JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

“The Conversation” gives up conversing, admits defeat on climate, bans all skeptical scientists from commenting!

What kind of conversation only has one side? Paid propaganda.

The Conversation is a site established** by your taxpayer dollars, in countries where 50 – 60% of the entire population don’t agree with the IPCC’s dominant mantra. Yet no matter how qualified you are, no matter how good your argument, your evidence and your data, you, we, half the population, is now banned. The editor Misha Ketchell has officially  blocked unbelievers, and thus effectively admitted that they can’t reply to skeptics, and that skeptics are posing too many questions they can’t answer. They’ve been deleting skeptical comments for years, so it’s good that they finally have the honesty to admit it.

The irony of a site called “The Conversation” which won’t allow a conversation is perfect Owellian Newspeak. Let’s just call it The Conversion from now on (thanks Travis) — the mission is to help converts keep the faith. Yesterday they published hatemail from Tim Flannery calling scientists who disagreed, deniers who are “predatory threats” to his own children. Today they’re banning half the population.

If only they had evidence they wouldn’t need to ban people:

The Conversation, banning, denialists, deniers, skeptics, climate change.

….

The poor snowflake believers of the Windmills-change-the-weather religion can’t cope with hearing arguments that threaten their faith.  Thou shalt have no other God but mine:

Climate change deniers are dangerous – they don’t deserve a place on our site

 Climate change deniers, and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet. As a publisher, giving them a voice on our site contributes to a stalled public discourse.

Terrified! Lord save my eyes from blasphemy:

That’s why we’re implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.

Yougov, survey, Australians, skeptics, deniers, believers, climate change.

Looks like 56% of Australians can’t comment on The Conversation

So a “stalled public discourse” will be able to move forward by gagging half the population? What’s your definition of “stalled”? No wonder people like Ketchell can’t understand why our electrical grid is being destroyed by subsidizing random generators with no spinning reserve in distant locations — Ketchell doesn’t even understand the basics of discussion — to unstall an argument you let both sides debate, and may “the best man win”. The reason the debate is stalled is because the only outcome Ketchell will accept is belief in fairy weather control. Since it’s a joke, maintained by namecalling “denier” and indignant fautrage, manipulated data and unvalidated models known to fail, this debate will only unstall when the debate is hammered out through … conversation, which obviously isn’t going to happen at The Conversation.

But it can happen here. All believers and escapees from The Conversation are welcome to comment at joannenova.com.au. The only limits are legal, and basic manners.*

One half of the population are wrong on this topic, and one half are running chicken from debate. Join the dots.

Conversation snowflakes need protection

Here comes the fake sciencey motherhood statements. Every hypocrite, pocket-dictator and cult-ruler uses some version of “it’s better for you if I protect you from hearing things I deem unworthy”:

We believe conversations are integral to sharing knowledge, but those who are fixated on dodgy ideas in the face of decades of peer-reviewed science are nothing but dangerous.

It is counter productive to present the evidence and then immediately undermine it by giving space to trolls. The hopeless debates between those with evidence and those who fabricate simply stalls action.

As a reader, author or commenter, we need your help. If you see something that is misinformation, please don’t engage, simply report it. Do this by clicking the report button below a comment.

So who’s a troll then? Roy Spencer? Ph.D. in meteorology, NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, supported by NASA, NOAA, and DOE?

Half the population of Australia, the UK, USA, NZ and Canada are trolls according to surveys and most national elections. As I’ve said before, the polls are in:

Climate change is not a battleground — it’s a fantasy land. Skeptics are usually an absolute majority and have been for years, repeatedly, and across the continents. A ten-second online search shows 56% of Canadians are skeptics. Likewise,  54% of Australians are skeptics (a CSIRO estimate). The latest Yougov survey shows 63% of the USA, 56% of Australians, and 49% of the Brits don’t think the IPCC is right. The OECD estimates  Australian skeptics outnumber believers. A very well done British survey show skeptics are a “minority” of 62%.  A third in the US are not just skeptical they think it’s a total hoax. (And that was years ago, before The Trump. It would be higher now). If a majority “agreed with the consensus” why is it that most Australians don’t want to pay even a tiny $10 a month for renewables to save the world? Nearly half of US adults don’t want to pay $1 a month.  And The British don’t want to pay a cent.
Survey’s show 80% of Australians don’t donate to environmental causes or vote for it. How committed are they? Answer, not even ten bucks a year. On flights, not even two bucks a trip. Survey after survey shows that when people rank issues, climate concerns are flat at the bottom of the barrel. Only 3% of US people think climate is most important issue.

Welcome to the world according to Misha Ketchell

What would Roy Spencer know about climate change?

Obviously he doesn’t have Misha’s scientific qualifications which apparently amount to watching twenty years of The ABC:

Misha Ketchell

Misha Ketchell

Editor & Executive Director

Misha has been a journalist for more than 20 years. In previous roles he was a reporter at The Age, founding editor of The Big Issue Australia and editor of Crikey, The Reader and The Melbourne Weekly. He also spent several years at the ABC where he was a TV producer on Media Watch and The 7:30 Report and an editor on The Drum.

 

 

History won’t be kind to those journalists who fell for the belief that solar panels can stop storms which tens of thousands of qualified engineers, atmospheric physicists, geologists, doctors, and scientists tried to warn about. Nobel prize winners of physics and men who walked on the moon. Freeman Dyson. Shame none of them are as smart as Ketchell.

Previous high points in science at The Conversion include Prof Michael Brown attempting collective smears with ad homs, fallacies and photos of blood soaked zombies. Then there was the time Stefan Lewandowsky argued that it was morally OK to impersonate and deceive in order to steal documents from people you can’t beat in a fair argument. Gems, truly worthy of the title “higher education”.

The Conversation’s conflicts of interest hidden in plain view

As for funding: The Conversation in Australia  (the original source that spawned the other national sites) was funded with $6m in government funds, and is now maintained by second-hand government funds washed through “university admin accounts”. They have a record of putting up deceptive and inane Disclosure Statements which say the authors does not work for, consult to, or own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. Virtually all authors on The Conversation earn their income from Big-Government handouts, and virtually all of them put forward arguments that big-government should get bigger — research should get more funding, universities should get more money, welfare should be larger, the government should be managing the weather, the conversation, your light globes and what you read.

Try to find thinkers who argue for free markets, free speech, small government, fewer laws, greater efficiency and to stop meddling do-gooders from interfering in every aspect of your life. Good luck with that.

 

h/t’s  Chris Gillham, Ken Stewart, Todd, Geoff Chambers

* Message to believers: Please, bring out your best, invite your friends! I promise to publish any comment that disagrees with skeptics and doesn’t breach copyright or defamation laws, is relevant to the topic, not a repeat, and is posted by someone with a working email. We ask only civilized manners. Those with a pattern of dominating threads (>10%), hijacking threads, not answering questions, repetition, and who post ad hom fallacies will be asked to change their behaviour.

**Edit: the word “funded” by taxpayer dollars, replaced with “established“. As I explained later in the post the funding is now maintained mostly from universities — so a lot of the funding is still public funds “washed” through grants to universities and student enrollments. Can someone tell me what percentage of university funding ends up coming from the government? Judging from this page — of $11b total in funding for research, it’s all government bar business ($500m) Donations ($250m), Overseas ($372m) and Other Australian ($0.3m) = $1.1b. So university research is 90% government funded? But universities get students too. The bottom line of all funding from higher ed financial accounts suggests the total uni sector gets $32b of which students pay $9.1b, investment  $1.2b, consultancies $1.3b, other $1.8b and the rest appears to be govt. So the govt pays $18.5b which means 57% is government funded?So I get a figure of nearly 60% government funded. I’m not sure that’s right because accounting is not my thing. Do students repay all that debt or does the govt end up footing more of their bill?

 The Conversation partners include many unis, plus a couple of foundations, and include CSIRO (are they still funding it?), the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), and CSIROs data61. But  without actual numbers, who knows?

I think 60% indirectly government funded is a fair claim. And given that The Conversation is about research mostly, not students, then in some ways it leans closer to 90% government funded.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (129 votes cast)
"The Conversation" gives up conversing, admits defeat on climate, bans all skeptical scientists from commenting!, 9.7 out of 10 based on 129 ratings

328 comments to “The Conversation” gives up conversing, admits defeat on climate, bans all skeptical scientists from commenting!

  • #
    mal

    The ABC is now the Australian version of Pravda
    Its sole function now is to push only pro climate Change propaganda and all other hard left soft agendas.
    There is no balance and the hierarchy and staff are scientifically and economically clueless

    Its is symptomatic of the western worlds plunge into the Idiocene

    630

    • #
      Another Ian

      Seeking to claim its preeminent position as a front runner of “The Drip Feed”

      60

    • #
      Alfred (Cairns)

      Please don’t be rude about “Pravda”. Russia is no longer a Communist country … and has not been so for decades. Today’s “Pravda” is a lot more truthful than the “Financial Times” or “The Washington Post”.

      When did any of our illustrious news outlets reveal that ISIS was actually created, trained, supplied and paid for by the USA and their allies?

      “The Moscow Times” is owned by Americans. Just imagine the stink they would make if the Russians tried to buy “The Age” or any of the other fake news outlets.

      144

      • #
        Graham Richards

        I always maintained that Obama was aiding & abetting ISIS.
        US Forces had their instructions to simply stand by & watch but never to intervene or try to over power ISIS.
        Trump cleaned the whole place up in 3/6 months. I’m a Trump/ Republican supporter, but let’s face it Trump is no military strategist. All he had to do was remove the “rules of engagement” invoked by Obama!! The rest is history!
        The NWO/Globalists arein panic mode as the “right” of politics in the form of Trump, Brexit & the the wane of the Climate scare roll on! Damn…..50 years of planning & plotting down the gurgler !!!

        30

    • #
      James Poulos

      See… the thing with the Left Wing concept of censoring conversation – as is evident by the SkepticalScience site – is that their audience base does not respond to the alarmist drivel that they already believe in, because they already believe in it, and so they feel no need to reinforce it – they just nod to themselves sitting at their key boards happy in ignorance.

      That’s why they get no posts, responses or replies.

      It’s called preaching to the converted.

      You don’t add subscriptions doing that.

      30

  • #
    TdeF

    You can only deny the truth. So the real deniers are the ABC. Climate Change aka man made Global Warming is a scam.

    Anyone can see that. Nothing has happened in 31 years since it was invented. Go to the beach of your childhood. Has it changed? Look at the old piers and walls and the buildings from centuries ago. Where is all this rapidly rising seas, this rapid warming? Australia has been cold the last few years, despite the panic over a few hot days. Over 31 years of this, the day after yesterday was fine.

    Real physical scientists are warning of the rapid drop in temperature expected in the 2020s, but the Eloi at their ABC are telling us it is going to get warmer. And we should not fly, eat meat, use airconditioning, or farm and this from the ABC, a group think bunch of overpaid frequent flyers in airconditioned offices who expect other people to provide their buildings, their food, their electricity, their expensive bicyles and cars and fly them off on their long ‘well earned’ holiday while they pay carbon indulgences with salaries for doing no discernible work at all. Deniers. Fantasists. Users.

    581

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      ‘Climate Change aka man made Global Warming is a scam.’ precisely.
      And Misha looks like another AB(S)C nut job. Clueless to anything related to real science data. Couldnt possibly understand it.
      ‘ watching twenty years of The ABC:’ yep branewashed to the hilt..
      The (non) Conversation will die (if it isnt already) I never go there, only to be frequented by other nut jobs.

      262

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      …and the truth will set you free….

      40

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Overheard in local cafe, conversation about an apparent “climate strike” tomorrow.

        Does this mean the weather is working to rule, or is it everyone out?

        Someone call the shop steward and check….

        50

    • #

      You must be over 40. Don’t you know you must not believe what yours eyes see. The truth is in models, government and your heart. Logic is so dated and out of vogue.

      120

  • #
    John

    A “conversation” in which only one side is allowed to speak. Hilarious.

    470

  • #
    David Wojick

    I would ask him what empirical evidence he is referring to. Computer models are not evidence. But my question would be deleted and my account closed, like his mind.

    The year of climate madness is upon us. Enjoy the show, as it won’t come again.

    470

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Im really hoping for the big ‘freeze’ see what happens, how they run for the hills. I think this NH winter may have a few surprises in stall (snow wise), keep watching with glee!
      We are a sunspot grand minimum (between cyc 24 and 25) even NASA says 25 will be much smaller.

      200

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        Leif Svalgaard, March 2018 . . . from his pdf #2710, found here: https://www.leif.org/research/

        SC25 will be somewhere between SC24 and SC20, provided the Polar Field Precursor Relationship holds.

        That is, SC25 will be a bit higher than SC24, perhaps.

        50

        • #

          John, Leif Svalgaard is full of his own ego. He is rude to anyone who disagrees with his point of view. His predictions have been poor and when it is shown he is wrong he always blames some unknown occurence but never his theory. He holds that nothing is the fault of the sun.

          30

      • #
        tom0mason

        I’m not hoping for a major cold period, however the evidence from some leading solar scientists and the current gradual decline in global temperatures give credibility for it to be quite possible.
        If it were to happen, and winters returned (especially in the NH) to the 1960-1970 type of weather, or even to a Dalton type minimums, how would we cope? Windmills, solar and bio-fueled generation couldn’t power us out of the chaos. Our continued reliance on electronic gizmos would decline faster than the price rises on food, as the electrical grid system falters.

        Has any government anywhere made contingency plans for this possibility? Or are they all just distracted enough to believe such scenarios are unrealistic?

        100

        • #
          theRealUniverse

          Cold isnt good for anybody, but the IPCC if it stands by its name, should be helping countries prepare for much cooler conditions which WILL affect food supplies, not warmer periods.

          40

    • #
      Latus Dextro

      David,
      Another nail in the coffin of science, predictably delivered by a liberal pharts journalist.
      That The Con has has come out of the ideological closet (it was always so obvious wasn’t it?) dispels any doubt and does us all a favour.
      It was always the mindless epitome of group think, not unlike the institutions of which it is allegedly representative.
      Like them, it depends for its very existence on adherence to the narrative.

      100

  • #
    TdeF

    What is needed and will never happen, is the truth. One way is a real debate between scientists. Say Tim Flannery and Ian Plimer. Now that would be interesting. Tim can pit his knoweldge of prehistoric kangaroos against a man who had to be a expert in the history of the planet over millions of years. Then Australia could judge who knows real science and how is just parroting propaganda.

    Why won’t they have it? Because Climate Change is globalist dogma from the socialists and communists of the extreme left. Like all religions, it dies in the face of the truth.

    Sell the ABC. It is a socialist workers community sponging shamelessly off the Australia taxpayer, a feather bedded retirement home for extreme left journalists. Save $30Million a week and let the commercial television stations make some money from the news and the weather.

    Throw in the SBS, BOM and CSIRO and save another $50Million a week. Use it to build proper water system for our wide brown land of droughts and flooding rains.

    421

    • #
      TdeF

      I also suspect that Tim Flannery has had it. 63 years old, famous but not rich. Frustrated that man made Global Warming is not working
      and that people do not listen. His Climate Council is on its last legs and Labor did not win the last election, so no more cash and prizes
      for pushing leftist dogma. So he is pushing his children as victims and he the humble truth telling true scientist raging against ignorance and censorship. What a lot of codswallop.

      All he has left is a frustrated rant blaming everyone but himself for his lack of a great job and income and his legacy will be nil.
      Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. A poor actor who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more.

      A bit like Bill Nye, the Science Guy, an old aircraft engineer who has no real knowledge of planetary physics so he set fire to a globe to illustrate Global Warming.
      The science equivalent of jumping the shark when you run out of script.

      480

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Wait it gets worse for Tim, I’d say the average interstate truck driver is more of an expert on dead Kangaroos than Flannery……..

        350

      • #
        Serp

        You’ve nailed it TdeF; Flannery was parked and waiting for Labor to be elected and reinstall him as some sort of climate czar.

        All the pieces were in place, Al Gore’s visit was timed to the moment and then, incredibubbly, the carnival was over before it started.

        This is nothing more than a delayed tantrum by a slow witted man who’s eventually understood that his dream resurrection may now be a decade away, if ever.

        330

      • #
        AndyG55

        “and his legacy will be nil” in the DUNG heap !!

        He shoulda stuck to sniffing roo-poo !!

        200

      • #
        MudCrab

        63 years old, famous but not rich.

        Reasonably confident in saying he is not struggling to pay his bills either.

        20

    • #
      robert rosicka

      There has never been and never will be an open public debate on climate science that’s balanced , it will never be allowed because the scam is too hard to defend .

      190

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        Yes, and the scam is also financially benefiting too many vested interests from Big Green Energy and even Big OIL.

        20

    • #
      Zane

      There’s a televised debate between Mr Plimer and the climate guru and Guardianista troll George Monbiot, but, you know, Ian could hardly land a glove on him. The as he is known Moonbat just repeated his earnest greenist twaddle ad nauseum and pretty much held his position.

      20

  • #
    Dave Richards

    It doesn’t seem to be possible to post a comment on this article itself in The Conversation. Wonder if they are willing to publish a comment that relates not to climate change itself, but to the implications their decision has for freedom of discourse and for science itself, which is based on the rigorous and continual questioning of all theories. Presumably the Conversation would also not tolerate the opinion of World Meteorological Organisation secretary general Petteri Taalas who said the other day: “There will be no end of this world, the world will only become gray. For some of the planet, living conditions are getting harder, but people have been living in difficult conditions.” By the standards of The Conversation, any suggestion that we are not approaching the end of the world is a form of denialism. Taalas himself will soon be thrown on the bonfire in his attempts to quell the fanaticism of diseased minds.

    350

    • #

      Indeed Dave. Still no comments? But people can always tweet as I have:

      Hi to escapees, rejects and snowflakes of The @ConversationEDU. You are welcome to talk #ClimateChange science at http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/the-conversation-gives-up-conversing-admits-defeat-on-climate-bans-all-skeptical-scientists-from-commenting/. That’s what a conversation looks like. Both sides.

      https://twitter.com/JoanneNova/status/1174280930204082177

      330

      • #
        Colin Fenwick

        To follow on from my comment to you on Facebook, I had the following exchange on The Conversation which more or less sums up the collective thinking there.

        His comment:

        I can imagine being a soldier with Damian and taking control of a village. Damien and lots of other soldiers start to rape and pillage. And when I tell Damian that this is wrong, he replies “is there any evidence that my stopping will prevent the others from continuing?”

        With both the soldiers, and with climate change, the moral thing is to stop the bad behaviour. It is only by doing the right thing that we may influence others to do the right thing. And even if we fail to stop the others, we should feel proud that we did the right thing.

        My reply.

        How on earth is that anywhere near an accurate analogy?

        And before you go off on your power trip and “report this for misinformation”, think about this; if 1 soldier decides not to rape, that is 1 less person raped. An actual measurable benefit.

        If Australia goes carbon neutral tomorrow, what will be the actual measurable benefit?

        To even consider that these are morally equivalent is unconscionable.

        He doubles down on his response.

        If there are two hundred soldiers, and one stops raping, then that is only half as much difference as Australia would make if it stopped emitting.

        Of course you ignore my key point that it’s only by a few setting a good example that change comes.

        Also you seem to have no idea of the moral culpability of those who try to prevent or slow down action. The kids know – that is why they are marching.

        00

  • #
    Stonyground

    Be of good cheer. They have lost the argument and they know it. If the “Deniers” really were spreading disinformation then it would be easy to refute them. There would probably be a core of regularly used falsehoods that could simply be dealt with using links to pre-prepared refutations in the same way as an FAQ page works. Their problem is that the “Deniers” are actually correct and have sound arguments backed up with hard facts. It is a little more difficult to refute those, far easier to just ban them. But then who is going to come and visit their tedious echo chamber?

    270

    • #
      PeterS

      The lost the argument a long time ago but they won’t give up, not until we have a leader who will do something to shut them down. That can’t happen anyway as long as the government keeps funding the ABC and letting them get away with so much crap.

      220

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Climate change deniers, and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet. As a publisher, giving them a voice on our site contributes to a stalled public discourse.’

    Big mistake, they will rue the day they published that.

    As a card carrying member of the Denialati I must protest, in a politically correct environment its not possible to discuss climate change anywhere. Which is a pity because global cooling began in the Austral winter 2017 and we are in a bit of strife, like extreme weather in midlatitudes.

    Misha a real journalist has a nose for a big story, you’ve got the wrong end of the stick because you have lost your teeth and have no imagination or critical intelligence.

    270

  • #
    Bulldust

    Oh noes!?!?! The climate is warming faster than we thought^!!!?!?11One!

    https://phys.org/news/2019-09-earth-quickly-climate.html

    The coordinated hysteria leading into Friday’s climate strike is getting quite ridiculous.

    ^ According to new models.

    190

  • #

    I work with a colleague exactly same age as me who grew up in the old Soviet Union. He is an engineer and shakes his head, saying that this is all “propaganda” which he has plenty of experience of.
    He also has direct experience of a government trying to control what people see, read and listen to. Which is what the leftists at The Conversation are trying to emulate. Ultimately they will fail as well.

    So Misha – when the climate stubbornly refuses to follow your fake models and turns cold. What will you do? Also Misha, please tell us exactly how much CO2 man is putting into the atmosphere and what level that should be giving us in the atmosphere. You will find that man is putting in only a small fraction – so please tell us how this fraction is cooking us all…

    The Government needs to get off its backside and defund this little lot of echo chamber occupiers.

    340

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      If you expect Government to solve the problem that allows the Government power to grow without limit, think again. It is exactly the nature of Government that it will ALWAYS grow to consume the totality of the society it purports to govern. At which time civilization collapses. That is unless held in check by the governed. See all past civilizations for instructive detail.

      180

      • #

        Generically speaking, guv-uh-mint IS the problem.
        Less is moah. Oh EU, oh UN, oh Agenda Twenty-One,
        oh Great Leaps forward and Five and Ten Year Plans,
        spuhlash…

        into
        the
        Swamp
        of
        Des-
        pond
        with
        you.

        140

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Thank you Jo! This site and your stewardship is a beacon of both free speech and fair play. I, for one appreciate it and hope that it continues long into the future, be it hot or cold.

    494

    • #
      AndyG55

      one side of the argument RUNS and HIDES,

      the other greets discussion

      The AGW “believers” that troll here, have constantly shown just what a huge deficit of actually scientific proof there is to the AGW nonsense.

      They are batting 0 from 1000+

      241

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘ … be it hot or cold.’

      Its a very refreshing and lively blog, a perfect platform to view global cooling.

      153

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      El gordo, Andy et al. I do respect your views, and those of our hostess. I think that those views are the result of many hours of hard thought. The fact that I have a different view, as recorded in these posts, and yet we are able to present our views and have robust discussions is what we should be doing. I doubt that anyone will change their views after reading our discussions, but that is not really the point. On my part, I see a diversity of opinion and scepticism which is very refreshing, and mostly I come away with something new everyday.

      335

      • #
        AndyG55

        You have a different view, thing is, that it is TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED by any scientific evidence.

        That makes your view a FANTASY.

        And no, you haven’t learnt anything the whole time you have been here.

        You still keep putting forwards the same scientifically unsupportable garbage.

        212

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          And I could equally make the same claim against you. But this post is about tolerance, so I won’t

          1013

          • #
            AndyG55

            Just remain banal, self-thought-free, ignorant and evidence free,

            It your only charm, PF

            123

          • #
            AndyG55

            “And I could equally make the same claim against you”

            No, you couldn’t , because you would not have any evidence to back up the claim.

            You would be off in your little AGW mantra fantasy land yet again.

            143

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Tolerance?

            What’s that got to do with anything?

            There was a recent analysis done on tolerance.

            That sort of analysis is always difficult but not impossible.

            A similar assessment was made on tollerance earlier:

            “A thorough analysis of the comments was attempted in order to assess the truthfulness, or otherwise.

            The nominal assessment being to deterine impact on the blog and clearly the end point anticipated by the assessment must be defined according to its charter.

            But that is only true if the precursor of the anticipated end state is accurately predicted prior to the enactment of the process under assessment.

            Should that mid process data not be available then the initial baseline would be eliminated from the assessment resulting in substantial disconfirmation of the proposed analytical pathway and complete collapse of this important project.

            Unfortunately the data was so badly homogenised during transfer to the computer that final analysis was impossible and tolerance could not be assessed.

            It’s hoped that more funding will eventually be granted for this project.

            KK

            60

        • #
          joseph

          Denier meets defier. Another round. Have at it!

          23

        • #
          el gordo

          Andy the benefit of Mr Fitz is that he offers a chance to sharpen our arguments for the battle ahead. Its a learning curve and he is correct in that we learn something new everyday.

          Because of something he said a couple of threads back I became engrossed with IR, so finally I can articulate in a few sentences the klimatariat hypothesis for AGW.

          With the uninitiated there is little point in shouting at them, they think the world is coming to an end. No time left to discuss the science, its settled, the climate is changing down a gear as we speak and the irony burns.

          ‘The hopeless debates between those with evidence and those who fabricate simply stalls action.’

          192

          • #
            AndyG55

            “he offers a chance to sharpen our arguments “

            Not really. He never puts anything based on actual science forward.

            His arguments are as weak as dishwater.

            And no , he REFUSES to learn anything.

            [Andy - just stop! Threads are not and should never be about one commenter. Besides I'm grateful PF Comments. It shows I'll post dissent. He says things skeptics would never say. The last thing we want is the same pure fish-bowl all the believer sites have!. - Jo]

            300

            • #
              el gordo

              Think of him as half the population, the misinformed who don’t understand the science.

              You should take on someone your own weight, Ellison at Climate Etc is formidable.

              122

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                He
                Never
                Says
                Anything.

                50

              • #
                el gordo

                That is not true, Fitz is focussed on energy and one could be excused for thinking he is a paid troll in the renewable industry.

                My interest is climate change and he doesn’t have a clue on that score. What is your strength in this debate?

                60

            • #
              Lionell Griffith

              Jo: Once you start worrying about what “they” think, you have lost the argument. Present the Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth or give up the fight. There is no middle ground for 2+2=5 for large values of 2 for base 10 numbers. It is simply false and leads nowhere at light speed.

              111

              • #
                el gordo

                Lionel this is a propaganda war and the pseudo Marxists in the MSM need to be exposed. Its the only way to bring an end to this madness.

                Media balance on the subject of climate change is imperative, to shame the politicians and ridicule the scientists.

                93

              • #
                AndyG55

                If we allow his nonsense to go un-answered, this may as well be “The Conversation.”

                90

              • #

                Lionell, not sure what you mean? I’m thinking about the silent onlookers who see 1000 people agreeing and who don’t think their opinion or question would be welcome here. Peter F helps that. Flame wars dont.

                180

              • #
                Lionell Griffith

                I agree that flame wars don’t help. If you deal with the truth, questioning and demanding substantiation is a necessary part of the truth.

                The random troll fail on all counts. First, they typically don’t answer questions nor provide substantiation for their positions. Truth is not their focus. Their focus is to derail the conversation and make themselves the center of attention. Feeding them only makes them worse.

                I am not saying ban the troll but do insist that he meets the minimum requirements for rational discussion. Otherwise, I am hard pressed to see that the presence of a troll helps the honestly confused and uninformed in any way. This is why most of my posts are focused upon method rather than tables of data and endless charts.

                How to think is much more important than what to think. How to discover error is much more important than an endless recitation of errors. Thinking for your self requires the mental tools necessary for thinking for your self. The rest is mostly a matter of time and due diligence. All of this is an important part of the whole truth.

                Where in our educational system is this kind of thing taught? In my experience, it is most often left as an exercise for the student to figure out on his own. Touched a bit in math perhaps but that is only a very small part of the issue.

                101

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Lionell @ 12;45am,

                Very well put.

                Anyone who has read recent threads will have seen the content free blog clogging by the PF and then the faux contrition in the current posting.

                From past experience nothing useful will come of it.

                KK

                100

              • #
                ColA

                Lionel,

                Where in our educational system is this kind of thing taught?

                Certainly NOT at Southern Cross Uni
                https://quadrant.org.au/ see essential reading

                50

              • #
                theRealUniverse

                I think nature will slowly take care of them, however long it takes. They cant fight the Sun, the other forces that control the climate.
                Personally I ignore baiters like PF or just point out anything I disagree with. No baiting back.
                But for any ‘climate warmists’ please provide your proof!

                30

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘If we allow his nonsense to go un-answered …’

                Every time he walks into the room we savage him. I think sir deserves our respect for turning up and confronting a class of heretics.

                You are good at putting up graphs, showing us how temperatures are flat, nothing happening here, move along.

                World temperatures are irrelevant and unreal, we need to focus on how the weather is changing and then look back in time to search for similar events. We have to find the fingerprint of solar forcing, which may have a cyclic component.

                20

            • #
              AndyG55

              Two simple questions. WHY WON’T HE ANSWER.!!!

              1. What scientifically provable affect have humans had on the climate in the last 40 year?

              2. Where is the empirical scientific evidence of warming by increased atmospheric CO2?

              PF is a fish bin a bowl, he forgets that he needs to answer questions to support his silly AGW statements.

              I want PF to keep posting too.. Because he shows all that is wrong with the AGW meme.

              120

            • #
              Annie

              My uptick was in response to Jo’s comment. Discussion is good but a slanging match is unhelpful imo.

              140

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              An example of sensible conversation building and exploration achieved without the RBC.

              http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/the-conversation-gives-up-conversing-admits-defeat-on-climate-bans-all-skeptical-scientists-from-commenting/#comment-2191016

              The continued blocking of sensible interaction by blog clogging is not going to attract genuine new starters.

              50

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        You have shown no respect for anyone on this blog, especially the host.

        51

      • #
        Murray Shaw

        Peter, my view is that I back reality over computer models every Time!

        90

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        “yet we are able to present our views and have robust discussions”.

        I must have been asleep: when did this happen?

        50

      • #
        MichaelinBrisbane

        I’m not the first to give you a tick, Peter. Good on you for persisting with reading this blog and posting on it with your contrary views.
        The point of this particular article is that we realists now don’t have the reciprocal opportunity to post on The Conversation.

        60

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Oh how wonderful is that comment: so sincere,

      if only people had seen your performance on that recent thread where someone called the guys in white coats.

      So sincere.

      50

    • #
      Environment Skeptic

      There is a complete failure to even get ordinary environmentalism right. This was evident before talking about the weather became popular and profitable, or a new means of governance/control.

      70

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Well deserved recognition from your peers here on the blog.

      http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/weekend-unthreaded-277/#comment-2189297

      Perhaps there are better examples, but this one was handy.

      Building the debate, one post at a time.

      KK

      30

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Well deserved recognition from your peers here on the blog.’

        Rubbish, this is not an old men’s shed. Get a life.

        Mr Fitz is interested in energy, talk to him about that and why he has it wrong. I don’t think you have the bottle and will go down in the first round, I’ll buy the popcorn.

        33

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          And then I read about flame wars and noted one contributor being severely castigated.

          Then I remembered that two people minimum are required for a war and I’m still trying to work out who the second one is.

          40

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          I see you bit.
          :-)

          30

      • #

        When it comes to that person, I hark back to the time not long after he first came here.

        He slagged off, scoffing in his typical sneering way at our ‘screen names’, saying how could we expect to be taken seriously when we all used those screen names like we do use.

        He had no concept of what those screen names meant. Even when explained to him the subtleties behind some of those screen names, and even when it was explained to him that some of us had been using those screen names, as in my case now, for almost 16 years. It was also no point explaining to him that when we first started using those names, those 16 years ago, we were strongly advised by every site that was in existence at the time which did take comments (and there were very few of them in those days) that we should NEVER use our real names, and that we should use a screen name. There was no point explaining that to him, as he placed his own connotation on what he thought they meant, and that by extrapolation, we were lying anyway, and from that, lying about everything we said. He as never given any of us credit for knowing the things we do know, as each time, he just changes the subject, and when he gets caught out in a lie, he again turns it back on us, and changing the subject yet again. He has become almost transparent in the way he does it.

        I’ll continue to read his comments, but from now, I will try and resist from responding. My perception is that he wants to flood comments which have good information with his subject changes so people then go off on the tangent he has directed, and the original intent of the original comment is then lost as he then clogs the comment stream up with his misdirected subject change.

        It makes me angry that he does that, but from now on, he can do what he always does, only without my responses. (hopefully)

        Sorry about the rant here, and in the spirit of the original Thread of Joanne’s I suppose I have now become guilty of what the Conversation is doing, a one sided conversation, but I’m sure he’ll take it as a win for him really, having achieved his aim.

        Tony.

        160

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Yes Tony, agree. What’s happening is now well and truly in front of those who come here so after this thread there will be no more responses to it.

          There will be a last post.

          KK

          40

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          So I’m supposed to take seriously handles like “The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler” or “theRealUniverse”or volumus posters like Pat and TdeF? About half the posters use their name, Anton. My point that if you have a silly handle, why should I take you at anything else than face value stands

          29

          • #
            AndyG55

            If you can’t post any valid evidence of anything you say…

            … why should anyone take you as anything else by a mindless troll.

            Your slimy prejudices because of someone’s handle are also nothing but a childish attempt at trolling.

            50

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘My point that if you have a silly handle …’

            Its a satirical blog and being a utopian socialist I’m keeping my head down.

            20

          • #
            The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

            Well, since you “asked”, Mr. Fitzroy (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is, in fact, your birth name, and birth gender … ), at one time I posted under my real name (Jo knows it, as do at least one or two mods).

            Then, a warmist/alarmist with the handle “Harry TwinOtter” was skewered by me on some lengthy debates/posts, and, for what ever reason, dubbed me to be ” [first name] ‘Vlad the Impaler’ [last name] “. I could see no reason for this moniker to be bestowed upon me, and to this day I believe that Mr. TwinOtter (or as I call him, Dr. DeHavilland, having flown Twin Otters out of Logan, Utah, back in the ’70′s) was making an effort to be insulting.

            Now, far from being insulted, two things then happened: 1) I was unaware that “Vlad the Impaler” was, in fact, an historical figure (saw a program on him on American Heros Channel, just within the past two years or so); and 2) I thought it was kind of ‘cute’, for lack of a better term, and politely asked Jo if I could switch to this moniker. She reluctantly agreed (apparently knowing that ‘Vlad’ was a real person), and thusly I began to post under the moniker.

            I have the somewhat-reserved blessing of our lovely hostess to post under this name.

            Fast forward to the 2016 USA Presidential election, and the socialist/totalitarian/warmunist candidate suggests that anyone who supports Mr. Donald J. Trump is deplorable, so I obligingly adopt this modifier to my bestowed moniker.

            So far, everything in my moniker is coming from the warmunist side.

            Then, sometime this past year (or 2018? … … … memory is fuzzy on this one) I find out that in addition to being deplorable, I’m also completely depraved because I do not swallow hook, line, and sinker, every piece of propaganda and mis-information put out by the IPCC, Algore, Billy-Bob McKibbin, AOC, ad infinitum ad nauseum

            The short version of all this, Mr. Fitzroy, the more you attempt to insult me, or call me names, or whatever it might be, I’m just going to adopt said insult, and make it stick to me like white on Minute Rice.

            Incidentally, in addition to being a licensed pilot (11,000 hours PIC; 9,000 MEL, and well over 3,000 in actual IMC), I am also licensed by the State of Wyoming to practice geology before the public. In legal matters, I can be, and have been, called as an expert witness. All that to say, the geological record is replete with irrefutable evidence that carbon dioxide is little more than a bit player in global climate, and climate changes. I’m willing to allow that it has some very minor role, but the effect it is capable of, is being well over-exaggerated by the IPCC et al. You are welcome to your beliefs, as far as I am concerned, but what you believe is not grounded in sound science.

            I’ve sat here, on the sidelines, while you and Andy and Kalm and TdeF and … … … have gone at it. You do yourself and your allies a disservice. While I have refrained from thumbing your posts, I may change my mind in the future.

            It does bring a smile to my face that my bestowed moniker is irksome to you. You most certainly do not have to take my posts seriously; the difference between us is, that I actually know what I am talking about.

            Best regards to you and yours, and do have a great rest of your day,

            The BESTOWED MONIKER Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

            80

            • #
              AndyG55

              Yep, I totally remember you IMPALING the twotter to the wall. :-)

              60

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              :-) :-) thanks for that.

              20

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              And how could I glean all that for your handle, it is as el gordo say.

              Now if you want to carry out your threat go to it. I am not swayed either way.

              02

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                It’s good to know that you are standing firm in the middle.

                Shame about the extra bits that hang out to both sides and back and front.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                so you pre-judged, WITHOUT EVIDENCE

                Seems to be the only way you can think, PF

                10

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘Larger differences in temperatures and pressure is the driver and is the explanation I like.’

                I prefer the collapse of the subtropical ridge is impacting midlatitude weather, creating extremes of hot and cold, its a global cooling signal.

                10

  • #
    Bulldust

    You don’t need to be allowed to write comments directly onto a web site anymore. Just grab an app like Dissenter and you can attach a discussion to any web page.

    100

  • #
    Greg in NZ

    As an English girlfriend (Lancashire lass) used to say: What a complete tw@t!

    Had a brief flirt myself with a Pentecostal born-again church on the Sunshine Coast in the early 80s: didn’t take long for the so-called pastor to tell me to stop reading “all those worldly books” I was reading – I’ve read widely all my life and always will – and to read “only the Word of God’s book” or else leave his cult church. Smilingly I shook his hand and said goodbye. Too many narrow, closed minds – like The NON-versation’s Editor & Executive Director, Misha Ketchell.

    Chilly day in Perth on Friday for the Global Warming / Climate Change / Reality Deniers’ school march: 5˚C overnight, morning frost, 18˚C max; oh dear, chilly somewhat, don’t forget the gloves and woolly hat and warm ‘Greta’ jacket –

    http://www.bom.gov.au/wa/forecasts/perth.shtml

    As David writes at #4: The year of climate madness is upon us. Enjoy the shoah, folks!

    170

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Blasted freezing in Perth right now Greg. Had to retrieve my winter gear from the back room, and will need to put the doona on again tonight. Going to be cold for a few more days. Most likely snowing down south this weekend. Where’s some of this global warming when you need it?

      10

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        From the BoM’s own site today, WA min temps:
        -1.1˚C Cunderdin
        -0.3˚C Wandering
        -0.2˚C Gingin
        +2.1˚C Perth Airport

        https://www.snow-forecast.com/resorts/Bluff-Knoll/6day/top

        It’s only a model but the experts called for ‘light snow‘ and -5˚C wind chill for Bluff Knoll this morning. Surely your ABC will cover it tonight on the 6pm News? Loudly and proudly on this day of School Action Truancy (SAT) no?

        The access road to Mt Ruapehu’s Whakapapa Ski Area was CLOSED by 11 am this morning due to global carbon emergency hordes of ‘deniers’ driving up for the epic snow conditions (almost 3 metres snow base) and calm sunny weather… on a Friday no less! Kids here prefer snowboarding & skiing to being complete d••kheads.

        00

        • #
          Graeme#4

          Very chilly this morning in Perth! And the southerly wind appears to be straight from the Antartctic. Where’s those 30 degree days when you need them? Bet we won’t hear the BOM reporting unusual cold for September.

          00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The word persecution comes to mind more and more as time goes by.

    140

  • #
    thingadonta

    The conversation was never about having a conversation, it was always, from the start, a tool for hard line academic elitists using tax payer money to promote their self inflating prejudices. Mind you, academia by its’ very nature, has always had this tendency-much like government, it’s just that we havent as a society managed to come up with mechanisms to properly regulate academia yet. In government we all such regulation democracy, there doesn’t seem an equivalent in academia. But this kind of self righteous nonsense in academia is nothing new.

    Some historians believe that most of the worst social problems of the 20th century, namely communism and various ideologies justifying militaristic expansion, ultimately came from academic culture, and from poorly regulated academic ideas and movements. If you want an example of such, the conversation website is a good example.

    180

    • #
      BoyfromTottenham

      The Russian revolution was started by academics who believed that Marx’s manifesto for a revolution in Britain could be applied in Russia. It was applied, along with a lot of brutality by Lenin and Stalin, but they had to create a massive force of thugs to do the dirty work. Even then it was a failure – so the next time they chose climate change…

      100

      • #
        Latus Dextro

        The Russian revolution was started by academics

        Yep, that went really well as we all know.
        Of the 16 strong membership of the First Council, 11 met premature death by assassination, execution, imprisonment.
        The Con demonstrates the same pedigree.

        (WikedpedoThe original People’s Commissars)

        60

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Interesting.

      40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Are these people driven mostly by blind ego?

    Coming from trade backgrounds (mostly metal) I can’t recall a single time when experts in their field were discussing things that went completely over my head but I interrupted with completely wrong facts or arguments anyway just because I felt qualified to do so.

    Hey Misha, next time a surgeon is explaining a procedure to you don’t forget to call them a medical denier because you found out they vote conservative.

    130

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      “Are these people driven mostly by blind ego?”

      I think a little bit, but more lack of control.

      Case in point, when most people get a bit cranky and they can feel the red mist starting, they usually have the capacity to pull stuff back from the brink before it gets going and a full on brawl starts.

      Its also possible a lot of left wing agitators are soft, armchair social media-driven versions, and wouldnt know one end of a stoush from a cigar, but like the clueless hip lefty crew, knows all the right phrases and memes and is happy to snipe at anoyone doing something productive and act smug, but would fold and run at the first bit of real opposition. Some of them are hard core communists and need to be exposed.

      I also think there is a type of personality that looks for fights or causes to give their lives meaning. Some decent people do volunter work overseas in hospitals or building bridges to help peoples lives improve, but some people ( which seem to include a lot of lefties ) seem to enjoy tearing stuff down coz it gives them some pathetic & brief power trip.

      The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, we have to be on our guard for trouble.

      40

  • #
    John Watt

    The ABC likes to tell us that anything we see / hear on their outlets will gladly be subjected to a fact check. How about the role of CO2 in climate behaviour being subjected to a fully quantified fact check?

    140

  • #
    pat

    just for fun:

    17 Sept: Fox Orlando: AP: It’s still summer but snow is already falling along the California-Nevada line
    RENO: It’s still summer, but somebody didn’t tell the snow that…
    Autumn doesn’t officially begin until the fall equinox next Monday…
    The Nevada Department of Transportation ordered chains or snow tires to be on place for vehicles traveling on the upper section of the Mount Rose Highway connecting Reno to Incline Village at Lake Tahoe…

    16 Sept: CNN: Sierra Nevada Mountains get a late summer snow

    17 Sept: LA Times: Snow in summer? Lake Tahoe area gets early blast of winter

    130

  • #
    mc

    Lets have a Claytons chat; the conversation you have when your not having a conversation.

    90

  • #
    Russell

    Has anything really changed at The Conversation? Sure Misha might have finally decided to be honest about deletes but have they changed their “Community Standards” policy? Why no – it’s still the same vague statements that allow plenty of room to delete anything that they want to.
    No real commitment there to honest and independent journalism – not even trying.
    And their really funny policy about staying on-topic says:

    Keep comments relevant to the article and replies relevant to the initiating post. We reserve the right to delete off-topic comments to keep threads on track.
    For example: in an article about the policy response to climate change, comments about the science of climate change will be considered off topic.

    How’s that – don’t even try to justify or critic a policy response with the science – afterall they all still believe that is settled.

    130

  • #

    What’s going to happen when those at ‘The Con’ find out the truth about renewables, and how they just don’t do what is claimed.

    No one will be allowed to explain why.

    Tony.

    350

  • #

    Psychology! When your mummy (in concert with your auntie, of course) decided to name you Misha and your daddy wasn’t game to say anything…well, you just have to grow up a snooty authoritarian.

    Okay, better snip me.

    140

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      Russian origin. Nickname for Michael.

      60

      • #
        MichaelinBrisbane

        I’ll take “Mike”, “Mick”, even “Miguel”, but please don’t nickname ME “Misha”!

        40

        • #

          I should take the matter more seriously since a lot of public resources flow to The Conversation…but the site is just so comical in its snobbery and self-congratulation. First time I saw it I found it to be a total hoot. It could have been a joke site. They’re in the pay of Big Smug!

          If you ever needed to direct someone to a single place for the worst of what massive conceit and box-tick education can produce, then The Conversation.

          (Also, as with a lot of green/leftoid stuff that’s well funded, there’s a touch of Uncle Sam spookery in The Conversation if you read between the lines. Those rad urban warriors can be surprisingly prissy and well-behaved on certain subjects. The gap between Soros and the CIA is not as wide as portrayed, and there’s no gap at all between CNN, WaPo etc and the spook agencies. I mean, that’s how you stay mainstream, right? Be naughty as you please…but be nice when certain people say to be nice.)

          40

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo – sounds like you could nominate “The Conversation” as one of your “nonreference groups”!

    “Sociologists have invented one or two useful concepts. One is the “negative reference group” – a nonempty set of people to whose advice anyone with half a brain will listen most carefully because one can be sure it is right to do the diametric opposite.”

    From

    “If Sir David King is scared about global warming, we needn’t worry”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/17/if-sir-david-king-is-scared-about-global-warming-we-neednt-worry/

    50

  • #
    el gordo

    Graham Lloyd (OZ) is running the story.

    80

  • #
    Phoenix44

    What is interesting is how these non-scientists, who usually exhibit a total lack of understanding of both science in general and climate science in particular, have decided the science is so “settled” it cannot be challenged?

    There is no third party independent judge of climate science that has ruled it “true”. The empirical evidence is not remotely conclusive – particular given the necessity for endless changes to historical records. Much if the science fails basic tests, like providing data for replication. And as we know, much of science in general is going through a crisis of believability.

    So why do wholly unqualified politicians, journalists and broadcasters believe it has all been proven to such a degree that dissent should not be tolerated?

    150

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      “So why do wholly unqualified politicians, journalists and broadcasters believe it has all been proven to such a degree that dissent should not be tolerated?”

      Easy: it appears to give them the power to decide what happens to every member of society without them being held to account for and paying for being wrong. They can say anything, extract any tribute with the full cooperation of the Government, and then hold that whatever happens is their victims fault. They believe they can successfully signal virtue without having actually to be virtuous.

      110

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        That’s a good response Lionell.

        Perhaps people could note this transaction: a sensible, productive interaction.

        WHICH DIDN’T INVOLVE THE RESIDENT BLOG CLOGGER.

        None of us is perfect, we all fall down at times but the false contrition shown by that RBC is degrading the blog.

        KK

        50

    • #

      “So why do wholly unqualified politicians, journalists and broadcasters believe it has all been proven to such a degree that dissent should not be tolerated?”

      Because they can’t wrap their feeble minds around a truth that undermines their core beliefs.

      70

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        I suggest it is more subtle and fundamental than that. They feel that truth is not knowable by them but there are some special others who do know. They also feel that they have been in contact with those special others and have been exposed to the revealed truth. How they can know that the special others know the truth is not a question they can ask for fear of losing their immortal soul. Hence no further thought is necessary and to question is unholy.

        50

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    The new Kontrite PF is back.

    I thought that other thread was weird.

    This is totally off the planet.

    50

  • #
    Dave

    Well i am one of those poor souls who was expunged from the conversation lol its not much of a conversation if there is no one to educate haha crazy stuff

    80

  • #
    TdeF

    This an appalling statement

    ” Climate change deniers, and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation”

    That’s a straw man. No one denies that the climate changes. What people are rejecting is man made Climate Change. Many are also rejecting the amount of Climate Change. After 31 years of nothing much, that is reasonable, not pseudo science. No a single prediction has been correct.

    So who ‘shamelessly peddles pseudoscience’, except for the ABC itself?

    The ABC is not a scientific organization but the ABC has decided any one who disagrees with man made Climate Change is wrong. How and why?

    The ABC has no scientists. It never allowed or hosted a scientific debate on man made Global Warming.

    So how is the ABC even qualified express an opinion or ‘fact check’ the truth?

    Under the charter of the ABC of strict impartiality, why is the ABC dictating science to the Australian public. Who decided this?

    The only explanation that the ABC is now a highly politicized organization of the left and Climate Change is science free socialist propaganda.

    Sell the ABC. It is useless and costs us $30Million a week for weapons grade drivel.

    230

  • #
    Hal

    The Age and Crikey? Say no more.
    CAGW would be just the tip of the iceberg. There must be a whole manifesto of topics on which dissent will not be tolerated.

    110

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Funny how sceptics are “a danger to children” – but we arent the ones making the snuff movies that feature gorily executing children in them……

    Seriously…the Left are sick….

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sE3g0i2rz4w

    90

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    The Conversion has pages on the psychology of the converted like …

    The rise of ‘eco-anxiety’: climate change affects our mental health, too

    https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-eco-anxiety-climate-change-affects-our-mental-health-too-123002

    “Freud called it displacement. People fixate on the environment when they can’t deal with real threats.”

    https://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0714/p20s01-ussc.html

    Sensible folk don’t need to see a psychologist for anxiety for a non-problem.

    100

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      My take on the large numbers of superhero movies recently is that its a form of escape from every day life, but I suspect people feel powerless and lacking absolutes in thier lives, so the predictable battle of good and evil makes them feel good for a while…..

      50

  • #
    Tel

    It has always been the way … when those “Progressive” type people say, “Having the Conversation,” what they really mean is browbeating others into agreement.

    160

  • #
  • #
    Greg

    For me this is more evidence that the warmist are losing the battle.With a vast media onside and virtue signalling left wing entertainers,teachers,child prophets and fawning politicians they are faced with a planet that refuses to comply with their computer models.They are getting increasingly desperate. For them time is running out,every tipping point and only ten more years is passed more people are seeing through the fraud.They are becoming even more hysterical.Its now EXTINCTION in ten years.Yikes!

    160

    • #
      TdeF

      That’s more the point. Taking our bat and ball and going home because they cannot compete and the story has fallen apart. The next move is not to want to talk about it at all, because it’s history. How depressing to be the ABC. The Coalition in Australia. A booming economy under Trump in the US. UK ready to exit the EU oppression. The Globalist elite are in panic.

      Weren’t all those people going to leave the US if Trump won? The same in the UK, all going home? Now all we need is for the Climate Council to fold its tent and vanish and to Morrison to terminate the RET. The windmill madness would stop overnight and electricity prices would plummet in 24 hours. At no cost.

      160

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Lithgow, being shut Down Down Down by our couldn’t care less politicians.
        Apparently mining is not considered to be politically correct, but maybe government can borrow more dollars from the U.S. and put Lithgow on Social security: all fixed.

        Who needs jobs.

        KK

        70

      • #
        Zane

        The billions of dollars of debt taken out to build those windmills will remain and will need to be serviced and repaid. That cost will be borne by the taxpayer or future electricity users or both. As for the equity, the write off will hit everyone’s super funds. There is no free lunch in finance. Malinvestments are paid for one way or another by society.

        30

        • #

          Oh dear!

          Wait till those Superannuation Funds find that they have invested heavily in a wind plant with a life span only around 15 to 20 years, and then finding that (a) they have gone out of business, because they have reached their life expectancy, or (b) that they find themselves as part of a source of funding that is needed to rehabilitate the said wind wind plant back to its original state.

          Instead of a source of income, they find they are in fact ….. a source of income. (for those having to rehabilitate the wind plant)

          Tony.

          40

    • #
      Latus Dextro

      There is no science nor pretence of scientific method on display.
      The UNFCCC melange of definitions surrounding “climate change” are unfalsifiable. Ipso facto, it is unscientific.
      It is become incontestable dogma and settled politics over at The Con.
      There is some consolation in the notion that anyone trumpeting a politics of ‘resistance is futile’ likely guarantee their own eventual defeat.
      Take a look at Even More Fraud From The Union Of Concerned Scientists
      A great unraveling is underway.

      50

  • #
    DevonshireDozer

    The Song of the Silenced Scientist

    If I am gullible,
    I have no choice:
    I follow the crowd.

    If I am sceptical,
    I have no voice:
    I’m not allowed

    to work in research,
    to air my views,
    to have my say
    on the media news,

    to check the facts,
    share all the data.
    If I try
    I am deemed a hater

    of people, of planet;
    I’m not born again
    into popular culture
    of faithful men

    and women, who want
    to accept the blame
    and pay the piper
    who stands to gain.

    Galileo recanted.
    Darwin survived.
    Dinosaurs came
    and dinosaurs died.

    Our sun is a star
    with a limited life.
    When its time is up
    what price such strife?

    © Celia Warren 2019

    150

  • #
    Deano

    Actually, it’s probably a good thing that The Conversation ban any dissenting views. They will be left with only each other to insult. Many forums have collapsed once the SJW’s take over and have repelled anyone interesting.

    120

  • #
    pat

    shameful:

    7 Sept: Ecowatch: Should ‘Eco-Anxiety’ Be Classified as a Mental Illness?
    By Jordan Davidson
    As the climate crisis takes on more urgency, psychologists around the world are seeing an increase in the number of children sitting in their offices suffering from ‘eco-anxiety,’ which the American Psychological Association described as a “chronic fear of environmental doom,” as EcoWatch reported.

    The Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) told the Daily Telegraph (LINK) that they have seen kids treated with psychiatric drugs for eco-anxiety, and it is campaigning for eco-anxiety to be diagnosed as a psychological phenomenon despite its absence from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the handbook for diagnosing mental illnesses.

    However, there is a caveat. The CPA does not want it classified as a mental disorder, because unlike other anxieties, the cause of worry is rational, as the Daily Telegraph reported…
    https://www.ecowatch.com/more-children-are-being-treated-for-eco-anxiety-but-also-turning-fear-into-political-action-2640400343.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

    15 Sept: UK Telegraph: Parents told not to terrify children over climate change as rising numbers treated for ‘eco-anxiety’
    By Henry Bodkin, Science Correspondent
    Protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, the recent fires in the Amazon and apocalyptic warnings by the teenage activist Greta Thunberg have prompted a “tsunami” of young people seeking help.
    A group of psychologists working with the University of Bath says it is receiving a growing volume of enquiries from teachers, doctors and therapists unable to cope.

    The Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) told The Daily Telegraph some children complaining of eco-anxiety have even been given psychiatric drugs…
    Caroline Hickman, a teaching fellow at Bath and a CPA executive: “The fear is of environmental doom – that we’re all going to die.”…
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/15/parents-told-not-terrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

    30

  • #
    pat

    16 Sept: PV Tech: Study: Germany needs clean energy surge to replace coal, nuclear
    By José Rojo Martín
    Germany must embrace renewables and energy storage at an unprecedented scale if it hopes to offset the void left behind by coal and nuclear phase-outs, a new study has said.
    A review sponsored by German solar association BSW found Germany will have to drive a structural shift in its energy system to satisfy future demand, set to rise even as the country’s existing generation fleet takes a “massive” hit from decommissioning.

    The analysis by energy consultancy EuPD says Berlin will require a surge of installed PV capacity between today (48GW), 2030 (162GW) and 2040 (252GW) to plug the energy shortfall, which could soar to 70TWh by 2030…READ ON
    https://www.pv-tech.org/news/study-germany-needs-clean-energy-surge-to-replace-coal-nuclear

    40

  • #
    pat

    plenty of BS but, nonetheless, if this doesn’t shock some countries into exiting Paris (and the UN?), then nothing will. who do they think they are?

    17 Sept: Financial Times: Leading countries blocked from speaking at UN climate summit
    Secretary-general takes tough line on select coal-supporting nations
    by Leslie Hook in London
    Leading economies such as Japan and Australia will not be invited to speak at next week’s crunch UN climate change summit, as their continued support for coal clashes with the demands of the organisation’s secretary-general as he sounds the alarm on climate change.
    Coal has emerged as a key issue ahead of Monday’s meeting in New York, where 63 countries are expected to speak, according to a draft schedule seen by the Financial Times.

    In letters and conversations with heads of state, António Guterres, UN secretary-general, has demanded that countries attending the summit stop building new coal power stations, reduce fossil fuel subsidies, and commit to net zero emissions by 2050 — demands that have not gone down well in all quarters.

    Dozens of heads of state including the UK’s Boris Johnson and France’s Emmanuel Macron will deliver new climate pledges in a series of three-minute speeches, in what has been billed as a major show of global climate commitment.
    However the summit is notable for those that will not appear: a number of countries building new coal power stations such as Japan, South Korea and South Africa will not take the stage.

    Also excluded will be the US, which has said it intends to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, as well as Brazil and Saudi Arabia, which have criticised the climate pact
    .
    “Only the boldest and most transformative actions [will] make the stage,” said Amina Mohammed, UN deputy secretary-general, on Wednesday. “We will see on Monday who is stepping up.”..

    ***However some coal-loving countries such as China and India, the world’s two biggest builders of new coal stations, will still speak at the summit, according to the draft agenda…
    https://www.ft.com/content/1902158a-d994-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20newsletter

    50

  • #
    pat

    David “The Uninhabitable Earth” Wallace-Wells:

    17 Sept: NY Mag: It’s Greta’s World But it’s still burning. The extraordinary rise of a 16-year-old, and her Hail Mary climate movement.
    By David Wallace-Wells
    She was the Joan of Arc of climate change, commanding a global army of teenage activists numbering in the millions and waging a rhetorical war against her elders through the unapologetic use of generational shame.

    The comparison might seem hyperbolic and may come to look even more strained than that, depending on what the future brings for Greta and for climate action. But for the moment, there is simply no other appropriate analogy from political history to draw on in describing just how much she has achieved at such a young age and in so little time…
    And unlike climate celebrities like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, she cannot be attacked as a hypocrite, because she is already living an exemplary low-carbon life — abjuring plane travel, going vegan, denouncing consumerism…

    “Is there hope we can stay below 1.5 degrees?” I asked.
    She paused to collect her thoughts and answer carefully. “I have spoken to many scientists who have told me about the aspects not included — what things the IPCC are not supposed to write about. But I try to stay away from personal opinions. Current best available science says it is still possible within the laws of physics to do it but not as it is now — not if we continue like we are doing now.”…
    *This article was updated to better reflect the dynamics of the Thunberg family in discussing climate change.
    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/greta-thunberg-climate-change-movement.html

    major FakeNewsMSM is ignoring Silverman, for once!

    15 Sept: Breitbart: Sarah Silverman Says Jesus ‘Is This Girl’ Greta Thunberg
    by Jerome Hudson
    “You think you will recognize Jesus when he comes back? I see him all around. He is this girl. And y’all don’t even see it.” Sarah Silverman said on Twitter, linking to an article of Thunberg appearing on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Trevor Noah…

    “We actually know that these consequences will face us during our lifetime, and it is already happening now. And it will get worse. And, uh, so I think that is why so many young people, especially, care about this,” Thunberg told Noah. “And, uh, and, of course, the awareness is not as it needs to be, it’s not as much as it needs to be. People are still very unaware, it’s my experience. And, uh, so we need to continue, but you can see that among young people the concern is bigger.”…

    “You are such a big country. In Sweden, when we demand politicians to do something they say, ‘It doesn’t matter what we do — because just look at the U.S.,’” Thunberg told NPR. “I think [the U.S has] an enormous responsibility” [to lead climate efforts]. You have a moral responsibility to do that.”
    https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/09/15/sarah-silverman-jesus-is-greta-thunberg/

    31

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      “In politics, nothing happens by accident, and if it does happen you can bet it was planned that way”.

      Franklin D Rooseveldt

      The other point is that as humanity foolishly continues to trash traditional religion, as nature abhors a vacuum the eco religion is taking its place. In a society where we commit all manner of bad tings and call it “choice” and ” progressive” we reap what we sow. We are being sent to the slaught house but gavent realized it yet as the left keeps holding up the mirage to blindly and foolishly march towards while lacking the most basic level of discernment…..

      40

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      Sarah ‘Shiksa’ Silverman?
      Greta is Jesus?
      Oh right, comedy, oy vey!

      40

  • #
    pat

    just in time for the NY Climate Summit, they find more heat! lol.

    17 Sept: AFP: Earth warming more quickly than thought, new climate models show
    Greenhouse gases thrust into the atmosphere mainly by burning fossil fuels are warming Earth’s surface more quickly than previously understood, according to new climate models set to replace those used in current UN projections, scientists said Tuesday.
    By 2100, average temperatures could rise 7.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if carbon emissions continue unabated, separate models from two leading research centres in France showed…
    “With our two models, we see that the scenario known as SSP1 2.6 — which normally allows us to stay under 2C — doesn’t quite get us there,” Olivier Boucher, head of the Institute Pierre Simon Laplace Climate Modelling Centre in Paris, told AFP…

    A new generation of 30-odd climate models known collectively as CMIP6 — including the two unveiled Tuesday — will underpin the IPCC’s next major report in 2021.
    “CMIP6 clearly includes the latest modelling improvements,” even as important uncertainties remain, Joeri Rogelj, an associate professor at Imperial College London and an IPCC lead author, told AFP…

    The two French climate models, including one from France’s National Centre for Meteorological Research (CNRM), were unveiled at a press conference in Paris.
    https://www.afp.com/en/news/3954/earth-warming-more-quickly-thought-new-climate-models-show-doc-1kd00i1

    41

  • #
    pat

    novel length – Bill wants all the money:

    17 Sept: New Yorker: Money Is the Oxygen on Which the Fire of Global Warming Burns
    What if the banking, asset-management, and insurance industries moved away from fossil fuels?
    By Bill McKibben
    I’m skilled at eluding the fetal crouch of despair—because I’ve been working on climate change for thirty years, I’ve learned to parcel out my angst, to keep my distress under control. But, in the past few months, I’ve more often found myself awake at night with true fear-for-your-kids anguish…

    Seven years ago, 350.org (the climate campaign that I co-founded, a decade ago, and still serve as a senior adviser) helped launch a global movement to persuade the managers of college endowments, pension funds, and other large pots of money to sell their stock in fossil-fuel companies. It has become the largest such campaign in history: funds worth more than eleven trillion dollars have divested some or all of their fossil-fuel holdings. And it has been effective: when Peabody Energy, the largest American coal company, filed for bankruptcy, in 2016, it cited divestment as one of the pressures weighing on its business, and, this year, Shell called divestment a “material adverse effect” on its performance…

    This all could, in fact, become one of the final great campaigns of the climate movement—a way to focus the concerted power of any person, city, and institution with a bank account, a retirement fund, or an insurance policy on the handful of institutions that could actually change the game. We are indeed in a climate moment—people’s fear is turning into anger, and that anger could turn fast and hard on the financiers. If it did, it wouldn’t end the climate crisis: we still have to pass the laws that would actually cut the emissions, and build out the wind farms and solar panels…
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/money-is-the-oxygen-on-which-the-fire-of-global-warming-burns

    31

  • #
    pat

    FT free to read today (think Climate Summit). judging by the end of the article, I don’t think FT appreciated Bill’s mocking of fossil fuel divestment:

    17 Sept: Financial Times: Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates
    Billionaire philanthropist urges investors to back tech that helps cut emissions instead
    by Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson and Billy Nauman
    (AT BOTTOM: The FT is free to read today)
    Climate activists are wasting their time lobbying investors to ditch fossil fuel stocks, according to Bill Gates, the billionaire Microsoft co-founder who is one of the world’s most prominent philanthropists.
    Those who want to change the world would do better to put their money and energy behind the disruptive technologies that slow carbon emissions and help people adapt to a warming world, Mr Gates told the Financial Times.

    “Divestment, to date, probably has reduced about zero tonnes of emissions. It’s not like you’ve capital-starved [the] people making steel and gasoline,” he said. “I don’t know the mechanism of action where divestment [keeps] emissions [from] going up every year. I’m just too damn numeric.”…

    Pension funds, the Church of England and even a vehicle for the Rockefeller family’s oil fortune are among a growing group of investors that have divested their fossil fuel holdings in recent years, driven by a belief that finance can be a tool to combat climate change.
    However, Mr Gates questioned the divestment movement’s “theory of change”, arguing that investors who want to use their money to promote progress will have better results by funding innovative businesses such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, two alternative protein companies he has backed…

    After talking to the FT, Mr Gates was reported by The New Yorker to have made a $2m donation to the MIT Media Lab at the behest of convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
    Mr Gates declined several requests for a follow-up interview…
    https://www.ft.com/content/21009e1c-d8c9-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17

    21

  • #
    pat

    17 Sept: Nature: Why I broke the law for climate change
    Lawyer Farhana Yamin explains what drove her to civil disobedience after three decades of environmental advocacy for the IPCC, the United Nations and more.
    by Farhana Yamin
    On 16 April this year, I superglued my hands to the pavement outside the headquarters of the oil company Shell in London, surrounded by dozens of policemen. Once unstuck, I was arrested for causing criminal damage. I have been a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for three of its five assessment reports, and an adviser in the United Nations climate negotiations for almost 30 years…

    My arrest was part of a wave of peaceful protests against the UK government in April 2019, organized by the global movement Extinction Rebellion, or XR. It uses non-violent civil disobedience to demand radical action to tackle what many of us now refer to as the climate emergency…

    June this year, I coordinated XR’s political strategy team. My role was to find ways to build momentum across the party spectrum and organize negotiations with government. I’ve now returned to my profession: helping governments of developing and developed countries to implement commitments under treaties such as the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and through national laws that have created carbon markets…
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02736-9

    21

  • #
    Clyde Spencer

    I see that I am in good company, having had comments deleted by The Conversation several times for having the temerity to question the author’s ‘facts.’ I finally quit reading it. I’m afraid it will slowly die if it only functions as an echo chamber for the faithful. The decision to exclude ‘trolls’ seems like an act of desperation for those who see their religion dying.

    90

  • #
    pat

    you have to laugh:

    17 Sept: BBC: BBC Briefing on energy: how do I use it?
    Our dual needs to save the planet and power our modern lives have thrown a spotlight on the way we produce and use energy.
    Bombarded by often contradictory information about energy consumption and the urgency of our climate change goals, people are demanding better explanation of the facts behind the rhetoric.
    That is why energy has been chosen as the first topic for the BBC Briefing, a mini-series of in-depth, downloadable guides to the big issues of the day.

    With input from academics, researchers and journalists, the Briefing offers the context and evidence in one place. You can download a copy, or read it in your browser, via the following (LINK)…

    The next BBC Briefings will be on immigration and housing…

    If you are unfamiliar with any terminology in the BBC Briefing, please refer to the glossary at the end…

    A Michael Attwell Productions publication for the BBC, with thanks to:
    Jim Watson, director of the UK Energy Research Centre and professor of energy policy at the UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources.
    ***Nick Butler, visiting professor and chair of The Policy Institute at King’s College London.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48186443

    ***Wikipedia: Nick Butler is a Visiting Professor at King’s College London…He is a Senior Adviser to Coller Capital and Linton Capital and a member of the Strategic Advisory Council of Equinor (formerly Statoil). From 2007 to 2009 he was Chairman of the Cambridge Centre for Energy Studies. He was a special adviser to the former British prime minister Gordon Brown from 2009-2010…
    ***He writes regularly in the Financial Times on Energy and Power…
    He was Vice President of the Fabian Society, and was its treasurer from 1982 to 2012. He is a former chairman of the Young Fabians…
    He was Chairman of the Centre for European Reform, which he co-founded with David Miliband from 1994 to 2009, a member of the President’s International Advisory Board at Yale University from 2007 to 2014, and a founder member of British American successor generation project. He was a parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party, standing for Lincoln in the 1992 and 1987 general elections.
    He is on the advisory board of OMFIF where he is regularly involved in meetings regarding the financial and monetary system. Also, he served as non executive Chairman of the energy technology business Agni Inc from 2008 until February 2009…

    40

  • #
    Sean

    The most remarkable thing about this approach is how ineffective it had been over the last 20 years yet there is a tendency to constantly double down on it. “The debate is over” mantra might have worked when incandescent light bulbs were being replaced with CFL’s and LED’s. However, the bills for consumers who are on high renewable generation grids have started to arrive. Telling people in effect to “shut up” does not change minds, it incites anger and then only if you can them to listen to the preaching.

    Journalism and science thrive on the exchange of ideas. Competition generally sorts out who has the best approach. Bias is wrecking each of these fields. Meteorologist cannot make good seasonal let alone long term forecasts and its become impossible for political polls to predict the results of elections. Elections have consequences (as Barack Obama loved to say) and I suspect publicly supported science and journalism may soon find their public financial support diminish in proportion to their credibility.

    70

  • #
    pat

    17 Sept: UK Independent: Voting age should be lowered to 16 to avert climate breakdown, think tank says
    Without urgent action by the current political leaders, future generations will face huge environmental damage, report warns
    by Emily Beament, Phoebe Weston
    The voting age should be lowered to 16 because today’s young people are the ones that face a “toxic inheritance” of environmental crises, a ***leading think tank has said.
    Climate change, the loss of wildlife and damage to the oceans and soils will be problems that the next generation will have to deal with, a report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has warned…

    As a result, the authors call for votes at 16 – as is already the case for Holyrood and local elections in Scotland – to give a voice to those who will face the consequences of what older generations are doing to the world and give them a say on their future…

    Luke Murphy, Head of IPPR’s Environmental Justice Commission, said: “Current and future generations face a toxic inheritance as a consequence of environmental breakdown. Political leaders and policymakers must recognise the duty they owe to the next and future generations. Crucially, they must act to protect them by giving legal recognition to their rights and by giving them a voice in our political system.”…
    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/voting-age-16-climate-breakdown-toxic-inheritance-ippr-a9108706.html

    IPPR: Staff: Luke Murphy
    Luke heads IPPR’s Environmental Justice Commission and leads the Energy, Climate, Housing and Infrastructure team…
    Luke has worked for the Labour party as a policy and political adviser for a shadow secretary of state and successive shadow housing ministers leading their work on housing, also working on local government and devolution. He has worked on policy and advocacy projects for the Living Wage Foundation and a leading housing association…
    He has appeared on national broadcast media, including BBC Radio 4, BBC Radio 2, BBC news and Channel 4 Dispatches, and has written for a range of newspapers including the Guardian, the Times and the Independent, and for other outlets including the New Statesman and HuffPost.
    Luke holds an MSc in international politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies, and a BSc in politics and economics from the University of Bath…
    https://www.ippr.org/about/people/staff/luke-murphy

    IPPR: How we are funded
    IPPR is an independent registered charity, and our work would not be possible without the support offered to us by a wide range of funders, including charitable trusts, foundations, businesses, unions, voluntary sector organisations, local government, national government departments and individuals. ***We never accept money from political parties (LOL)…
    We are extremely grateful for the generosity of all those who supported our work in 2017. They are listed below in funding bands…READ ON
    https://www.ippr.org/about/how-we-are-funded

    Wikipedia: The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) is a left-wing think tank based in London…
    The Institute for Public Policy Research’s founding director was James Cornford. According to academic Peter Ruben its primary aim was to provide theoretical analysis for modernisers in the UK Labour Party; offering alternatives to free market fundamentalism…
    IPPR publishes about fifty reports each year, topics include economic policy, energy, transport, climate change ETC…
    The IPPR publishes the journal IPPR Progressive Review (formally Juncture) quarterly via Wiley…

    21

  • #

    There can be no doubt that human activities affect climate, at least locally. Just removing a tree causes significant change in an area around it. Buildings, dams and roads all have an effect and there are myriad other contributions. But, what the actual effect is is less clear.
    We likely have had some recent warming but perhaps it would have been greater without a human presence.
    Of course we add CO2 to the atmosphere but are we actually contributing to an increase?
    I don’t believe we have the answers to those questions nor that there can be any definitive answers.
    The only questions worth contemplating, then, are the following.
    Global warming – Is it real, is it significant, and are there any real dangers associated with it
    CO2- Does our contribution play a significant role in climate. This one is only relevant if the first can be answered in the affirmative.
    The answers to all the above are a rather weak maybe, maybe, maybe, and maybe again.
    I don’t believe any better answers are forthcoming and only the future may give us some more clues by observation. Even then, any true causes of climate phenomena will likely be unclear.
    Wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on climate preparedness rather than climate control? You will suffer greatly if all your money is spent on air conditioning and what is really needed is a new furnace.
    Surely a balanced approach is more sensible and can be effectively followed by individuals without government controls.

    70

    • #
      TdeF

      “Of course we add CO2 to the atmosphere but are we actually contributing to an increase?”

      “I don’t believe we have the answers to those questions nor that there can be any definitive answers.”

      This was a question I asked myself when all this started. Are we actually contributing to an increase?
      The question is whether you can tell CO2 from ancient fossil fuel from CO2 in modern distribution.

      The answer is no, we have not contributed significantly. At least 95% of the increase in CO2 since 1900 is natural and consequence, not a cause of warming.

      You can tell fossil fuel CO2 from other CO2.

      That is because you can radio carbon date the air itself and tell whether the Carbon in CO2 has been out of circulation for 150million years or just the last hundred.

      It revolves around C14 (not C13 rubbish). Radioactive C14 forms all the time at a very stable level from cosmic rays hitting the upper atmosphere. 1 in a trillion Carbon atoms is radioactive C14, continually dying and being replaced. Chemically you are almost entirely carbon,hydrogen and oxygen. One in a trillion of those carbon atoms in you, a plant, a snail a fish is C14. This does not change in a lifetime. However once an animal, plant or fish is dead, the C14 slowly turns into N14. Half vanishes every 5400 years. So from the ratio of C14 against normal C we can measure age accurately, not that you would care after 5,000 years. 1 in 2 trillion atoms would mean an old bone is 5400 year old. One in 4 trillion carbon atoms means an old bone is 10,800 years old. And so on. This is radio carbon dating.

      So old plant matter from 150 million years ago has no C14 left. And so CO2 from burning fossil fuel has no C14. CO2 from a tree has one in a trillion. Or in your breath.

      Anyway the inventor of Radio Carbon dating, Dr. Suess of San Diego Univerisity was shocked to find that the fossil fuel CO2 in the air in 1956 was only 2.1%. He published this in the papers of the Royal Society. So despite two recent world wars, the fossil fuel CO2 in the air was tiny. Where had the fossil fuel CO2 gone? It meant CO2 was exchanged so quickly with the huge amount of CO2 in the ocean that it effectively vanished from the atmosphere. That means rapid equilibrium with the oceans and that as a consequence we can pump out all the CO2 we like and the CO2 level is restored quickly by Henry’s law of dissolved gases.

      So why the 50% increase in CO2 since 1900? That is due to the warming of the ocean surface. Nothing to do with warming the air. Warm oceans release CO2. According to Henry’s law, this is expected. A warming ocean increases aerial CO2 because there is 50x as much CO2 dissolved in the oceans than in the air. Any excess CO2 is quickly absorbed.

      Consider that for the IPCC to be right on ‘ocean acidification’ the most fundamental law of gases dissolved in water would have to be reversed. The idea that the CO2 goes back into the ocean is absurd. The increased level came from the warming ocean in the first place. If this was true, a cold beer would become fizzier when left to warm up. Warm champagne too. The practical Henry’s law is known to everyone. Warm liquids hold less gas.

      So “are we actually contributing to an increase”. Our radio carbon tracer says barely. Carbon in the biosphere is the one atom you can date and as fast as we can pump out CO2, it will be soaked up. This is known science. Despite our arrogance, our cars and aircraft, our concrete and our ore smelting and our seven billion people, we are insignificant. Human CO2 is barely detectable.

      Besides now the latest invention is CH4, methane. Down with cows and meat. The IPCC have invented a second villain responsible for global warming has been found. A problem with two villains is that it dilutes the CO2 story, blaming life itself for the warming. In reality, when warming increases life on earth increases because photosynthesis increases. We are carbon creatures, made from CO2 and H2O. We know that too. What the IPCC teaches is in fact the reverse of everything we know to be true.

      You can see why no one wants to have a debate with scientists. The man made Global Warming religion has more logical holes than Scientology. Tim Flannery knows it. They all know it.

      After 31 years trying to stop the truth from coming out, the ride is almost over and they know it. Imagine if the $15 Trillion had been spent on fusion energy? The world would be a better place forever and prettier, not covered in pollution from near useless windmills and solar panels.

      150

      • #

        Good answer but I think even the 5% percent is merely in transit and not actually contributing. We have no idea if or not we are absorbing through agriculture more than we emit.

        20

        • #
          TdeF

          Not sure what you mean. Only 2% of all free CO2 is outside the oceans. CO2 levels are set by ocean surface temperature
          The amount we humans generate is tiny and irrelevant and short term.

          The other is ‘agriculture’ and ‘farm animals’. We grow grasses because we cannot eat trees (except fruit). We farm animals which we like, not kangaroos and crocodiles and wilderbeest. However the carrying capacity of the land is hardly changed. Life expands where it can. We are simply changing the species, from trees to grasses, from wilderbeest to cows. The limit to life on earth is set by sunshine and water and CO2. More CO2 means more life on earth. Simple. In fact at 0.02% CO2, life would be extinguished.

          The planet was roaring during the Jurassic with more heat, more plants, bigger animals, a world jungle. Our ancestors were just small scavengers then. The real fears are an ice age or very low CO2.

          70

          • #
            TdeF

            Warming and high CO2 is a made up problem. Sea levels have changed since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. They have risen 100 metres. No one complained. Europe became available, half the US, most of Russia and now 60% of humanity live above the tropic of Cancer and an amazing number above 50 degrees North (London). Murmansk (360,000) is at 69 North. We are told warming is a disaster and even a small sea rise. That’s not been our experience as a race. The whole thing is so Chicken Little, the sky is falling when it isn’t.

            80

            • #
              TdeF

              As for cities drowning, most go down a long way. Manhattan is huge but only 10 metres above mean sea level. However the myriad of buildings, subways, tunnels go down to 55 metres below ground, so 45 metres under sea level! Does anyone worry about drowning? No.

              All these ‘threatened’ cities can be protected easily and cheaply but people love to walk straight onto the beach in Miami and much of Florida. Many of the cities of Asia are in deltas and half submerged some of the time, including Djkarta and Bangkok. I remember the Bund in Shanghai being in the carpark next to the river. It had brass portholes like a ship. What looks like a pedestrian walkway boulevard is perhaps seven metres above the street and really a sea wall.

              However now the sand on the other Pudong side is fully developed and covered with multi storey buildings and freeways with three universities, the international airport and a sign, to the beach. It is possibly the most expensive real estate in China. All because they have the Yellow river under control. Are they worried about sea level rise? No.

              Another seven airports have been built in the Maldives, at sea level. Many new airports are built on reclaimed land, 5-8 metres out of the water at most including in Japan, Nice, Hong Kong, Gibraltar. The Gibraltar airport is amazing, as it crosses the isthmus and they have to stop the traffic with boom gates.

              Then you get Dubai with so much building in the ocean itself. Half of Gibraltar is on reclaimed land as is the airport in Hong Kong and a lot of Kowloon.

              Much of the Nederlands, Belgium and Holland are up to 7 metres below sea level.

              So this doom and gloom about rising sea levels is rubbish. None of the big engineering companies believes it. No engineers in China or France or in the US. None of the big investors. Only the victims of the ABC/Fairfax Armageddon stories. It is also certain that Tim Flannery and Al Gore don’t. They both bought on the water as did Barack Obama at Martha’s Vinyard.

              100

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Good questions Rick: and you seem to have the right approach there.

      40

  • #

    Rather than shut out deniers, why cannot supporters of “Climate Science” take on the onus of proof? Like the prosecution in a criminal court, or even on a balance of probabilities.
    Alternatively, instead of shutting out “deniers” why not take a more neutral approach, by having something approaching professional standards. This could be based on proven expertise and ethical standards that exclude ideological biases or making speaking as a scientist beyond their scientific competencies.

    60

    • #
      Terry

      “Like the prosecution in a criminal court, or even on a balance of probabilities.”

      …or, or, or…The Scientific Method!

      I know, I know. Far too radical in the land of “settled science”. Why defer to data, evidence and observation when you can conveniently invoke surveys, polls, models and consensus.

      “Trust me, I’m a scientist. It says so on my degree. It’s my licence to junk the Scientific Method”

      70

      • #
        TdeF

        Commercial On the balance of probabilities
        Criminal Beyond reasonable doubt
        Murder Beyond the shadow of a doubt

        And a single piece of evidence can overturn them. As with science.
        What’s really odd about Climate Change is that nothing is proven, no predictions have been right, no evidence is more than circumstantial and there are few science facts. It’s a religion, not science. If “The Science is IN”, you have to ask, in what?

        50

  • #

    Their theory has been proven insufficient many times by observations but still it lives on. It will probably survive anything short of a major glaciation. A lot of people just need something to rail against. Truth has no consequence.

    70

  • #

    [...] Conversation is publicly funded like the ABC.They have completely banned dissenting voices. Still over half of the people don’t go along with alarmism. No matter how qualified you are, [...]

    10

  • #
    joseph

    What would be the correct answer to the question: Who first came up with the idea of global warming being caused by carbon dioxide?

    [Svante August Arrhenius. Do I get a prize?] ED

    20

  • #
  • #
    Bob Fernley-Jones

    Should someone of influence ask Andrew Jaspan or whoever within The Con what their attitude might be towards highly qualified scientists such as Roy spencer or Judith curry (make a list & CV’s):

    1) Since they would qualify as authors that are among the elite that are exclusively permitted to submit articles, is there any probability that they can actually get past the editors.

    2) In the event of such qualified scientists attempting to comment on the blog, would the editors (possessing no scientific training) immediately ban them as trolls?

    3) Might such action in 2) be defamatory?

    60

    • #
      TdeF

      Under the new rules you are not allowed ask such a question. People who actually know what they are talking about are now banned from the Conversation because they are all deniers. So experts in meteorology, climate, physics, geology, chemistry, mathematics, statistics and modelling are not allowed, just to name a few. Global Warming is a socialist problem and has nothing to do with science. You have to avoid the inconvenient truth.

      90

  • #
    TdeF

    Nothing is more certain in argument than that the person who runs away, the one who rages and rants, the one who refuses to continue or wants to change the rules, has lost. The ABC and Tim Flannery in one day. Total dummy spit.

    And this after Dr Bob Brown, former Austrlian Greens leader who ran his own Green campaign bus in the last election and stood next to Julia Gillard on the steps of parliament as co ruler, has denounced windmills as pollution.

    Now to remove the RET.

    80

  • #
    PeterS

    I have no problem people believing what they want. If people want to believe the earth is flat then good luck to them (poor fools). People wanting to shut down our coal industry and coal fired power plants is a completely different matter because it involves the de-industrialisation of our nation, which is tantamount to a terrorist act. It matters not whether CACGW is real or not. If it were real (which it isn’t of course) then by all means let’s get on with the business of reducing our emissions in a real and serious manner. The only way to do that without de-industrialisation of our nation is to move to nuclear power. Those who do believe in CAGW should be on that bandwagon, not the bandwagon to de-industrialise our nation, which is in all respects a terrorist act, and should be dealt with appropriately by the relevant authorities.

    110

    • #
      PeterS

      Oh BTW. Business leaders who also promote the reduction of emissions are included with the group in question. Unless they are promoting nuclear power they should be arrested and charged for promoting a form of terrorism.

      70

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Unless they are promoting nuclear power …’

      The nuclear industry is salivating at the prospect, they say the build is not so expensive as people claim. What are your figures on a state of the art nuclear power plant compared to a Hele coal fired power station?

      Its not my area of expertise and I don’t know who to believe.

      10

      • #
        PeterS

        I’m not an expert in such matters. All I know is large scale nuclear power plants cost a lot more to build but typically less expensive to run compared to coal fired plants unless there are ample supplies of coal such as here. There are small scale ones that cost far less but they are targeted more for off-grid applications. Let the market decide which way to go. We need to remove the restriction on nuclear.

        20

    • #
      el gordo

      The Oz is running a front page story on the AWU breaking away from Labor over nuclear power.

      Cory might be on a winner with his new career.

      20

  • #
    Slithers

    Should they censor their own sources as well?
    BOM for Goulburn this month shows that on Monday 16th September, the morning they had to close the Hume Highway because of heavy snow had a MINIMUM temperature of 5.5 degrees C.

    This must be the warmest snow fall on the planet EVER!

    I also checked Nerriga which also had snow that morning. There is a SIX day hole in the data! They had a prolonged cold spell. Not good for the average temperature records so remove it!
    http://www.bom.gov.au and enter the name of your town and see what your recorded data looks like especially when its COLD!

    100

  • #
    Bob Fernley-Jones

    Also, at The Con’s webpage; Partners and funders, a host of universities are listed who are supposed to uphold free speech (even JCU professes so).

    Might it be appropriate for someone of influence to ask VC’s (and Chancellors?) what their attitude to the loss of free speech at their academic’s blog might be?

    70

  • #
    Robber

    Australia now banned from speaking at the UN Conference on Climate Change. Our PM should immediately withdraw our delegates in protest.
    And the biggest global polluter, China, gets to speak and tell the west that we should send them more money.
    Perhaps “The Con” would like to discuss how much money we should give China.
    Good article by Chris Kenny in The Australian.
    “The Conversation website, which claims to offer “academic rigour” with “journalistic flair”, has decided that on climate change the discussion should be all one way. So that’s how this academically-inclined outfit deals with the battle of ideas and scientific debate, it unilaterally shuts down the voices, facts, theories and opinions it disagrees with. To claim academic rigour and then denounce scepticism would seem to prove a distinct lack of understanding about the concept of academic rigour.”

    90

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Australia doesnt have any money to give China, do you realise the economic and GDP difference?
      Actually contrary to what is perceived China isnt convinced about the climate ‘thing’. Biz as usual if thw West wants to push stupid agendas well ..”thanks for the cash (economic opertunities)”

      20

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      An amendment: change “…immediately withdraw our delegates in protest” to: “…immediately withdraw our delegates and funding in protest”.
      Cheers
      Dave B

      40

    • #
      PeterS

      Ironic isn’t it. They want us to send them more money yet they China and many other Asian countries want and will get a lot more of our coal. They must think we are stupid. They are 100% correct.

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Why doesn’t the present Government disband them? They serve no purpose than to churn out taxpayer funded Leftist propaganda, just like Their ABC and SBS.

    70

    • #
      PeterS

      The government won’t ban them because our government is useless and doesn’t even realise what’s happening. They might as well be deaf and blind in the real sense. In fact they might as well go to Canberra a couple of days a month and go on holidays the rest of the time for all the good they do.

      40

  • #
    Ross

    What sort of “coverage” or activity does the Conversation attract?

    40

  • #
    David Maddison

    I was surprised that Wikipedia has an entry for “scientific consensus”. This seems to me to be a wholly Leftist political construct and not an element of the scientific method.

    What do you think?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus?wprov=sfla1

    30

    • #
      David Maddison

      Good short article on “consensus”.

      100 Authors Against Einstein – Scientific ‘Consensus’ and Scepticism
      Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough! – Albert Einstein

      Consensus is utterly irrelevant to science. The philosophy of science is devoid of consensus. What concerns science is not weight of numbers on the side of an argument, but what the facts are. What the evidence is.

      I have just watched the BBC’s latest Horizon program “Science Under Attack”. In the program he goes on about overwhelming evidence of AGW, but offers only one tiny piece (tree rings used in spliced data), he talks about consensus (without understanding that consensus is meaningless in science and denying that there are enough professionals who are sceptical of AGW to make such an assertion plainly false), and he mocks ‘extreme’ scepticism.

      Scepticism is the foundation of scientific principles – there is no ‘fine line’ as Nurse puts it between acceptable levels of scepticism and unacceptable levels. All scepticism is acceptable. When Einstein was in the minority of people against Newton’s theory of relativity he would have been seen as going too far, questioning where it was not welcome. The facts were decided, there was ‘consensus’. Before Einstein published his work, no contemporary scientist apparently disagreed with Newton’s (now disproved) theory. Newton himself was working against the orthodoxy of his peers. Being in a minority dues not mean one is incorrect. Argumentum ad populum (or as used in this case, consensus gentium) is still a logical fallacy whether in the scientific community or within any other group (as is an appeal to authority, for those who keep going ‘scientists say…’).

      Attempting to defend a purely scientific position using non-scientific methods such as attacks on ‘sceptics’ or ‘deniers’ (rather politicised language, something Nurse is apparently against) or appealing to logical fallacies is wrong. When debating science, only the science should be under scrutiny – not where money comes from nor what the political position of various groups are. Science and science alone.

      See link for rest.

      http://capacityofliberty.blogspot.com/2011/01/100-authors-against-einstein-scientific.html?m=1

      80

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        Yes it goes on still. Professor Sir Fred Hoyle was denied the Nobel Prize in part for the famous paper on stellar origin of the elements. The only recipient was Fowler who didnt criticize the “Big Bang Theory’. Yes its been going on for a long time.
        Dont upset the scientific establishment.

        60

        • #
          PeterS

          Yet all the major achievements in science occur not only when the scientific establishment is upset but often when its foundations are in ruins.

          30

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Two more quotes about Consensus:
      Einstein: “Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops.”
      Michael Crichton, Harvard graduate, medical doctor and world-famous science fiction writer: “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science.
      I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
      Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means the he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

      10

  • #
    Murray Shaw

    When I first started posting on TC, I was being moderated out very early, so started posting on Friday evenings, and posts lasted to Monday morning. Socialists won’t work w/ends. Posts started being moderated out Saturday morning, so I moved to Saturday evening. Eventually they woke up and I was evidently on a watch list, and posts from my email were auto rejected.
    They were incapable of answering the most basic enquiry as to how climate worked, but I did enjoy the verbal jousting when it occurred.

    130

  • #
    Carp

    This is happening with many subjects – not just climate change. It’s a belief that every question has a “right” and “wrong” answer and there is no room for any shades of grey. I am often told not just that I am wrong but that I don’t really believe what I am saying so I am a liar as well.

    70

  • #
    David Maddison

    Einstein’s response to a 1931 book against relativity entitled “100 Authors against Einstein” was “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

    60

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      In climate science its more like 100 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1….1 or 100 makes no difference to these climate charlatans.

      20

  • #
    Lance

    Well, the self deprecating climate moralists in the US are now promoting their own “conversation”.

    Public Confession of how You have “Fallen Short” in Your Efforts to mitigate Climate Change. No Kidding.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/specials/climate-confessions-share-solutions-climate-change-n1054791

    Sarc on/

    I’m going to post how Not Guilty I feel for having 1 Lb of steak today, 3 eggs, 5 bacon slices, ramped the aircon down to 72 F , drove 110 km sightseeing, and installed 5 sq m of Red Oak flooring while streaming movies non stop.

    That ought to get me sent to the Principal’s office and publicly shamed at Church.

    Sarc orr/

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Albert Einstein Quote: “Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head.”

    80

  • #
    OldOzzie

    So The Conversation would not print this Article from the Competitive Enterprise Institute

    Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
    Myron Ebell, Steven J. Milloy • September 18, 2019

    50

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      No, because their (believing) readers would suffer from too much shock. They might even become skeptical!

      20

  • #
    OldOzzie

    A obviously paid up member of The Conversation, Victorian government Water Minister Lisa Neville

    No point building new dams, says minister (Behind Paywall)

    The Victorian government has ruled out new dams, saying climate change means not enough water would flow into them to make them worthwhile.

    Water Minister Lisa Neville says water in the state’s rivers will halve by 2065, citing this forecast in her refusal to build even one dam, even though over that period the state’s population is expected to double.

    Rather, she said, Victoria would rely on its high electricity-consuming desalination plant, from which it has ordered $81m of water this year, costing average households what she said was “only” $10.

    Ms Neville told The Australian that, instead of money for new dams, she would be happy to take federal funds to expand that $3.5bn plant’s production by a third.

    The state government’s position comes despite parts of Victoria being drought-affected, including Gippsland in the east, which has had its driest 32 months on record.

    Ms Neville dismissed federal Water Resources Minister David Littleproud’s warning this week that without new dams population growth means Victoria risks sizeable reductions of available water per person by 2030.

    He called on the states to draw on $1.3bn of federal funds on offer for new water infrastructure, to avoid more severe water shortages hitting households and agriculture.

    But Ms Neville told The Australian: “The dams we have already are in the best places to collect a high yield of water — any new dams would mean less water for all and would be unlikely to capture enough water to be worth it.

    MORE PEOPLE, NO MORE WATER
    Victoria’s population since Thomson Dam was built

    “For Minister Littleproud to suggest otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of understanding when it comes to water and climate change, especially in Victoria.”

    Ms Neville’s spokeswoman said climate change would lead to less rainfall and a potential halving of streamflow by 2065.

    She said the last major dam built in Victoria, Thomson Dam, was “originally built to droughtproof Melbourne” but “has only filled three times in its history — the last in 1996”.

    In 1983, the year the dam started to fill, Victoria’s popul­ation was four million, with Melbourne accoun­ting for nearly three million. Since then, the capital’s popul­ation has passed five million, and the state has 6.5 million people.

    The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ central estimate for Victoria’s population in 2066 is 12 million.

    In 2006, the then Labor state government rejected a dam for the Maribyrnong River, proposed by the Liberal Party and estimated to cost $80m. Ms Neville’s spokeswoman said it would have yielded about 25 gigalitres, whereas the desalinat­ion plant could provide up to 150GL independent of rainfall.

    The Australian has calculated that, on this basis, the cost of the Maribyrnong Dam would have been $3.2m/GL of water yielded, whereas the cost of the desalination plant is $23m/GL.

    Ms Neville said: “New dams do not create any new water. They simply take it from somewhere else: either from farmers who currently rely on it or from the environment.

    “Given there are no viable new dam options in Victoria, we’d be very happy to see any new federal funding going towards augmenting our desalination plant, to increase the yearly production capacity from 150GL to 200GL.”

    Queensland crossbench MP Bob Katter has said state governments have spent hundreds of millions of dollars for feasibility studies by consultants on dams, rather than take decisions to build them, describing the process as “a picnic for processing parasites”.

    NSW Water Resources Minister Melinda Pavey recently asked Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack if $23m of federal funds allocated to build the $500m expansion of Dungowan Dam near Tamworth could be diverted to pay for a “final business case” to help reach an “investment decision”.

    In July, Queensland’s Natural Resources Minister Anthony Lynham announced that he would launch a new assessment into the costs and benefits of the proposed Hells Gate Dam in north Queensland, after a feasibility study last year found that the $5.4bn project was viable.

    60

    • #
      Serp

      The thuggish and arrogant long time minister Lisa Neville is so habituated to dictating terms that she is oblivious to the convention in a civil society that one argues one’s case; just uttering the magic formula “water and climate change” is more than adequate to carry the day in her excuse for a mind although it needs to be said that compared to Lily D’Ambrosio she’s an intellectual giant.

      50

  • #
    Ben

    Founding partners of The Conversation include four big universities and the CSIRO.

    Frightening.

    70

    • #
      el gordo

      Thanks for that Ben, do not be concerned, the prosecutor in a future Royal Commission will annihilate the organisation.

      20

  • #
    Salome

    There are posters up all over my neighbourhood advertising a ‘drown in’ at a nearby town hall, because sea levels are rising. But they aren’t, but who cares? And now the Victorian government announces it won’t be building any new dams because there will only be half the water in rivers in 2065 so they would be useless. Help! It’s reached peak unreal! I just want to tell these people there’s nothing wrong with the bloody climate and if they want something to complain about they should wait for the next glaciation. Perhaps I should, before debate is completely shut down.

    70

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      ‘ it won’t be building any new dams because there will only be half the water in rivers in 2065′ SO Victoriastan can PREDICT the exact rainfall expected in 2065, thats incredible. Those climate models are really getting accurate! OH MY!
      So if there was less water wouldnt it be a good idea to actually save some of what there is?
      ..Stupid rating: 20/20 for stupid ideas..

      70

  • #
    TdeF

    At the UN today, Australia usually addresses the Climate Conference on behalf of a group of major nations. We are up to date with our Paris commitments. However they are not enough and we are banned from speaking.

    India with 6x our CO2 and China with 20x our CO2 both want cash. Now. China is adding more CO2 output every year than our entire output and we and the other carbon villains now have to pay up.

    “Mr Guterres said he wanted “concrete, realistic plans” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45 per cent over the next decade, and to net zero emissions by 2050.” India, China and Russia others are exempt. Half the world’s population.

    And to pay up $100Bn a year while we in Australia shut down our industries, our farming and our cities and serve imported coffee to tourists.

    Nuclear powers China and India, able to put satellites into orbit or nuclear missiles and land on the moon are ‘developing nations’ . We are a ‘developed nation’ so the UN and they say we should give them our cash to continue ‘developing’. What? Better ICBMs? Hydrogen bombs? Put a man on the moon? Why should we pay them for our CO2?

    This is past even socialism. It is attempted robbery by a world government, fully supported by the socialists at the ABC/SBS. Like the Conversation, we are now not even allowed speak. We are the villains and need to be punished and robbed, according to the UN.

    110

  • #
    pat

    followup to Lance – comment #66

    18 Sept: PJ Media: NBC News Wants You to Confess Your Climate Sins
    By Jim Treacher
    Do you ever get the feeling that climate change is a cult?…

    TWEET: NBC News Graphics:
    Blast the AC? Cook a steak once a week? Where do you fall short in preventing climate change? Tell us with Climate Confessions LINK
    18 Sept 2019

    I submitted my own confession: “I work in an air-conditioned newsroom at NBC.” They haven’t published it yet, but I feel better already.

    Hat tip to Mark Hemingway, who notes: “This from NBC News is amazing. Climate change is some kind of religion — all eschatology, minus the redemption.” In other words, you’re always guilty but you can never be saved.
    There’s a lot of that going around lately…READ ON
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/nbc-news-wants-you-to-confess-your-climate-sins/

    50

    • #
      RicDre

      “NBC News Wants You to Confess Your Climate Sins”

      I wasted precious electricity watching NBC, ABC(US) and CBS. I have since repented and do not watch them any more. I feel much better now.

      130

      • #
        RicDre

        I submitted the above confession and got the following back:

        Thanks for submitting. Your submission is in our queue.

        FACT: Many of our daily activities cause emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, we produce greenhouse gas emissions from gas for home heating, or using electricity generated from coal, natural gas and oil.

        TIP: Want to find out where you can conserve energy? Use the EPA’s carbon footprint calculator to estimate your annual household emissions.

        View other confessions about Energy

        View all confessions

        70

      • #
        RicDre

        Here a link to some of the confessions:

        https://www.nbcnews.com/news/specials/climate-confessions-share-solutions-climate-change-n1054791

        Based on the responses, I suspect that people may not be taking this Confession thing as seriously as NBC might have hoped.

        40

        • #
          theRealUniverse

          So food waste is a ‘sin’? Food is usually biodegradable material (except for McDonalds)/sarc. Loon time again..

          30

      • #
        RicDre

        Here are some of the confessions:

        “I own a huge SUV. I take long drives in the country just because.”

        “My sister had a lot of metal straws but I thought they were annoying so I threw them out.”

        “k-cups!!!! They are just to easy to use. I do use a reusable mug, however.”

        “I use enough Q-tips for a family of 8. I have an addiction to them in hygiene purposes, makeup application, even cleaning.”

        “I’d like to recycle more–especially since I drink 40 bottles of water/week. But the recycling truck comes on the day I sleep in.”

        80

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        ‘ I feel much better now’…yes getting those awful ‘sins’ (NBC, ABC(US) and CBS) off your chest (viewing list) will really help. :D

        60

      • #
        RicDre

        Here is a confession that might make sense to someone beset by Climate Change Anxiety:

        “I solve global warming by turning the ac way down and leaving the windows open.”

        40

  • #
    Betapug

    Be gentle with Mischa, after all those years at The Age, Crikey and ABC, he can not be expected to be responsible for his actions.
    Perhaps he can plead NIR (“not intellectually responsible”) and be carefully reintegrated into the real world?

    90

  • #
    pat

    a day after posting this on Jo’s previous thread:

    17 Sept: AP: University of California to dump fossil fuel investments
    LOS ANGELES — The University of California is dumping fossil fuel investments from its nearly $84 billion pension and endowment funds because they are a financial risk, its top financial officers announced Tuesday…
    “We have a moral responsibility to take swift action on climate change,” UC President ***Janet Napolitano said. “This declaration reaffirms UC’s commitment to addressing one of the greatest existential threats of our time.”…
    https://www.apnews.com/b2988ca75675458cb9e6dff607bef8b9

    there is news:

    18 Sept: San Francisco Chronicle: University of California chief Janet Napolitano to step down
    by Jocelyn Gecker, Associated Press; Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix contributed to this report
    SAN FRANCISCO — University of California President Janet Napolitano, who oversaw historic expansions of the 10-campus system and championed immigrant students, but whose management structure faced criticism and embarrassing scrutiny, said Wednesday she will step down in August 2020…
    But Napolitano also was criticized by state lawmakers after a state audit found problems with her office’s financial management. A report from State Auditor Elaine Howle in 2016 found that Napolitano’s office failed to disclose millions of dollars in reserve funds.
    It also said Napolitano’s top aides had sought to suppress campus criticism of her office in surveys that were supposed to be confidential and sent directly to the state auditor…

    She was a popular Democratic leader in Republican-controlled Arizona, easily winning re-election by more than 25 points in 2006. She stepped down in 2009 to join President Barack Obama’s cabinet as secretary of homeland security, overseeing border security, ramped-up immigration enforcement and efforts to prevent terrorism…

    Napolitano said she will take a year sabbatical before teaching, beginning in the fall of 2021, at the University of California, Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy, where she is currently a tenured professor…
    https://www.sfgate.com/news/education/article/UC-President-Janet-Napolitano-announces-plans-to-14449805.php

    30

  • #
    Betapug

    “Conversation” has gained popularity in the last few years as part of the phrase “we need to have a conversation AROUND X…” This usually involves an accusation by the speaker, a “calling out” rather than any kind of two way exchange.

    The “around” is most significant because it means the central point is never to be addressed.

    80

  • #
    Dennis

    19.09.19. Although Australia is one of the leading investors in renewable energy it has been barred from speaking at the UN climate summit in New York next week, probably because of coal fired generators still being used. The UN wants more money and the descriptor normally used as ‘billions’ has been subordinated by a more attractive “trillions”! Cocktail parties are getting expensive. China and India, China being the largest polluter by far, are calling for trillions more.
    This smacks of Leftie, PC control at its worst in much the same way when an Australian academic wanted all global warning “deniers” to have that word tattooed across their foreheads. The UN should have been told to POQ years ago!
    Australia has been barred from speaking at a UN climate summit in New York next week, where China and India will call for ­trillions of dollars more in climate funding from the developed world. Other big economies, including the US and Japan, have also been silenced because they have not agreed to increase their am­bitions to tackle climate change.
    Source: Graham Lloyd

, Environment Editor, The Australian

    80

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      One can only react with anger at these moves to ban Australia from speaking at the UN climate summit. We should withhold any contributions until we are permitted to have our say. Better still we should no be attending. Where is our Prime Minister on this matter?
      GeoffW

      50

    • #
      Serp

      Do you reckon that if ScoMo had deputised Malcolm again Australia would have been given a hearing?

      More seriously though since the UN won’t let us play we take our bat and ball and go home, that is announce we’re withdrawing from the Paris agreement –they’ll be queuing up to listen to us after that.

      60

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    The Conversation; ‘We believe in the free flow of information’ . . .
    Surely this is misleading advertising at the very least.
    Cannot these people be challenged in a court of law, are such actions legal?
    What about the rights of any individual to express opinions.
    And the fundamental right to freedom of speech?
    Having said all that I for one have no interest in expressing my views on their site.
    GeoffW

    60

    • #
      Serp

      That’s my take on expressing views on their site too Geoffrey Williams.

      I get more than enough exposure to theconversation from their email headers in my spam folder (and no, I don’t actually open the messages); as I recall I subscribed in obedience to the old Basque proverb “know the face of the enemy”.

      40

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Hello Conversation,

    It is with great dismay that I see your un democratic/free speech policy towards persons who DISAGREE with the mantra about so called “climate Change” rebranded from the old “Global Warming”. Branding us skeptics as ‘deniers’.

    The real data and scientific evidence ( presented by NUMEROUS scientists that disagree with this mantra) show with absolute proof that there is NO so called ‘climate change’ due to human activity. CO2 doesnt and CANNOT drive a planets climate. Your climate theories are incorrect and provable with historic data and geophysical data and paleo geologic data and records obtained over the decades of research.

    If you have ‘proof’ that CO2 causes or is causing catastrophic global warming that will destroy civilization, PLEASE publish a definitive paper PROVING this cause in the relevant scientific journals.

    It is widely known historically that severe COLD is dangerous to civilizations NOT a small amount of warming which has been BENEFICIAL to the development of many civilizations in the historic past.

    This ‘agenda’ you pursue is (many feel and know ) only concerned with wealth redistribution and the elimination of hydrocarbon fuels such as coal which is badly needed to improve the lives of impoverished countries.

    The denial to represent opposing views to the alarmist agenda of ‘climate change’ is alarming in itself and anti freedom of expression, you claim to represent.

    Yours,

    ……….(qualifications added)

    Sent today, Ill post any reply if one turns up.

    60

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      I also admit I never really go there (conversation site) now good reason to avoid it anyway.

      70

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        I occasionally drive-by if I’m in need of a good laugh,
        except I end up yelling at them (well, at my Mac anyway) and that’s just the headlines.

        Same with wacko social-worrier sites here (once a month is enough, thanks). Frinstance today’s headlines:
        • Where is the Govt on oil reliance?
        • Macron speech – The end of Western hegemony
        • China, Climate Conference, and New Zealand
        • The Race to be the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee
        • Monorail! (I kid you not)

        I always thought hypochondria was an old folks’ ailment, yet yet all these young, über urban-dwellers are going down with it like it’s a plague or an ague or an outbreak of mass hysteria a la Salem in 1693. Besides, black cats are cool, and I don’t mind a little witch’s brew now and then… As for The NON-versation, it’s now propaganda non grata.

        40

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        as of 5 hours later..noreply.com….it didnt even bounce!

        20

  • #
    Analitik

    On a related note, look at this hatchet job the ABC did on Peter Ridd last night in support of James Cook University’s assertion that the GBR is dying from climate change and farming run-off.

    The MSM really are doing their best to use attack as the means of defence for the CAGW meme

    https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/farmers-fight-tough-new-rules-to-protect-the-great/11526168

    70

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    As a tactic to increase traffic to the site, banning a group of readers for their views, it sure worked a treat

    13

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Just listening to John Fein on ABC and this subject came up and was defended using the analogy that should equal weight be given to Hitler as to Anne Frank in debating world war 2 .
    Then Peter Ridd was discussed and the argument there was he was attacking his colleagues.
    All of Europe has accepted the science so therefore there doesn’t need to be anymore debate on the issue of climate change .

    60

  • #
    Paul

    Talking to yourself is a symptom of schizophrenia.

    20

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Just listening to the A(BSyte)C on low dams in NSW. I suspect that the recent droughts ,purported as worst on record..probably not, are caused by the low solar output. Yep its a sort of ‘climate change’ of course but due to astrophysical processes.

    70

  • #
    Another Ian

    But it ensures that their unicorns are unchallenged

    “Why 100% Renewable Energy Is Less Realistic Than a Unicorn”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/18/why-100-renewable-energy-is-less-realistic-than-a-unicorn/

    20

    • #
      PeterS

      Actually it would make more sense to turn off coal fired power plants for say 90% of the time and deploy batteries for backup than to use renewables plus batteries. The reason is obvious. Far less emissions for the same result!! Of course the economy would still be ruined but at least we would meet our emissions in a canter, and our useless PM would say.

      30

  • #
    pat

    19 Sept: Guardian Climate science denial: AAP: Eric Abetz compares The Conversation to Nazis over stance on climate change denial
    Tasmanian senator says Hitler would be ‘so proud’ after academic website announces it will not tolerate climate change denial
    “Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong couldn’t have put it better themselves. They’d be so proud,” he told parliament.
    “To so superciliously and arrogantly deny a voice to an alternative point of view is reminiscent of totalitarian regimes.”…

    Abetz, who describes himself as a climate change agnostic, said environmental prophets of doom had been getting it wrong for half a century.
    “This ugly, unscientific, totalitarian, arrogant approach taken by the Conversation is the exact opposite to the principles of scientific endeavour.”
    He said the lesson of history was that truth would ultimately prevail.
    “The Conversation can stop the conversation, but it cannot stop the march of inquiring minds that will ultimately determine this issue,” Abetz said.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/19/eric-abetz-compares-the-conversation-nazis-climate-change-denial

    30

  • #
    Robert Thomson

    Surely the time has now come to have a Royal Commission in order to separate the wheat from the chaff and plan for our energy future, whatever that may mean. C’mon Scomo…the ball is most definitely in your court.

    40

  • #
    pat

    what a joker…watch how he co-opts “quiet Australians” for his cause:

    19 Sept: The Conversation: Misha Ketchell: There’s a good reason we’re moderating climate change deniers: uninformed comments undermine expertise
    A few days ago I posted here to say we are going to be more rigorous about moderating comments of climate science deniers. Over the past few days there has been an incredible response, both supportive and hostile. On social media, and in private communication, hundreds of people applauded our approach and expressed their alarm at the media’s failure to convey the relatively settled scientific consensus.

    On the other side a ***handful of people have made contact to say they will no longer read The Conversation. A few loud media voices have claimed our approach is totalitarian. In an interview with Senator Eric Abetz on Sky News Chris Kenny did what bullies often do – he tried to intimidate and cause maximum damage by asking the Senator to ensure The Conversation never again receives government funding…

    Indeed, our decision to redouble our efforts to weed out misinformation around climate science represents only a minor adjustment to our previous approach. We have always had Community Standards that enable moderators to remove misinformation and discourage trolling. But we had reached a point where we felt we needed to refocus our efforts.
    Let me explain why. Imagine you discovered you had a serious illness and went to a doctor who recommended an operation…

    The opinion-based sceptics have had ample opportunity to have their say. They will continue to have them, on social media and in many media outlets. As long as they aren’t allowed to overwhelm the ***quiet Australians who understand and respect the science, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

    But at The Conversation we are going to be careful to weed out misinformation and present the evidence accurately. We owe it to the academics we publish, to our readers, and to the planet.
    https://theconversation.com/theres-a-good-reason-were-moderating-climate-change-deniers-uninformed-comments-undermine-expertise-123857

    20

  • #
    pat

    Misha Ketchell’s Twitter page (where Conversation people talk to each other!)
    https://twitter.com/mishaketch

    some bits found there:

    TWEET: Diana Wooley, Member Buddies Refugee Support Group, Sunshine Coast. Labor/Greens. Proud atheist. Retiree but still learning
    @mishaketch Great Interview on ABC Brisbane @abcbrisbane, thanks Misha & Rebecca of ‘Mornings’ program.
    18 Sept 2019
    reply: Misha Ketchell 1h ago
    Thanks Diana. I had not met Rebecca but I was impressed by the thoughtful questions and enjoyed the interview.

    you will NOT be impressed – a whopping 16mins, see times below:

    AUDIO: 18 Sept: ABC Brisbane “Mornings”
    interview by Rebecca Levingston (XR promoter, bushfire alarmist)
    You’ll get a deeper insight into the issues that matter to you and your city each morning. Join the conversation on air and social media where you’ll be invited to share your views and ideas.
    https://www.abc.net.au/radio/brisbane/programs/focus/mornings/11508468

    1h41min to 1h58min54sec: Misha Ketchell segment. eventually brings up Naomi Oreskes. Rebecca astonished that people questioned the motives of AMA doctors calling for cimate emergency. deniers at News Ltd. Flannery article partly behind the ban. should ABC allow deniers a voice, etc.

    2h26min45sec to end: Rebecca hands over the program from tomorrow to Terri Begley;
    Rebecca asks if any sizzle planned?
    Terri: Friday will be sizzling, if it’s a hot day, with the climate protests in Brisbane (perhaps thouands) and around the world (hundreds of thousands). Greta was the spark. we’re gonna catch up with someone who will be involved with that, a very high-profile Australian, who has expressed his frustration with where we’re at (FLANNERY?). and we’ll look at the history of protests. do they work? do people listen? do people have confirmation bias whether the rallies take place or not?

    10

    • #
      pat

      a few other bits found on Misha Ketchell’s twitter page:

      TWEET: Molly Glassey, Digital Editor, The Conversation
      So, Eric Abetz compared @ConversationEDU to Stalin, Hilter + Mao, because we don’t believe in giving a voice to climate change deniers.
      18 Sept 2019

      Tim Stephens, Professor of International Law | ARC Future Fellow | @SydneyLawSchool | Fellow @6StJamesIntl Replying to @GlasseyMolly @1petermartin @ConversationEDU
      You’ve made the right decision. Climate science has reached a gold standard of certainty, and many other outlets (including the Nine papers) have already stopped printing letters/op-eds from deniers
      https://twitter.com/GlasseyMolly/status/1174497887700443137

      TWEET: Maddy De Gabriele: Deputy environment + energy editor @ConversationEDU
      If you want to read the COWARDLY FAKE NEWS that has upset the Oz, here is Tim Flannery’s blistering take-down of climate deniers (I love it, you’ll whisper it to yourself at night before you sleep)
      Actually, climate deniers simply stall discussions that could progress action towards saving the planet
      https://twitter.com/MaddyDeGabriele/status/1174227701965697027

      10

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    The weirdness continues.

    The Last Post is near.

    20

  • #
    Zane

    Big Green has been incredibly successful pushing the climate change meme. Even Mike Tyson probably couldn’t land a solid punch on them. The question is, just who is behind the Green facade? I have a feeling Qatar with its $320 billion war chest built up from liquified gas exports is cunningly exploiting the anti-coal coalition. I know Asia is not going to close any of its factories or steel mills in the name of any silly faux environmentalism. The wind guys are also major league carpetbaggers. Europe must also be made dependent on eastern gas.

    But the way things like Extinction Rebellion come up out of nowhere has to be more than happenstance. It’s a job for Jason Bourne.

    30

  • #
    Stevem

    The Conversation isn’t the only body banning skeptics. Next week there’s a IPCC conference in New York where Australia, the US and Japan, among others, have been banned from speaking for either not contributing enough to a “Green Fund”. In a statement that leaves me seething with anger (combined with the rest of my day to be sure) China stated:

    “Climate financ­e is one of the major aspects of ­effective tackling of climate change. As the largest developing country, China is also entitled to funds support. China urges the developed countries to honour the commitment of $US100bn allocation each year from 2020 on to support­ the developing world in addressing climate change.”

    70

    • #
      Zane

      Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are a major lobby group at the UN, tirelessly campaigning for ” climate justice “. Translation: give us money. They comprise 57 little ” nations ” including Fiji, Tuvalu, etc and since they act as a block and have over 20% of the UN vote they have a disproportionate effect on policy. They are bad news. The UN currently recognises 193 states. Of course most of these tiny countries are nothingburgers, but that block vote can be useful. China, for example, assiduously courts them. Useful for presssuring poor old Taiwan.

      70

  • #
    Maryanne

    The Conversation should be re-named The Echo Chamber.

    20

  • #
    pat

    15 Sept: Economist: Why Russia is ambivalent about climate change
    Climate issue: Global warming is not all bad, some Russians unfortunately reckon
    The first in a series of articles on the impact of global warming on the world
    Russia has signed but has not ratified the Paris Agreement, making it the only major emitter outside the pact (though President Donald Trump is in the process of withdrawing America from its strictures). It is not only the world’s second-largest producer of oil and gas combined, it also possesses ice-locked coasts and a vast, underpopulated hinterland that, some argue, could use the boost brought by a few degrees of warming…

    At an Arctic forum in 2017, Vladimir Putin called climate change a “factor that bolsters optimism”, adding that it “provides more favourable conditions for economic activity in this region”. He once quipped that climate change would enable Russians to spend less money on fur coats…

    The economy minister, Maxim Oreshkin, tells The Economist that ratification is in the works. Rumours say it may come this autumn, though probably not in time for the UN Climate Action Summit that opens in New York on September 23rd…
    The worsening state of the environment came in ninth place when Russians were asked to name their main concerns, whereas concerns about the economy and corruption dominated…

    Warmer temperatures may tantalise with the prospect of easier access to natural-resource wealth, an expanded farm belt, a reduced winter-heating bill and tolls from the Northern Sea Route. Yet those benefits are hardly certain…READ ON
    https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/09/15/why-russia-is-ambivalent-about-climate-change

    17 Sept: Economist: Blown cover: Changing weather could put insurance firms out of business
    Climate issue: The cost of comprehensive cover could become exorbitant, even as it is needed more than ever
    The third in a series of articles on the impact of global warming on the world
    Tens of millions of businesses buy policies every year to protect themselves from risks. As a result the industry is vast—last year the premiums paid for property and casualty insurance worldwide reached $2.4trn, according to Swiss Re, one of the big reinsurance firms on to which consumer-facing insurers pass the risk of mega-losses. Insurance companies spent $180bn on reinsurance premiums. Extreme events becoming the norm could force insurers to fork out ever greater payouts to policyholders, as well as lower the value of the assets they hold. The best case is that insurers reinvent themselves, helping the world cope—risk is, after all, how they make their money. The worst is that some fail and, more worryingly, that swathes of the global economy become uninsurable.

    ***Already, insurers are seeing disasters of unprecedented scale…
    Catastrophes are also getting harder to predict…
    The impact of rising sea levels on storm surges, for example, is fairly well understood. But working out when droughts cause wildfires is trickier, because lower rainfall not only makes everything drier and hence more flammable, but also slows the growth of vegetation, the fires’ fuel…

    According to Marsh, a broker, global commercial-insurance prices rose by 6% in the second quarter of this year, compared with the previous quarter. That was the largest increase since records began. In America property rates jumped by 10%; in the Pacific region they soared by nearly 18%. The rise is to meet the demands of reinsurers, which insure the insurers. Average reinsurance rates are set to rise by 5% next year, according to S&P Global, a rating agency—and in California, after the huge recent wildfires, by 30-70%…READ ON
    https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/09/17/changing-weather-could-put-insurance-firms-out-of-business

    10

  • #
    truth

    The rancid hypocrisy …arrogance and irony of those who intend to rule the world…

    Misha Ketchell…the great protector of science and the planet….who wants The Conversation unencumbered by pesky questioning ‘trolls’ ….retweeted former Science Minister Senator Kim Carr’s words …

    In response to the following tweet….from Judith Ireland

    ‘Nationals federal council has just passed a motion in favour of a national science “watchdog” to verify scientific papers which are used to determine public policy. George Christiansen was the prime mover, says “left wing causes” are infiltrating research’.

    Sen Carr said…

    ‘Words cannot adequately describe how horrific this is. #Science flourishes in a intellectual environment uninhimbered[sic] from government or bureaucratic interference. The last thing we need is bureaucrats or politicians pronouncing judgements on research’.

    40

  • #
    pat

    16 Sept: World Economic Forum: We can solve climate change – if we involve women
    by Vaishali Sinha, Chief Communication & Sustainability Officer, ReNew Power
    One of the most critical SDGs is SDG 5, achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls, because it will have positive cascading effects on the achievement of the other SDGs, including quality education, poverty alleviation, clean energy, reduced inequalities, good health and wellbeing, zero hunger, clean water and sanitation, decent work and economic growth and most importantly, climate action…

    Women also have the knowledge and understanding of what is needed to adapt to changing environmental circumstances in order to determine practical solutions…
    Greta Thunberg, Christina Figueres and Franny Armstrong, to name a few, are already leading the way in not only climate change advocacy but also in crafting sustainable, long-term solutions…

    According to McKinsey (LINK), in a “full potential” scenario in which women play an identical role in labour markets to men, as much as $28 trillion, or 26%, could be added to global annual GDP by 2025. This is more than enough to bridge the climate finance gap needed to fund the battle against climate change, which stands at €530 billion ($585 billion) per year by 2020 and €810 billion ($894 billion) by 2030. Just increasing the participation of women in the labour force will sufficiently increase the world’s GDP for financing sustainable development…

    One of the most potent tools for increasing the effectiveness of women in climate change mitigation is renewable energy, which can help transform the lives of women by improving their health, providing them with better livelihood prospects, improving their education opportunities and more. In fact, it offers women many entrepreneurial avenues for further deployment of renewable energy, which in turn mitigates carbon emissions…
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/why-women-cannot-be-spectators-in-the-climate-change-battle/

    20

    • #
      Serp

      Preparations for the imminent UK election are replete across all parties with the current All Women Shortlist (AWS) fad. There’s talk of giving children the vote and then tis only a matter of time before All Children Shortlists becomes de rigeur. I really hope I live to see that, no seriously, it’ll bookend so neatly with the atrocity of Africa’s child soldiers.

      30

    • #
      pat

      meant to disclose who Franny Armstrong, referenced in the WEF “women” article is, for those who don’t remember:

      Twitter: Franny Armstrong, Writer/director of Age of Stupid…Founder of 10:10
      https://twitter.com/frannyarmstrong?lang=en

      10

  • #
    Bulldust

    Eric Abetz has a red hot take on the subject at The Guardian (yeah, I know… but here we go):

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/19/eric-abetz-compares-the-conversation-nazis-climate-change-denial

    Misha is clearly the authoritarian in chief who can discern the truth without any relevant qualifications in the field. Impressive stuff.

    30

  • #
    pat

    haven’t listened to this, but Peter Ridd or others interested might want to:

    AUDIO: 50min 30sec: ABC: The Great Barrier Reef
    On Nightlife with Philip Clark
    We’ve been given plenty of warnings about the deteriorating state of the reef and the latest report states the same. So what’s caused the reef to lose half its coral?

    Tracy Ainsworth, Associate Professor at the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of NSW …
    and Andrew Hoey, Principal Research Fellow at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Townsville talk to us about the state of the reef and it’s future
    https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/nightlife/future-of-the-great-barrier-reef/11526322

    I have been told the Govt plan mentioned by truth – comment #94 – is mentioned, tho I can’t confirm that.

    10

  • #
    Speedy

    Hi All. You have to feel sorry for the alarmists, trying to win an argument without the benefit of evidence, facts or truth. What else can they do? Except throw a hissy fit and call people names. That’s Plan “A”. If that don’t work? Maybe they could stick their fingers in their ears and sing? Oh – that’s what they’re doing now. Sorry.
    Cheers,
    Mike

    30

  • #
    pat

    Chris Smith (in for Peta Credlin) just opened with this story:

    Wodak: Young drug addicts worried about climate, jobs and housing
    Daily Telegraph-19 hours ago
    Mr Wodak was addressing a “decriminalisation roundtable” held in Sydney yesterday as part of the state’s Special Commissioner of Inquiry into the Drug ‘Ice’…

    19 Sept: Daily Mail: Young meth addicts are using hard drugs because of CLIMATE CHANGE and high house prices, expert claims
    •Dr Alex Wodak spoke at Special Commission of Inquiry into the Drug Ice
    •He said people are driven to addiction because they are are pessimistic
    •Among factors are climate change and high house prices, he insisted
    By Charlie Moore
    ‘Unless and until young Australians feel optimistic about their future, demand for drugs will remain strong,’ Dr Wodak said on Wednesday at a Special Commission of Inquiry into the Drug Ice in Sydney.
    ‘Young people understandably want more certainty about their future prospects including climate, education, jobs, and housing affordability,’ he said.
    Dr Wodak, who is President of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, said he wanted all criminal penalties for drug use to be scrapped…

    Former NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione also expressed his support for the depenalisation of ice use…
    Mr Scipione, who served as NSW’s top cop from 2007 until his 2017 retirement, said the time was ripe to consider policy change…
    NSW Greens MLP Cate Faehrmann said she was in favour of decriminalisation.
    ‘The criminalisation of people who use drugs has totally and utterly failed.’…
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7479063/Young-meth-addicts-using-drugs-climate-change.html

    10