
Could this be masterminded? Could someone or some influencing body mastermind a conspiracy on this scale? It seems unlikely, so why is this happening?
There seems to be many people who simply accept with full trust any statement from authority. People like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox, who have the skills needed to evaluate the CAGW but don’t. They instead ridicule anyone who doesn’t believe it, and I’m sure they do this because they know science and trust the authority of those speaking.
So, it’s a confidence trick. What’s the point of it?
A good question; ignorance, feel-goodness, and pushing a social engineering agenda seem to the primary ones. I’m not yet sure just what’s going on or why. Fascinating, but it scares the hell out of me where this is all leading.
170
Good outline Greg.
Everyone wants to belong and that’s understandable but there are others who not only belong but can reap a handsome income, lifestyle or windfall gain as well.
At a local level our council has some real green go getters who have embraced the meme and flourished. The young gentleman functionary has anointed himself with $400,000 p.a. and the young lady has enrolled our local council ratepayers in a U.N. scheme that highlights social and environmental awareness, at a cost.
In the meantime our local public infrastructure, the beaches, is left without maintenance or care.
That’s life. Keep up appearances.
KK
110
‘The Court said that since science is global ‘ yes to an extent but its not about the ‘science’ is it. Its about control of the ‘science’. Its control of the ‘results’ or ‘findings’ so that they meet certain criterion which fit with the ‘agenda’ nothing else matters. The statements by the instigators of all this baloney back in the 80s 90s clearly show this is a deliberate scam.
““But Kyoto is not an insurance policy. Just the opposite, it is the single greatest threat today to the
global environment, because it makes carbon into currency…”
etc..
90
G’day Greg,
I also had trouble understanding the what, how and why of it all and couldn’t accept the extent of the scam until I was pointed to the book by Donna Laframboise entitled “The delinquent teenager”. Her starting point in checking on the IPCC claim that all its science was “peer reviewed” led her to discover it wasn’t. Then went on to write about it and the way the IPCC was set up and organised.
I found it also valuable to read her footnotes.
It’s quite a short book. I commend it to you.
Cheers
Dave B
60
Recommendation seconded.
But be careful doing so as there are obmutescent imbeciles out there who’ll think she is a lampoonist whose work is not to be taken seriously on the basis that her name translates roughly to “give the raspberry”.
20
I long ago worked out it meant ‘give the raspberry’! I never got around to asking anyone to confirm it 😉
20
“Could this be masterminded? Could someone or some influencing body mastermind a conspiracy on this scale? It seems unlikely, so why is this happening?”
https://stovouno.org/
Nope, not unlikely. Planning in progress for many years, implementation is now accelerated as they are really nervous with the Grand Solar Minimum approaching.
https://electroverse.net/author/cap/
30
Science may be global, but one person is responsible for making the decision.
Either the EPA is responsible for making a scientific recommendation without checking (and they need to admit that — anything less would be deceptive conduct) OR
McGowan (State Premier) is responsible for imposing billions of dollars of costs and losses on all the people of the state — and doing it knowing that he is relying on foreign committees and unvalidated models.
If it’s the former, why bother having an EPA? What point exactly is there?
If it’s the latter, why bother electing a state government? We are merely a vassal state of the UN which decides what our economic and environmental policies are.
Do any of those foreign appointees have a conflict of interest with respect to West Australians wealth and health? A better question is whether there is a single appointee that doesn’t? Even WA appointees (if there are any) would not make more money, or gain any status if they found errors in the IPCC report. There is no incentive to find mistakes that reduce the need for foreign committees and global junkets.
If our company tax receipts were audited by a foreign committee, would that be OK?
What if we said that our pharmaceuticals could be approved by the WHO? We could get rid of so many bureaucrats and government surplus departments. Medicine is global too (it’s a science).
210
It must be a deficiency in our reading between the lines skills Jo; you know, “more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
10
Thank you for your efforts Jo. Good work.
20
“In my line of work, getting paid (having clients) depends on the correct result. The client doesn’t say “I want a cold winter, here’s some money, forecast it”. The client asks for a forecast that gives him an edge. If you are right the client renews: if not, it’s bye-bye. But there’s no upfront money that looks for a set result. This means that the forecaster does not care whether it’s warm or cold, just that he gets the right answer, strong>whatever that may be. This is not the case with the AGW branch of acadaemia. Research grants come with the cause du jour – just try getting a grant to disprove global warming
(actually you don’t need one, it’s easy to refute it just by understanding what’s happened before).
From Joe Bastardi “THe Climate Chronicles: inconvenient revelations you won’t hear from Al Gore – and others”
150
I would prefer that the EPA be approached from the direction of the science rather than from it’s baseless environmental concerns.
As Jo points out, there is catastrophic environmental pollution being done by the industrial processes being used to create the materials used for turbine magnets and solar panels.
Renewables are far from being pollution or environmentally neutral and this fact alone is appalling.
The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing while a solution to a “non problem” creates serious environmental pollution.
But I almost forgot, there is No Mechanism by which CO2 heats the atmosphere. Saying that CO2 heats the atmosphere makes as much sense as saying that Uranium explodes.
The truth is out there but people want to keep their jobs.
The base_stone of the Global Warming myth is a falsehood and it alone, when exposed, will bring the whole mess down.
Focus. KK
120
Not sure what you are saying about the mechanism. There is a mechanism whereby the presence of CO2 might (not will) heat the atmosphere, although the CO2 does not do it alone. It captures outgoing infrared radiation and releases the energy to the surrounding air via kinetic collision. It also cools the atmosphere by reversing that process. Whether increasing CO2 will increase temperature is another matter entirely, because the overall process is wildly complex. Unfortunately many, probably most, alarmists ignore these complexities, which is wrong.
Is your point that the CO2 on its own, without the radiation, does not generate energy? This is true.
70
“It captures outgoing infrared radiation and releases the energy to the surrounding air via kinetic collision”
Where it is subject to the same effects as any other energy, convective up-lift.
Its just another channel for COOLING of the atmosphere, all controlled by the gravity thermal gradient
To cause any actual warming, this “special” CO2 heat has to counter this over-riding thermal gradient.
It does not and it can not.
Only H2O, with its change of state and latent heat carrying capacity, has the ability to alter the natural temperature gradient.
70
So you are saying that the increased energy captured by increased CO2 will be offset by causing increased convective uplift? I have always liked that conjecture but I do not think it has been confirmed (or disconfirmed) by observation. Given that the CO2 increase has not caused a temperature increase (per the satellites) it is certainly plausible. But I would not claim it proven. (My field is uncertainty.)
40
Any warming ALWAYS caused increased convection.
Density, pressure, volume, buoyancy. !
90
The lapse rate equation is INDEPENDENT of the constituent gasses in the atmosphere. The temperature is determined by the lapse rate in a standard atmosphere. Added to that water vapour will transfer heat by convection and condensation energy. Example thunder storms and cumulus formation.
Think of the amount of energy to takes to evaporate 18 cubic km! (average est volume or water in large cumulus clouds) of sea water to form a large cumulus cloud!
70
Because of latent heat etc, the measured temperature lapse rate is changed by H2O.
However, the energy transfer rate is still the same.
Then if you get a shift in H2O content and the air underneath wants to rise faster, it pushes the above air higher and faster, hence you get thunderhead clouds etc forming
Orographic (terrain) causes also contribute to these air movements, and totally overcome any theoretical CO2 warming.
80
No David,
one of the phrases used by warmers was to say that CO2 was a heat trapping gas.
CO2 does not and cannot trap and hold heat and where it does selectively absorb ground origin IR it must instantaneously equilibrate with the surrounding parcel of gas.
Theoretically this parcel of gas will be warmer, expand and rise through the atmosphere towards that great heat sink in the sky.
Over any 24 hour period I believe, I know that’s not very scientific, that there will be no net addition to heat retained in the atmosphere as a result of CO2 let alone the extremely small possible contribution from human origin CO2.
The process, involving such a small amount of gas ,CO2, is small compared with the overwhelming bulk of the other atmospheric gases which warm and rise from conduction with ground.
Of course I am just theorising here because it may be that other factors like conduction of other gases after they impact the ground may elevate the activation level of CO2.
What I’m saying is that I don’t perfectly understand what happens when the atmosphere is in contact with the ground.
And that is why in the past I’ve always approached this issue quantitatively. Human Origin CO2 is so small that it is barely measurable.
Earlier in the post I said;
” there is No operative mechanism possible in the conditions of the Earth’s atmosphere whereby human origin CO2 can in any way, cause World Warming”.
That’s not saying that there isn’t a mechanism as such but after reading comments by Will J I have the impression that perhaps there is a limited range of functionality of the CO2 IR absorption process. Does anybody know.
Human Origin CO2 is quantitatively irrelevant and the great deceit has been to talk of total CO2 and also to ignore the twenty elephants in the room; water.
I know I haven’t qualified my statement fully but it’s purpose was to get people’s attention to the real fact that human origin CO2 is quantitatively irrelevant.
KK
80
This post by Brett and comment might be a bit of a breakthrough in having something concrete to point at that seems to exclude CO2 from consideration as a heater.
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/midweek-unthreaded-81/#comment-2181369
10
I hope you’re not rubbishing John Kerry’s carbon dioxide blanket over the atmosphere Kalm Keith.
30
🙂
10
In the list of respected professions surely Scientist must be getting down amongst the Used car Salesman level…or is it worse than that and they have dropped to Lawyer status?
170
The UN IPCC have provided an almost infinite trough of fodder for climate deniers. The poor and weak science, the consensus ideology, the fabrication and adjustment, and bankrupt modelling all guarantee their ultimate crashing irrelevance and failure. The risible roundabout of ideologically funded policy based scientivism that constitutes the IPCC polemic is thin, vapid and vulnerable. Brittle and fragile, the retreat to ad hominem and argumentum ad verecundiam reveals exactly that, a brittle fragility bereft of sound science and empirical evidence. We all understand that were science and scientific institutions free to exert unrestrained critical examination and engagement, and the media unencumbered by ideological dogma and deliberate unquestioning compliance, free to critically evaluate and interrogate, a great unravelling would occur. The multitudes of effete Watermelons would be triggered into a climageddon of ideological oblivion and irrelevance, the political and economic consequences while liberating of both civil discourse and prosperity would be tumultuous and shattering. Greta and her ilk would begin lifelong counselling.
Typically, the UN sequesters the English language, as they so often do with great effect; ‘civil society‘ is one of the favourites. By redefining the simple words, ‘climate change‘ in a manner designed to be unfalsifiable, unfalsifiable that is without eradicating humanity from the face of the Earth, they cornered the market place and they thoroughly betrayed and revealed their unscientific motives. Any direct or indirect anthropogenic influence upon atmospheric composition or land usage is the sole basis of ‘climate change‘. This UNFCCC definition is as ideological and unscientific as it is worthless. It replaced the simpler ‘global warming’ narrative when it became obvious that global warming was not occurring in 1998, and as was well known, not occurring as the IPCC models predicted.
Due diligence, while aspirational, is impossible under present circumstances. Clearly, no one and no institution of the nature of the EPA is wiling to demonstrate that the emperor has no clothes.
Ultimately, climatism will fail in tandem with the neo-Marxist imbued corporatist globalism.
Never in any way whatsoever representative of ‘settled science’, the climatism charade was always an exemplar of ‘settled politics’.
It is clear that it is the politics that must fail first;
and there is clear evidence that it is.
100
Globalist Elites Show Contempt for Voters on Both Sides of the Atlantic
Globalist elites are doing their level best to survive the rebellion, whether in Westminster or in Washington. Their weapon, totalitarianism.
The globalist corporatist elites have abandoned any pretence of adhering to cultural and civilised norms, and have engaged in a no holds barred war against freedom and prosperity in order to maintain control.
Their hypocrisy is on full display.
17.4 million people (the largest vote in UK history) opted for Brexit. 3 years later the UK has been stalled by institutions, bureaucracy, the MSM and governance, even calling PM Boris Johnson undemocratic as he tries to implement the wishes of the British people.
The ‘settled politics’ of neo-Marxist identitarian politics will have to fail before the climatism narrative collapses.
140
O/T Jo quoted
“A bonus on the perception of human-induced warming. CSIRO finds less than half of the people in a survey think that humans are a major cause of warming. See the pie chart at the bottom of this piece by Jo Nova.”
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2019/09/05/dont-mention-the-inflated-cost-of-infrastructure-or-power-prices/
60
Jo
A commenter on donaitkin.com stated a couple of days ago that NASA has admitted that its models cannot handle clouds. NASA was also said to have stated that this made them (words like) “100 times less powerful than needed to make predictions”.
This might be worth chasing up. If NASA has said this, it would seem to be “game over”.
90
Stung by criticism of inaccuracies in the siting of their existing stations (crowd survey on WUWT etc)
NOAA set up a new set of stations in 2005, avoiding urban heat, jet exhausts at airports etc.
The result is that after 14 years they report NO WARMING.
150
Do you have a link to that data set ?
20
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html was posted by OldOzzie here http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/firestorm-of-fake-news-convenient-global-hysteria-about-amazon-based-on-nothing-but-twitter-pics/#comment-2179975 which is as near as I can get just now…
20
A commenter on donaitkin.com stated a couple of days ago that NASA has admitted that its models cannot handle clouds.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/08/29/nasa-we-cant-model-clouds-so-climate-models-are-100-times-less-accurate-than-needed-for-projections/
50
Good luck, although I fear that this submission will be quickly moved to the ‘not for consideration pile’
32
In the bottom draw, preparation for a Royal Commission.
80
I’m thinking more about the 3 principles which must be included. In effect, those principles only allow submissions of a particular type.
32
Digging a little deeper, the EPA has 13 structural principles supporting a monstrous lie. This is the first cab off the rank.
1. The precautionary principle
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
In the application of the precautionary principle, decision should be guided by:
a. careful evaluation to avoid, where practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and
b. an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.
20
On the contrary
1. The precautionary principle — says we shouldn’t destroy our country based on unvalidated nonsense theories. We should make sure there is actually some solid real science behind whatever we do. AGW and climate change are a myth, a fairy tale.
2.The principle of intergenerational equity. We shouldn’t destroy our society with idiotic non-science agendas. The future generations will look back and wonder WT* w these idiots were doing.
3.The polluter pays principle. CO2 is not pollution
There is FAR more pollution created in the manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels. Extreme toxic chemicals are used in both manufacturing processes. Wind turbines also pollute the landscape and the environment, so yes, the true cost of their environmental pollution should be paid for.
CO2 is highly beneficial to all life on earth, and those producing it should be paid recompense.
All of modern society exists because of coal and CO2.
60
With the Precautionary Principle they avoid legal vilification and cannot be prosecuted.
10
The precautionary principle could be used to our advantage, global cooling has begun. If we can forecast a possible future based on the connection between a quiet sun and oscillations, the EPA would have to take notice.
No discussion on CO2 because that hypothesis has failed, water vapour is the elephant in the room.
10
Also if we could somehow discredit the scientific paradigm, by explaining that our knowledge has greatly improved. This Catalyst program from 2003 blamed humans for the absence of winter rains.
https://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/drought-vortex/11007620
10
It is too questioning of the AGW Agenda.
MUST NOT LET THE FACTS INTRUDE.
I can only imagine the brain-washed gullibility inside places like the EPA.
I would guess you MUST be a “believer” even to get employment.
Part of the interview process. !!
90
Actually, I have met some guys from within places like CSIRO, BOM.
…. and they really are “true believers”!
Not a single questioning mind among them.
They have never actually looked at the lack of science behind the scam,
and THEY DON’T WANT TO !!
120
Of course they don’t want to as they’d be shown the door and where else could such ludericks gain employment?
20
It’s a major concern almost the whole scientific community is dead quiet on all this. If an organisation came out and made some really outrageous claim, such as man-kind caused the rings of Saturn there would be an immediate negative response by the scientific community. Not so with an equally outrageous claim about CAGW. We all know why. Money speaks louder than words. As far as I’m concerned the so called scientific community have lost all credibility. The IPCC report not only can be dismissed as speculative, it should be discredited outright as deliberately misleading and false in no uncertain terms by the whole scientific community according to their own rules. Hypocrites!
60
Peter, the scientific community is not silent, tens of thousands of people are speaking up online, it’s documented, they are named. The ABC/BBC etc do their best to ignore them and find reasons to censor them.
The community you are referring to has been filtered and threatened. People like Bob Carter and Peter Ridd, get sacked from the “official” academic community, that keeps the thousands of employed scientists silent.
But you are right, academia has lost credibility.
150
Earlier today, it was announced in the Federal Circuit Court that Dr Peter Ridd will receive $1,219,214 in damages following the Court’s decision in April that Dr Ridd was unlawfully sacked.
JCU will probably appeal, JCU a a tax-payer-funded university that acts to shut down open enquiry.
50
Listened to interview of Alan Trotter,
retired NZ lawyer, vehement anti-CCC/rap/bs/Greens/ZeroCarbonBill/UN/NWO/etc, on MagicTalk Radio this morning with Peter Williams. Alan’s submission to our public servants is below:
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/52SCEN_EVI_87861_EN18968/24104a1b5429433e60b771ba65bf78e588265169
The interview could be available via link below (which I can’t open for some techie reason):
https://www.magic.co.nz/home/shows/talk/magic-mornings.html
The battle/fun has begun!
70
Lionell Griffith – 6.1.1.2- wrote of the CAGW mob:
“Trying to eat a pile of paper money or even a huge pile of gold is not at all nutritious. Hence, they will end up eating each other.”
5 Sept: ClimateDepot: Cannibalism: Professor Says Eating Human Flesh Will Save Planet From ‘Climate Change’
Watch on Swedish TV here (LINK):
And NO this story is not from The Onion.A conference about the food of the future called Gastro Summit being held in Stockholm Sweden featured a presentation by Magnus Söderlund claiming that we must get used to the idea of eating human flesh in the future, as a way of combating the effects of climate change…READ ON
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/05/cannibalism-professor-says-eating-human-flesh-will-save-planet-from-climate-change/
40
My bet is that not one in a million of the common people has carefully read even one full IPCC report. Further I doubt if even half of scientists in climate related fields have. Of all scientists, perhaps one in a thousand. Of politicians I would bet nearly none.
I fully studied and dissected one report and found it to be speculative and almost entirely written by scientists and public figures with no background in climate studies. In other words they depended on the work of others and cherry picking was obvious.
I have a low tolerance for idle or self serving speculation and have no more than skimmed a few subsequent reports. It does seem that they are modifying their position, contrary to media reports which only highlight extreme scenarios with virtually no probability of being accurate predictions of the future.
90
I have
readsuffered my way through a couple. Lord Christopher Monkton puts it succinctly when he says the UN (including the IPCC) `doesn’t do simple‘. He uses a brilliant example of a spade as:to illustrate his point.
00
If I was reviewing this I’d send it back for a rewrite.
213
Its well referenced and all points adequately covered, perhaps you can point out something specifically?
120
It’s anti his religion
70
The referencing is terrible, it is actually over-referenced.
The length of this could be halved. It is replete with hand-waving opinions (It is merely repeating committee reports), vague terms (the models!), waffle (e.g the paragraph commencing with “Argument from Authority”) and often haughty waffle.
211
So you can’t find any mistakes that matter then Gee Aye?
180
First time I’ve heard of getting criticised for referencing too much ,no mention if any of it was wrong just too many .
You and your ilk have nothing just faith and a religion.
81
Well I’m glad to have introduced a new concept to you. It is a very common criticism of academic papers in review and also for government reports.
26
It is certainly a new concept to me Gee aye, but one that you have invented yourself.
You are talking utter BS, unless you can reference a journal guideline which supports your contention.
Jo has 49 references, which is by no means unusual, particularly in an article, which addresses broad issues such as this one.
Every reference is referred to in the text which is good practice and makes her points clear (except possibly to you).
Perhaps you would like to reference one of your own articles to show us what you mean?
30
It’s up to you Jo but mistakes that matter is not the issue if the readability is poor and the arguements unclear
17
So you lack comprehension issues, right GA…
No news there. !
Any argument that doesn’t align with your brain-washing will be wilfully unclear to you.
Rejected by the sludge-mind.
80
Writing a submission to the West Australian EPA my focus would be on local stuff. Explain that SWWA winter rains have returned because climate change is natural and cyclic.
The IPCC got it badly wrong, it was only a coincidence that temperatures were rising at the same time as CO2, so now we really are in a pickle.
Looking back to glimpse the future, monsoonal failure is to be expected in a cooler climate.
60
There are a lot of older references which may not still be valid.
The missing hot spot is one example, the reference is over 10 years old, and there are a plethora of contrary reports viz
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/climate-meme-debunked-tropospheric-hot-spot-found/
19
No the missing hot spot WAS NOT FOUND
It was a load spurious mathematic chicanery is a vain and anti-science attempt yo find the non-existent.
Sherwood is a master at conning the gullible. As you clearly show. !
110
and your reference is?
16
Andy is correct, the hot spot was a myth.
50
read the link you posted PF.
If you can’t see that its a load of mathematical and scientific garbage, akin to data torture and fabrication…
then no-one can help you
40
No – you did not go to the source articles, all you have is the original report which was published more than 10 years and 2 ICCC reports ago. To compare what was the state of the science then and now, and still side with the old report is not rational.
14
Sorry little boy, but I did look at the last paper.
It is a load of scientific JUNK, as explained below.
Do try to comprehend what is “science” and what is NOT science, PF,
… you will then not look so incredibly and gullibly foolish.
71
“the large amount of missing wind data means that our IUK approach will also add value by infilling missing data intelligently and allowing more stations to be utilized.”
So hilarious. “intelligently”..
this is Sherwood saying this.. ship of fools and all. !!
They use a model to fill in data that meets their expectations
NOT SCIENCE in any form whatsoever, PF. !!
50
“Homogenized” by a “structural model”
“by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data”
SERIOUSLY !!! You have to be joking.
At least read your junk-science links before you post them !!!
70
“This analysis, which used weather forecasts to help identify artificial changes in the balloon data”
Yet they can’t figure that they are the cause of those “artificial changes in the balloon data”
DOH !!!
This truly is non-science nonsense, the AGW way !!
And PF swallows it whole !!! Non-thinking gullibility. !!
80
“also came up with a reassuringly realistic pattern of warming compared with earlier efforts.”
so funny.. so they had a model that didn’t work, decided it was right anyway, and modified the data to fit.
So sad that THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!!
Its one massive faceplant from start to finish !!
Thanks for the laugh, PF !!
80
The first book on climate I ever bought was Ian Plimer’s Heaven+Earth. I saw him talk about it on the ABC in late 2009. He was proud of his 2311 references!
20
Irrelevant
You just don’t like the content.
Facts etc.. your enema.
110
Enema?! Or enemy?
70
It’s his fantasy.
04
No wonder you are always empty, GA. !!
Facts have that effect on you.
50
To GA, both !
60
“Australia has always been a hot land. Our environment is surely adapted to that?”
You might be happy to know that Australia is in the group of countries and regions that have warmed the least since 1880.
Along with America, Africa, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia, Australia is NOT warming as much as other countries and regions.
The competition to see which country has warmed the most since 1880, was a close one.
Canada led the field by a BIG margin, for over 135 years.
But Canada’s performance faded in the last 15 years, and Russia won by a nose.
Russia ended up with 2.7 degrees Celsius of global warming since 1880.
And Canada ended up in second place, with 2.6 degrees Celsius of global warming since 1880.
How did your country or region perform in the race?
There is only one way to find out. Click on this link:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-by-country-and-region
Please note – the judges decision is final (unless GISTEMP adjusts the temperatures again).
60
As the graphs are based on ADJUSTED figures what would UNADJUSTED figures show?
We won’t know in Australia as the Bureau of Meteorology thinks we can’t be trusted with any temperature figures before 1910 (because ‘outsiders’ recorded them).
70
Perhaps your best work yet , Jo .
All the alarmists have is the output of their computer models , which they treat as ” proof ” . But it is only propaganda laundered through software to make it look like data !!!
There is no process by which CO2 could cause extra heating in the atmosphere , the lack of the infamous hot spot is proof . The radiative cooling of CO2 has , I suspect , more impact than any heating from absorption of LWIR . Have a look at the 2 narrow absorption bands ( 8% of the band ) of CO2 in the LWIR band and compare to the wide absorption band of water vapor . Anyway – how did the LWIR get through the bulk of the atmosphere only to be absorbed by the piddling amount of CO2 in the upper troposphere ?
The real emergency is what has been done to our electricity grid and to our economy .
160
big MSM story today:
5 Sept: Forbes: Let There Be Lighting Choices, Energy Department Tells Environmental Groups
by Dipka Bhambhani
In a proposed rule (LINK) published in the Federal Register today, DOE said Americans can choose to buy halogen, incandescent, compact fluorescent and LED bulbs for their specialty lighting fixtures instead of adhering to an interpretation of the law that would eliminate all incandescent bulbs by January 2020…
DOE’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Alex Fitzsimmons, told Forbes this week, “Consumers can still purchase LEDs. What we are doing is allowing consumers to choose from a wider range of options.”
“Preserving consumer choice does not harm consumers, period,” he said…
“We withdrew the final rules that were published on the final day of the previous administration which expanded the definition of a general service lamp lightbulb beyond statute, which is not consistent with what Congress intended … and we decided not to amend standards for incandescent light bulbs because DOE’s robust economic analysis found that more stringent standards would not be economically justified,” Fitzsimmons said.
“DOE is only authorized to increase standards when doing so would be technologically feasible and economically justified. That is in statute. Our rigorous economic analysis shows increasing standards on incandescent lightbulbs would not be economically justified because consumers would not be able to recover the cost of their investment because more stringent standards would make these lightbulbs 300 percent more expensive,” Fitzsimmons said. “More stringent standards would effectively regulate incandescent light bulbs out of existence and DOE is not in that business.”…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dipkabhambhani/2019/09/05/let-there-be-lighting-choices-energy-department-tells-environmental-groups/
4 Sept: WaPo: Energy Department to prolong the lives of incandescent lightbulbs
The rules, which roll back yet another standard, could cost $14 billion
By Steven Mufson
The Trump administration Wednesday rolled back yet another Obama-era regulation…
The rollback will mean $14 billion a year in higher energy costs and add to the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to a study by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
The Energy Department said phasing out the bulbs would be “a lose-lose for consumers” because of the higher cost of more efficient bulbs. And it said it would be “regulating these lightbulbs out of existence.”…
(Jason Hartke, president of the Alliance to Save Energy) also said inefficient lightbulbs were also “terrible for our climate.” He said the rule would require the electricity produced by 25 coal power plants “just to power wasteful bulbs.”…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/09/04/energy-department-prolong-lives-incandescent-light-bulbs/
40
If incandescent bulbs cost money then surely people will switch to more economical types?
Written after my buying replacement LED bulbs for those installed earlier this year.
30
There are several ways by which sea levels could rise:
– all the ice could melt as the alarmists models predict,
– one or more large meteors could fall into the sea’
– volcanoes and earthquakes could cause land to rise from the sea floor or fall into the sea
– the volcanoes under Antarctica could erupt and the warming could cause the ice to melt (although the alarmists would claim this a global warming),
– not quite sea levels rising, but an earthquake could cause a tsunami the destroys coastline
The least likely of these is probably all the ice melting.
There a way to mitigate the damage if sea levels were to rise, spend $billions and build sea walls to keep out the sea.
The alarmists however want, or more correctly, demand, spending $trillions of other people money, to stop CO2 levels rising thereby stopping temperatures increasing and stopping the ice melting.
So the alarmists believe the least likely reason for sea levels rising and demand action that won’t work. Meanwhile, one or more of the more likely events could happen, nothing has been done to mitigate the damage and there is no money for mitigation because it has been spent on reducing CO2 levels.
60
5 Sept: Daily Caller: Fox News And MSNBC’s Regular Programming Beat CNN’s Climate Change Town Hall In TV Ratings
by William Davis
During the same time period that Democratic presidential candidates were discussing their plans to combat climate change with a town hall audience, Fox News pulled in 2.5 million viewers compared to just 1.1 million for CNN, according to Nielsen Media Research. (RELATED: Bernie Sanders Says Abortion Will Help Fight Climate Change.
Fox News also continued to dominate prime-time, averaging nearly 3.2 million viewers, compared to roughly 2.1 million for MSNBC and 1.4 million for CNN….
https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/05/fox-news-msnbcs-beat-cnn-climate-change-town-hall-tv-ratings/
50
I far as I can tell the IPCC was setup to promote the idea that we us bad humans are causing catastrophic warming and promoting the expected consequences therefore ‘we’ must take responsibility and action. Meaning ‘we’ must STOP using ANY hydrocarbon or CO2 producing technology asap to ‘save our buts’ or else.
We know who and why they were setup..
IPCC is NOT a scientific organization. I heard Nils Axis-Morner when questioned by Alan Jones said ‘there papers are less than undergraduate level’ in science.
IPCC is a fake UN quango. Hopefully it will die the death of a global freeze. Sooner the better.
Their papers are totally fake and untrue and not worth the download time (ie paper they are written on).
60
I far as I can tell the IPCC was setup to promote the idea that we us bad humans are causing catastrophic warming and promoting the expected consequences therefore ‘we’ must take responsibility and action. Meaning ‘we’ must STOP using ANY hydrocarbon or CO2 producing technology asap to ‘save our buts’ or else.
We know who and why they were setup..AND to redistribute the worlds wealth.
IPCC is NOT a scientific organization. I heard Nils Axis-Morner when questioned by Alan Jones said ‘there papers are less than undergraduate level’ in science.
IPCC is a fake UN quango. Hopefully it will die the death of a global freeze. Sooner the better.
Their papers are totally fake and untrue and not worth the download time (ie paper they are written on).
30
OPPS double post Jo you can delete the first one. Trouble with upload times..
40
Jo wrote:
I am a skeptric and I do not accept that doubling CO2 will lead to a 1.2C warming. In fact stating “Sceptics largely accept that” is just WRONG. Hands up the skeptics that agree with this?
I believe the 1.2C sensitivity value was arrived at by determining the change in transmission of OLR through a cloudless US standard atmosphere, which only exists over land somewhere in the USA on certain cloudless evenings. The global atmosphere is markedly different to this condition. And in fact the only atmosphere that matters from a global energy balance is what exists over the oceans. Land loses the energy it gains each day over night – negligible storage. Oceans store energy at low latitudes and release it at higher latitudes. Oceans hold the energy that drive weather.
70
RickWill:
The atmosphere seems to retain some warmth in the tropics as the high humidity results in a less variable temperature DAY TO DAY. The dry parts of Australia show great diurnal ranges.
60
Land based temperatures give daily minimum and maximums because there can be significant variation on a daily basis. Agree that high level of atmospheric water increases the thermal inertia and dampens the temperature response. But a US standard atmosphere is not high humidity.
By contrast, the ocean surface water temperature does not have a daily minimum and maximum because there is no significant difference over a daily cycle.
30
The 1.2C is based totally on DENIAL of the fact that the global temperature is controlled by the gravity thermal gradient.
It has NEVER been measured or observed anywhere in the planet’s atmosphere.
There is no mechanism by which CO2 can cause warming unless it overcomes the natural temperature gradient……. Which it can’t.
90
I think Jo doesn’t want to be labelled a crank and wants to stick with science which has empirical data supporting it.
27
“It has NEVER been measured or observed anywhere in the planet’s atmosphere.”
Do you have any of this so-called science, measurements that show this is incorrect??
Do you DENY that the gravity thermal gradient exists, when it is MEASURED and OBSERVED every minute of every day ???
Can you counter one thing I have written.. NO you can’t
EMPTY comment yet again from GA.. PF would be proud of you.
80
“It has NEVER been measured or observed anywhere in the planet’s atmosphere.” OR on Venus, Mars, Titan. ALL those have very large qty or mostly consist of so called GHG gases.
50
Where are these measurements you speak of?
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19799&t=does-gravity-cause-a-temperature-difference
04
Straight to the rampant DENIAL that the gravity thermal gradient exists on EVERY planet with a viable atmosphere.
So funny !!
50
links to the data?
15
Seriously, GA. !!!1
Does your DENIAL really run that deep ! Bizarre !
Atmospheric temperature gradient is measured every day, by balloons, by aircraft, even with tall buildings.
Are you seriously that far into IGNORANCE and DENIAL !!
40
You get into a hot air ballon.
As you rise, it GETS COLDER..
Do you DENY this fact.
At flying altitude, the temperature outside and aircraft can be -50C.
Do you DENY this fact ?
Tops of mountains have snow and are much colder than at the bottom of the mountain.
Do you DENY this fact?
So much DENIAL, GA !!
40
this is silly… I am talking about the mechanism you are attributing. Data that shows what you say.
13
Still in denial that gravity controls the lapse rate,
Oh dearie me, GA , when are you going to stop licking PF’s boots and get up off the floor !
10
Here we have a conundrum.
On one hand we have warming by CO2, that has never been observed or measured on any planet anywhere…. but which GA “believes”
On the other hand, we have KNOWN and MEASURED gravity based thermal gradients on every planet with an atmosphere.. and GA DENIES their existence
All you can say is… WOW !!
That is GA science for you !!
And he wants to comment about a few reference he doesn’t like.
Hilarious. !
60
Regarding CO2 absorption and emission behaviour. Have you looked up how an FTIR instrument works yet and how there is no restriction on the gas absorbing IR and emitting it in any direction in any place and under any circumstance?
jo, like Watts, Curry and Spencer effectively banned dragon slayer nonsense from their blogs about 6 years ago. Here is a question from Dr Roy
and I’ll stop there since this is off topic.
15
OMG such ignorance from GA…
The gravity based thermal gradient only hold when you have a dense enough atmosphere.
That density level just happens to be the same on every planet, and is called the tropopause.
Yes they even have a name for it.
Above that radiative effects take over.
Below that, convective and conductive effects rule, so you get a temperature gradient which is MEASURED and KNOWN and USED.
Stop being so DUMB and in DENIAL of what is right in front of your eyes. !
50
You should stop there, your DENIAL of MEASURED FACTS is quite idiotic. !
41
‘I think Jo doesn’t want to be labelled a crank …’
Watch your language, the author remains a lukewarmer.
Something happened around 1300 AD which caused sea level in West Australia to fall, along with temperature, and I was wondering if it should be in the submission?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/polar/antarctic/luning-antarctica-temp-mwp-lia-2000..gif
20
Hmmm … no show. Anyway the plunge into the LIA was probably traumatic for the locals.
20
I’ll raise my hand but my disagreement with 1.2° is more general. I don’t think that in the atmosphere where so much is going on that is unpredictable it could ever be measured. And if you look and can’t find it, it ain’t there.
And there maybe lies the real problem, no one can measure much of anything in climate change theory. Hence models, speculation and plain old emotion have taken over.
So am I right or wrong? My gut says right after so many years of following this stuff. But…
70
THe so called ‘increse of 1-2 degC’ is meaning less and false. There is no such thing as global average temperature on earth. At any one time the temp range (winter (polar) min to a summer (desert) max) can be as high as 120C!
30
Of course. But that doesn’t stop them from using it. I’ll bet that if you demand that they tell you the meaning of that global average temperature they can’t give a coherent explanation.
30
what you have identified is a fallacious arguement where the arguementer purports to speak for a large number of people (two fallacies – one that they speak for others and the other is that adding fallacious weight by claiming the support of a large number of people)
110
And GA’s post is yet again EMPTY mindless rhetoric… based on NOTHING.
90
A bit like the science is settled and 97% of all scientists agree or all Australians want action on climate change etc etc , you Agee are a hypocrite of the highest order and a credit to your religion
60
Totally agree.
60
Re Rick @29.
40
This is a recently published book on the influence of CO2 on climate:
https://www.amazon.com.au/Carbon-Dioxide-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/3030168794#customerReviews
The synopsis:
Definitely written by a skeptic (retired NOAA mathematician with specialty in atmospheric science) who finds CO2 has “no role” in changing Earth’s climate.
Giving a sensitivity figure of 1.2C and suggesting most skeptics agree with it is making a false claim.
Lets take a vote – “I accept 1.2C as the open circuit climate sensitivity”. Agree or Disagree.
40
D.
40
This is another authoritative book from a skeptic who would not like to see himself being included in the group of skeptics who accept an open circuit climate sensitivity of 1.2C:
https://www.amazon.com/Controlling-Climate-Science-Global-Warming/dp/0987309366
How many of the authors listed here, along with their climate skeptic reference sources, agree with an open circuit climate sensitivity of 1.2C:
https://www.cfact.org/2018/01/22/sixteen-good-books-by-climate-skeptics/
10
If due diligence had been done I suspect there would be no WA EPA about which to ask if due diligence has been done.
100
“hoping to lower temperatures over WA by 2100 AD” – It will be too late by then. AOC tells us we have only 12 years and the BBC says 18 months … 🙂
60
OT but related , the predictions by the CSIRO and many others about Snow cover in oz seem to have fallen flat .
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/australian-snow-depth-update/530176
20
Australian ‘Alps’ Snow Forecast via Boom-Bang-BoM:
Snow today, snow tomorrow, snow the day after, still MORE snow on Monday with HAIL and sub-zero FREEZING temps!
http://www.bom.gov.au/vic/forecasts/mountbuller.shtml
Poor kiddies just won’t know what snow is – except those at Perisher today where it was SNOTTING down a la whiteout:
https://www.snow-forecast.com/resorts/Perisher-Blue/webcams/latest
So many failed predictions – 100% so far – yet these IPCC Pharisees keep demanding our money and respect. As per Rick Will’s #29.6 vote, I’m with Kalm Keith: Disagree!
50
read all for the ***”disincentives” etc:
5 Sept: NewTimesSlo California: SLO city moves toward all-electric buildings
By Peter Johnson
Starting next year, most new homes and buildings in San Luis Obispo will be all-electric and without natural gas hook-ups.
The SLO City Council approved an overhaul of its building code on Sept. 3 that includes strong disincentives against building new natural gas infrastructure, a move that city leaders claim will help SLO get closer to its net-zero emissions target by 2035.
The local code amendments—collectively called the Clean Energy Choice Program—follow a statewide push among progressive cities to electrify buildings. SLO’s code, which goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, doesn’t outright ban new buildings with natural gas, as a recent Berkeley policy does.
***It uses disincentives, like fees, to discourage natural gas use.
The council voted 4-1 on the changes, with Erica Stewart dissenting.
“I’m proud of us for this work,” Vice Mayor Andy Pease said. “I think it’s really a balanced, sensible, inclusive way to transition.”…
COMMENTS
https://www.newtimesslo.com/sanluisobispo/slo-city-moves-toward-all-electric-buildings/Content?oid=8786780
11
how come an international agreement is the legal business of local councils?
3 Sept SolarPowerPortal: “Collective failure” of councils’ climate plans could spark legal challenges, warn lawyers
by Alice Grundy, Junior reporter
The councils – all of which are currently developing a new local plan – have been put on notice by environmental law firm ClientEarth, giving them eight weeks to explain how evidence-based carbon reduction targets will be set and how they will ensure those targets will be central to new planning policy.
The campaign was launched in light of the “massive” shortfall in compliant local planning policy across the country and to advise local authorities of their legal duties, ClientEarth said.
However, many councils in the UK have declared climate emergencies in recent months, with solar becoming a key component in several council’s plans to tackle climate change…
However, Sam Hunter Jones, climate lawyer at ClientEarth, said climate change is “too often” perceived to be a national or international issue and therefore the responsibility of central government over local authorities…READ ON
https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/collective_failure_of_councils_climate_plans_could_spark_legal_challenges_w
21
Your finding these priceless gems such as “evidence-based carbon reduction targets” is an ongoing source of amusement to me Pat; you’re the truffle hound of climate absurdities and immeasurably enrich visits to this site.
10
I don’t accept that doubling CO2 will cause an increase in global temperature of 1.2C. I have not seen any evidence that CO2 causes any warming. One could assume from the the Thermosphere that more CO2 causes cooling, but again there is no evidence.
In the USA, the EPA keeps their data secret too. The endangerment finding is a scam.
70
Meanwhile, James Cook University ordered to pay $1.2 million in damages to Peter Ridd.
70
BIG SMILE !!! 🙂
https://i.postimg.cc/529k5Pnk/Little_orange_guy.jpg
30
Great news Martin.
IPA report here: https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/media-releases/dr-peter-ridd-wins-1-2-million-in-damages-for-unlawful-sacking-by-jcu-for-questioning-climate-science
The Administration involved with this should be sacked with loss of pay!
70
Professor Peter Ridd: Jame Cook University to pay $1.2m damages
NT Times – 6 Sept 2019
Peter Ridd … saying he hoped the university would not appeal the decision and add to the hundreds of thousands of …
50
This is a win for science. No doubt it will be challenged because it appears Peter Riddances is making an income again. In fact, the university could realistically claim his credibility has had a huge boost.
NoTrickZone discusses a new book by retired NOAA mathematician/atmospheric scientist Rex Flemming who now claims CO2 has no impact on climate. Yet he did not take a stand while employed.
Of the two, Ridd or Flemming, has the greater credibility. A fellow who put his future on the line and challenged his employer or the other who only made a noise after he was in retirement.
On the topic of costs, I look forward to hearing something more concrete soon on M E Mann paying Tim Ball’s court costs.
40
That’s good news Martin.
Thank you.
The University’s Appeal is going to be interesting to watch.
10
Jo your assessment here regarding the credentials of the EPA is completely fair and honest, and provides compelling scientific argument that cannot be ignored by politicians in this country. This is a ‘slam dunk’ and the EPA must be made accountable for their actions.
GeoffW
30
“and provides compelling scientific argument that cannot be ignored by politicians in this country”
You want to bet ! 😉
30
Communist regimes couldn’t hope for a more compliant media!
The Guardian’s energy correspondent, Adam Vaughan, is now chief reporter at New Scientist:
LinkedIn: Adam Vaughan, Chief Reporter at New Scientist Mar 2019 – Present
Guardian News & Media 10 years 9 months ETC
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/adamvaughan
5 Sept: New Scientist: New Scientist joins the Covering Climate Now initiative
By Adam Vaughan
“We must change our attitudes, that message hasn’t got through to everybody,” said the UN secretary general, speaking out on a lack of action on climate change.
But these weren’t the words of António Guterres, the incumbent who has called for leaders to present plans rather than “beautiful speeches” at a crunch climate summit on 23 September, but those of Maurice Strong nearly three decades ago. As New Scientist reported at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, governments had reached an agreement on climate change but there was a lack of commitment to it.
Since that landmark meeting, New Scientist has followed the twist and turns of international efforts to rein in carbon emissions, from the perceived failings of Copenhagen in 2009 to the success of the Paris deal adopted in 2015. Over the decades, the science has become clearer, and the effects more obvious.
That is why we have joined Covering Climate Now, a journalistic collaboration of more than 200 news outlets with a combined audience of nearly half a billion. The initiative commits titles to recognise the importance of the climate crisis with extensive coverage ahead of the upcoming UN climate action summit taking place in New York later this month…
We are now redoubling our efforts, and we would like to hear from you, our readers, on what stories you would like us to cover. Please email [email protected] with your thoughts.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2215495-new-scientist-joins-the-covering-climate-now-initiative/
11
Dear Adam,
Please publish a paper (in your magazine or elsewhere) that has total proof that CO2 causes dangerous global warming and we should stop breathing. Please ensure it is published at https://arxiv.org/ as well. Such that it is not contrary to the laws of Quantum physics, Thermodynamics, Solar and Stellar Astrophysics, Earth and Planetary Astrophysics.
Yours truly,
Skeptical Engineer.
60
Green thumb ✓ for you, te RU.
As for Maurice ‘son of an oilman and stealer of aquifer water’ Strong at the ’92 Rio Earth Scum Scam –
surely the
lungsAmazon was burrrrrning worrrrse way back then…Adam writes: “Over the decades, the science has become clearer, and the effects more obvious”. Ha!
Complete Rubbish Utterly Delusional, or C.R.U.D. [crud – disgusting. unpleasant, filth, nonsense] 🙂
40
The only reliable data is to compare the US economy before Trump walked from the Paris accord with their economy after Trump walked out. Before, when they applied all of the constraints that we are currently applying or aspiring to apply in Aus, their GDP was also plodding along at close to zero like ours, thereafter, they lifted it to a healthy close to 3%. Maybe that case study should be shared with the West Australians as well.
30
how many will be fying in?
5 Sept: StateOfThePlanet Earth Institute, Columbia University: Sustainable Development Alum Accepted to Attend the UN Youth Climate Summit in New York
Emilie Baliozian, a recent graduate of Columbia University’s Undergraduate Program in Sustainable Development, was recently accepted to attend the first-ever UN Youth Climate Summit in New York City. The historic event on Saturday, September 21 will provide a platform for young leaders who are driving climate action to showcase their solutions at the United Nations, and to meaningfully engage with decision makers on the defining issue of our time. It will be the largest gathering of young climate leaders at the UN in history.
Over 7,000 young people between the ages of 18 and 29 applied to attend the Youth Climate Summit. Baliozian was one of 500 hundred young people from around the world selected to attend the summit after demonstrating their commitment to addressing the climate crisis and displaying leadership in advancing solutions…
“Youth are showing us the way on climate action,” said Luis Alfonso de Alba, special envoy for the 2019 Climate Action Summit. “I am eager for young climate leaders from all over the world to take their rightful place on the global stage and participate in this historic moment.”
This post was adapted from a press release by the United Nations.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/05/alum-un-youth-climate-summit/
5 Sept: LondonFreePressCanada: Young Londoner gearing up for UN Climate Summit
by Heather Rivers
A London teenager who as a high school student helped launched weekly “climate strikes” across the city is heading to New York to take part in the UN Youth Climate Summit.
Before moving to Montreal to begin her first year at McGill University, Emma Lim, 18, stood outside London city hall or an MP’s office most Fridays to demand more action from governments to combat climate change.
“It was pretty lonely and ***cold (at first) but we did get a few students out,” she said. “Now there is quite a large movement in London. I know they are planning on striking on the 27th along with all of Canada.”…
6 Sept: SMH: No ‘Holy Grail’: Airlines have no easy answers for flight-shaming critics
By Siddharth Philip and Christopher Jasper, Bloomberg
Airline bosses have sought to defend their business against a ***rising tide of criticism over aircraft emissions as an upswell of activism threatens to overwhelm the industry before it can mount an effective response.
The heads of carriers including Emirates, JetBlue Airways and EasyJet, speaking at the World Aviation Festival in London, warned that reducing carbon emissions would take years, if not decades, given the limitations of current technology and expansion of air travel to an ever-wider slice of the global population.
They also objected to punitive measures they maintain would be counter-productive or unintentionally hurt those who couldn’t afford additional costs…
Activists from Extinction Rebellion targeted the event, handing out leaflets and leading small protests outside on Wednesday and Thursday…
Swedish teen Greta Thunberg, who’s inspired a global movement of so-called climate strikes, just crossed the Atlantic by sailboat to attend a United Nations climate summit in New York…READ ALL
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/no-holy-grail-airlines-have-no-easy-answers-for-flight-shaming-critics-20190906-p52om6.html
01
read all:
5 Sept: Forbes: Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns In New Report
by Michael Shellenberger
One of Germany’s largest newspapers, Die Welt, summarized the findings of the McKinsey report in a single word: “disastrous.”
“Problems are manifesting in all three dimensions of the energy industry triangle: climate protection, the security of supply and economic efficiency,” writes McKinsey.
In 2018, Germany produced 866 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, a far cry from its goal of 750 million tonnes by 2020…
But McKinsey issues its strongest warning when it comes to Germany’s increasingly insecure energy supply due to its heavy reliance on intermittent solar and wind. For three days in June 2019, the electricity grid came close to black-outs.
“Only short-term imports from neighboring countries were able to stabilize the grid,” the consultancy notes.
As a result of Germany’s energy supply shortage, the highest observed cost of short-term “balancing energy” skyrocketed from €64 in 2017 to €37,856 in 2019…
Renewables are causing similarly high price shocks in other parts of the world including Texas, Australia, and California…
Bloomberg News, which strongly advocates renewable energy, last week called the supply problems a “warning short to the rest of the world.”…
“The ongoing phase-out of nuclear power by the end of 2022 and the planned coal withdrawal will successively shut down further secured capacity,” explained McKinsey…
German consumers have paid dearly for the energy transition. German electricity prices are 45% above the European average, McKinsey reports. Green taxes account for 54% of household electricity prices…
And higher prices will threaten the German industry’s competitiveness. “Even a modest increase of a few euros per megawatt-hour,” McKinsey says, “could jeopardize the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries in Germany.”…
Among the radical changes required include building transmission lines eight times faster than they are currently being built, building new back-up power plants, and installing instruments to control electricity demand, all of which would drive electricity prices even higher.
“But it is also clear that the consequences of a blackout would be much higher,” warns McKinsey…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/05/renewables-threaten-german-economy-energy-supply-mckinsey-warns-in-new-report/
10
5 Sept: BloombergTax: Germany Looks to Revamp Billions in Tax Subsidies for Polluters
Tax breaks benefit the transport, industrial and manufacturing industries
Industry warns scrapping breaks would force firms to absorb higher energy prices
Germany faces clawing back 55 billion euros ($61 billion) in tax breaks aiding its biggest polluting industries, in a move to cut greenhouse emissions by 2030—but this could hurt its own companies.
Environmental tax breaks are targeted at the transport, industrial, agricultural, and manufacturing industries. Those sectors in 2018 together account for more than 60% of the country’s gross value added, an indicator of economic contribution, according to data from the Federal Statistics Agency.
And as lawmakers are increasingly divided over the task of dismantling incentives that subsidize heavily-polluting industries, the cloud of a pending recession hangs in the air. Germany is expected to dip into a technical recession this year after the economy contracted 0.1% contraction in the second quarter of the year.
Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to move on the matter. Her so-called “climate cabinet” is scrambling to pull together a climate law by Sept. 20—days ahead of a U.N. climate summit in New York—with lawmakers torn between using a national tax or an extension of the EU’s emissions trading system to price carbon…
Other controversial subsidies include a reduced tax rate for diesel fuel compared to gasoline, tax exemptions for diesel used in agriculture and billions in subsidies and aid for coal miners and users that are being phased out as part of Germany’s plan to stop using coal by 2038.
Industry associations warn that scrapping the tax breaks would force core German industries to absorb higher energy prices as they also struggle with falling exports, trade tensions, and potential Brexit fallout…
Environmental groups and Green Party politicians are resolute—they want the system dismantled altogether, arguing that the tax breaks are endangering Germany’s climate goals—which call for a 55% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030—and encourage companies to consume more fossil fuels…
Germany isn’t alone in its continued support for fossil fuels. A May report from the International Monetary Fund estimated fossil subsidies in 2017 at $5.2 trillion globally…READ ON
https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-international/germany-under-pressure-to-overhaul-billions-in-tax-breaks-subsidies-for-polluters-1
10
5 Sept: BloombergEnvironment: FERC Chairman Says It’s Time to Update Renewable Energy Law
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Neil Chatterjee says it’s time to update the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, or Purpa, the landmark 1978 law that helped spur wider use of energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Renewables are now able to stand on their own and compete without government subsidies and policies, Chatterjee said Sept. 4 during an event held by Resources for the Future.
“Major changes to PURPA need to come from Congress but there are things that we can do within our regulations to make improvements to Purpa, to better align it with the realities of today’s market, ”…
5 Sept: Utility Dive: FERC chairman to Congress: ‘Make energy policy boring again’
By Iulia Gheorghiu
•Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chairman Neil Chatterjee wants Congress to take up a large energy-focused legislative attempt, he told an industry crowd at the nonprofit Resources For the Future on Wednesday.
•Chatterjee wants Congress to modernize the 1978 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). He listed the law among his near-term priorities, adding that FERC can make some improvements to better align PURPA “with the realities of today’s market” within existing regulations…
Dive Insight:
The chairman emphasized that an independent agency, like FERC, should not set national energy policy, as questions mount about priorities following the exit of Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur.
Many clean energy advocates and developers view a FERC order that seeks to limit the impact of state subsidies for zero-emission resources in the PJM market as detrimental to the prospects for renewable and nuclear energy resources. Clean energy advocates want to ensure that PURPA reform also does not adversely impact the development of new resources.
However, Chatterjee dismissed the possible impacts of those changes on renewables, quoting a FERC staff analysis about their strengths and prospects for the future.
“I think renewables are at a place where they can stand on their own and compete without government subsidies and policies,” he said. “And so any reforms that we make to modernize PURPA, in my view, should not [and] would not have a detrimental effect on renewables because I think renewables can compete on their own.”…
“A solution to all of this is to make energy policy boring again … You leave it to the engineers and lawyers, you know we can get positive things to happen for the grid and for the country.”…
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-chairman-to-congress-make-energy-policy-boring-again/562288/
10
on the other hand, this is the UNEP/Bloomberg/Frankfurt School PR for the climate summit (can’t find this year’s report online as yet, and no media seem interested in providing a link:
5 Sept: UNEP Press release: A decade of renewable energy investment, led by solar, tops USD 2.5 trillion
Frankfurt/Nairobi, 5 September 2019 – Global investment in new renewable energy capacity over this decade — 2010 to 2019 inclusive — is on course to hit USD 2.6 trillion, with more gigawatts of solar power capacity installed than any other generation technology, according to new figures published today.
According to the Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2019 report, released ahead of the UN Global Climate Action Summit, this investment is set to have roughly quadrupled renewable energy capacity (excluding large hydro) from 414 GW at the end of 2009 to just over 1,650 GW when the decade closes at the end of this year…
???The global share of electricity generation accounted for by renewables reached 12.9 per cent, in 2018, up from 11.6 per cent in 2017…
Jon Moore, Chief Executive of BloombergNEF (BNEF), the research company that provides the data and analysis for the Global Trends report, commented: “Sharp falls in the cost of electricity from wind and solar over recent years have transformed the choice facing policy-makers. These technologies were always low-carbon and relatively quick to build. Now, in many countries around the world, either wind or solar is the cheapest option for electricity generation.”…
“It is important to see renewables becoming first choice in many places,” said Nils Stieglitz, President of Frankfurt School of Finance and Management. “But now we need to think beyond scaling-up renewables. Divesting from coal is just one issue within the broader field of sustainable finance. Investors increasingly care whether what they do makes sense in the context of a low-carbon and sustainable future.”…
The Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment report is commissioned by the UN Environment Programme in cooperation with Frankfurt School-UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance and produced in collaboration with BloombergNEF. The report is supported by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety…READ ON
https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/decade-renewable-energy-investment-led-solar-tops-usd-25-trillion
***electricity generation accounted for by renewables reached 12.9 per cent, in 2018? what is or isn’t considered renewables is unclear – see below:
5 Sept: CNBC: Global renewables investment to triple this decade – U.N.
by Nina Chestney, Reuters
Global investment in new capacity for renewable energy is on course to reach $2.6 trillion by the end of this decade, more than triple the amount of the previous decade, a report commissioned by the U.N. Environment Programme says.
The figure ***excludes large hydropower projects and is equivalent to 1.2 terawatts (TW) of new renewable energy capacity this decade. That’s more than today’s entire U.S. electricity generation units and half of the 2.4 TW of total power capacity installed over the same period…
“While this demonstrates huge and lasting progress, the pace must increase. Renewables are now firmly embedded in the power generation sector but only represent ???26.3% of total electricity produced 12.9% if we exclude large hydro,” the report said…
Although more new capacity was added for solar than coal or gas, it does not directly translate into new power generation because solar is intermittent and dependent on sunlight…
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/05/reuters-america-global-renewables-investment-to-triple-this-decade–u-n.html
5 Sept: Brussels Times: Global renewable energy capacity quadruples in 10 years, but emissions still grow
This information comes from the annual report of the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which was released Thursday ahead of the UN climate summit…
Nevertheless, global emissions from the energy sector have also reached a record level, 13.7 billion tonnes, further distancing the world from its climate objectives, the report adds.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-news/science/67058/global-renewable-energy-capacity-quadruples-in-10-years-but-emissions-still-grow/
there are some downloads here (tho not necessarily for the above report). I can’t keep the page open and had to type the following excerpt as it wouldn’t copy:
BNEF: Bloomberg New Energy Outlook 2019
DOWNLOADS
Findings:
2. A 12TW expansion of generating capacity requires about #13.3 trillion of new investment between now and 2050 – 77% of which goes to renewables…
https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/
20
From a comment by Kenji at SDA
“Prepare for the worst, but put every bit of information into perspective … esp. information driven by ideologues with axes to grind … with crises to exploit.”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/09/06/dorian/#comment-1236054
00
“ideologues… with crises to exploit” a la Little Dorian.
The aerial photo of Great Abaco Island (below, via BBC) clearly shows storm surge/wave damage NOT hyperventilated over-exaggerated Category 5 wind damage. Homes on higher ground, and large buildings by the shore, are still intact, still upright, while debris litters the foreshore. If Little Dorian had been as powerful as authorities claimed, there wouldn’t be a building standing, everything would’ve been blown into the sea, annihilated, swept clean.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/398152/hurricane-dorian-scale-of-bahamas-devastation-emerges
Even the Prime Minister admitted as much: “Hubert Minnis said some areas had been ‘decimated'” – so only 1/10th (10%) damage? Cat 2 max if that. Beware of ideologues with axes to grind … with crises to exploit.
Where to next for man-made Dorian? Newfoundland, Greenland, Ireland, Scotland – such an international itinerary!
20
Jo, you never cease to amaze! I am in awe of your dedication and perseverance.
I trust you will be heard.
30
… a flight of brilliance by Lord Monkton …
What if the IPCC wrote Shakespeare?
10
… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slS43hjs3bI
Enjoy!
00
I wish Monkton would give up his lukeist ideology. But yes rather fun.
10
Jo, your ‘breaking news story’ on Dr Ridd has bad formatting preventing comments being left.
10
The Irish scientists who have proven carbon dioxide is not causing Climate Change…
Dr Ronan & Michael Connolly
https://gemmaodoherty.com/videos/
https://ronanconnollyscience.wordpress.com/
10
Peer review can be found here:
http://oprj.net/
Further reading:
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/
10
Some of the most critical research data to be produced…it deserves its own thread.
BUT,…one of the most APPALLING unprofessional video presentations i have seen for a scientific subject.
00
Dear Joe,
Your ‘Part 1’ is superb! Thank you.
Richard
10
When was the last time you saw due diligence on the Bozone Layer? Things like “What fraction of humanity lives below the Equator?” “Why no Bozone hole over Santa’s Workshop?” “Howcum nothing has changed over Antarctica since bad gases replaced good freon (and cooling equipment began breaking)?” “What about those Antarctic volcanoes spewing chlorine?”
And what about repeal and relegalization of ordinary freon and other CFCs?
00