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 unseen danger of declaring fake “climate emergencies”

A declaration of a fake emergency is just like yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre

Climate emergency protest, by Takver from Australia

Photo by Takver.

A couple of days after skeptics were banned by The Conversation, came an article advising how people who do illegal, potentially dangerous things can use the “climate emergency” as a legal defense. Skeptics and scientists might rub their hands with glee, waiting for the climate emergency to be vaporised by any half decent prosecuting lawyer. But that won’t happen — the alleged law breakers don’t have to prove there is a climate emergency, they just have to prove that a reasonable person would think there is. So when East Widgiemooltha declares a “mergency”, that is enough.

So when a local council succumbs to fashion whims or gets heckled into declaring an emergency it’s effectively encouraging vandals, tyrants, and paranoid eco-terrorists.

Activists are using the climate emergency as a new legal defence to justify law-breaking

Senior lecturer, School of Law and Justice, Southern Cross University

 The defence permits law-breaking in circumstances of “sudden or extraordinary emergency” if:

an ordinary person possessing ordinary power of self-control could not reasonably be expected to act otherwise.

It’s a version of the common law “necessity defence”, which allows law-breaking to avoid greater harm or irreparable evil. This defence has been argued by climate activists in the US and UK for over a decade.

But unlike the common law defence, the extraordinary emergency defence is only activated by a sudden or extraordinary emergency.

Using climate change as a legal defence worked in the UK in 2008 when Greenpeace protesters painted graffiti on the chimney of a British power station. A jury acquitted them of property damage charges on the basis of necessity.

And earlier this year, another UK jury acquitted Extinction Rebellion founder Roger Hallam and a fellow activist of similar charges. While the judge ruled climate change was irrelevant, the jury was persuaded by the defendants’ argument that their actions were a proportionate response to the climate crisis.

In the US, judges have been largely reluctant to let climate activists use this defence, and no climate activist has yet been acquitted of criminal charges when they do use it.

Valve Turners

….

 

And if that means that shutting high pressure gas pipeline valves down as a narcissistic stunt, that risks explosions, the “necessity excuse” might help someone avoid a 26 year jail sentence. Nothing says “we approve” quite like not punishing them.

However, in 2018, a US judge downgraded the charges against pipeline protesters to civil infractions and then found them not responsible on the basis of necessity. And, in 2019, “Valve Turner” protester Ken Ward succeeded in having his conviction overturned, on the basis he should have been allowed to argue necessity as a constitutional right.

But framing the “necessity defence” as an “extraordinary emergency defence” in jurisdictions like Queensland allows Australian climate activists to take advantage of the growing acceptance of climate change as emergency.

What they all need (the ABC, The Conversation, etc) is a calm voice reminding them of the 1001 reasons there’s no emergency. Obviously that won’t happen since they just banned calmness. Speaking of which: on this very important topic there were only 29 comments  of which 13 (50%!) were “automatically flagged for inspection by a moderator” and remain trapped there four days later. What’s the bet these comments will appear in 1 week, 1 month, 1 year — or only after Donald Trump is declared King?

The only good question Nicole Rogers asks:

Climate change emergency makes legal norms unworkable

So what is reasonable conduct in the face of the mounting climate crisis? The importance of asking this question cannot be overstated.

The Climate Emergency is a Conversation Emergency. We need to talk about our national conversations.

Attempts to avert this catastrophe through non-violent acts of civil disobedience will come to seem reasonable.

Only in The Monologues thought bubble Nicole.

If you live in a Climate Emergency Zone it’s time to get it rescinded.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (87 votes cast)
The unseen danger of declaring fake "climate emergencies" , 9.5 out of 10 based on 87 ratings

301 comments to The unseen danger of declaring fake “climate emergencies”

  • #
    Komrade Kuma

    Climate Emergency = Martial Lawlessness

    Voerwarts kameraden! All Einzatsgruppen to the farms, the power stations, the city intersections!

    For the Future!

    100

  • #
    LuckyTom

    Beyond the “Climate Change Hoax” who nobody buys into, what it is clear is that there is an OPEN WAR between the citizens of every country in this planet and the media worldwide. I’ve never seen such a clear and stupid attempt of media manipulation like the one they are trying to pull out with this “global warming fraud”. It is just crazy.

    330

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yeah but the unused ( so far ) component of all this stupidity is the gradual framing of those who can think as “mentally unsound” and therefore should ultimately be locked up.

      If doctors associations have signed up as climate numpties, then thats scary since you need a doctor to declare someone insane, da, Comrade?

      This is straight out of the Soviet playbook….

      270

    • #

      Yep. Real skeps and conservatives reject the “gang” and “stunt” mentalities, which is why there can never be a GeeUp for us. The ABC and The Conversation can no more help being herds than I can help being an individual.

      The critical thing is to recognise how worthless and malevolent the media are and to make our feelings known through everyday exchanges and conversations. It’s surprising now how many ordinary people feel the same way. It’s just that busy people arriving home from work or stuck in traffic find it hard to reject media, especially if it is tilted to their point of view. (I might like what I catch on Breitbart, Fox etc, but I need to remember those are products meant to catch me. From the almost universal boosting of the ruinous Turnbull coup I learned a lesson I hope not to forget.)

      It’s not a matter of state versus private. CNN and WaPo are as statist and spook-ridden as “our” ABC. And it’s not just news and current affairs. Hollywood and entertainment are all about conditioning and messaging. Even half-time at sporting events is a chance to thrust some agenda or other in my face.

      I know I’m not smart or tough enough to resist the media if I’m plugged in. So the plug is OUT.

      160

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      The loons are truly running the asylum. And that ‘Greta’ event showed that up very well.

      120

    • #
      Zane

      I think the green groups are paying the MSM to run their alarmist nonsense.

      40

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      How long before murder is committed, in “fighting the climate emergency”, I wonder?

      10

  • #
    James Poulos

    The climate made me do it…

    130

  • #
    Craig

    Electric fence could work….

    50

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    All you have to do is repeat something over and over and it becomes accepted “truth”.

    Where you need more traction for that truth you can label it science, when that needs more support just call it an Emergency!

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/eco-worriers-new-strategy-use-greta-as-a-human-shield-against-debate/#comment-2196141

    What Australia and the world needs is real leadership that leads for honesty and decency, but whose definitions of those qualities are to be trusted: the conversation?

    And then, what is trust. But it’s all common sense; and we can go round in circles forever.

    KK

    150

  • #
    David Wojick

    Very interesting! Fort Collins, Colorado (a college town — Colorado State Uni) recently passed their “climate emergency” declaration, as have many others. It included no new action of any kind, much less emergency action. But it opens the door to this defense. I doubt anyone thought of this.

    190

    • #
      Binny Pegler

      ‘I doubt anyone thought of this.’
      I’ll wager someone did. – But probably not the people who passed the declaration.

      110

    • #
      Another Ian

      Way back when the “Spotted Owl” was new a visiting US range scientist warned that the problem with such legislation is what it can be used for later.

      50

    • #
      TdeF

      I used to have a place in Fort Collins. Nice quiet town. -40C in winter and +40C in summer. It has a climate emergency most days.

      101

      • #
        TdeF

        And it’s hard to see how +1C over a century has made any difference. Or how they fear sea level rise at 6,000′ above sea level, like most of the high plains. Ultra long ski season this year as well. What emergency?

        90

        • #
          Greg in NZ

          A Fort Collins girl stole my heart at A-Basin…

          https://www.arapahoebasin.com/

          Crazy wild frontierswomen will do that to ya! They’re opening mid-October this year after the MASSIVE 2018-19 season. Loveland Pass and Berthoud Pass (either side of the I-70) was where I first tasted true back-country skiing boarding – the only emergency being the likelihood of getting buried by an avalanche. Magic spots. If you’re missing the place TdeF, here’s a few cams (even one for F.C.) though being 18 hours behind us, the sun still hasn’t risen:

          http://www.keno.org/colorado_web_cams/colorado_cams.htm

          Crisis? What #### crisis!

          50

          • #
            TdeF

            Thanks. I had the old Arthur Mansion (1888) on Mulberry Street. Stained glass. Double storey. Leather embossed wallpaper. It was an old Frat house. Sorry to leave but moved to Texas then Chicago. If any place was hotter than Colorado in summer, it was Texas. At 100% humidity, it was unbearable. The airconditioners froze solid with ice. Awful.

            40

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Where do fossil fuel using faux eco warriors go now with their language?
    How do they ramp it up higher than “emergency”..super emergency?
    When the suicides start…watch all the finger pointing…

    100

  • #
    mothcatcher

    Seems as daft to me as it does to you, Jo. But in some ways I think it might just be helpful to the sceptical side of the argument.

    If some of these guys get off criminal damage charges and the like, by exclaiming ‘climate emergency’ a lot of decent folk who wouldn’t normally get involved in the climate debate, or even have an opinion, may say ‘this just isn’t right’ and there could be some pushback against establishment collusion.

    140

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Broken Hill has joined Councils from across Australia and New Zealand in declaring [global warming] as an emergency.

    https://www.brokenhill.nsw.gov.au/Community/News-articles/Wrap-of-September-meeting

    Emergency?

    Mad Max III, Fury Road’s shoot happened in the southern African country of Namibia.
    Originally planned to be filmed around Broken Hill, unusual(?) rainfall saw the normally barren landscape bloom into life – not a great look for a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

    http://www.traveller.com.au/mad-max-fury-road-film-locations-how-namibia-replaced-australia-1mcxrv

    What does the Science say?

    “Specifically, some scientists say it could be possible for the Earth to one day resemble the arid wasteland depicted in “Mad Max: Fury Road” if we don’t take steps to curb [global warming].”
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/mad-max-fury-road-climate-change_n_56d4669de4b0871f60ec0926?c=&section=australia&guccounter=1

    >> Good luck preventing either of those climates from happening. Again.

    “In another Mayoral Minute, Mayor Darriea Turley AM called for the reinstatement of cheap coach fares between Broken Hill and Adelaide.
    Council entered into a new agreement with the Broken Hill Rifle Club despite the range’s proximity to the Broken Hill Airport.”

    Cheep fossil fuelled coach fares?
    A fossil-fuelled airport?

    >> Emissions aren’t going down. Ever.

    100

    • #
      Another Ian

      I don’t know if it is still up but Broken Hiill used to have a sign proclaiming a “nuclear free zone”.

      As potassium is an essential mineral and part of the isotopic mix is radioactive I used to wonder where they got theirs?

      40

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      “some scientists say it could be possible for the Earth to one day resemble the arid wasteland depicted in “Mad Max: Fury Road”
      These types of statements are totally impossible and utterly absurd and have no basis.
      1 Earth has oceans.
      2 Warm means more moisture and evaporation.
      3 Water cycle wont stop.

      I dont know why real science doesnt just obliterate these totally false, non scientific lies continually pushed by these idiots.
      Too afraid to speak?

      80

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        A key factor is slovenly journalism.

        70

        • #
          Greg in NZ

          And/or a gullible audience?

          We were 4 drivers on a job today (2 male, 2 female); at smoko break, all 4 of us were ripping on the UN/Thunberg nonsense. Poor child, no one believes her.

          70

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            You don’t believe her. I don’t believe her.

            Her string pullers don’t believe her. The press don’t believe her. the politicians don’t believe her. The UN doesn’t believe her.

            Her parents (if you could call them that) don’t believe her.

            With the exception of you and me, all the others referenced say she’s a modern prophet.

            They’re in it for the profit.

            90

            • #
              Greg in NZ

              They’re in it for the profit and power (PAP).

              Pap: bland soft or semiliquid food such as that suitable for babies; entertainment that is worthless or lacking in substance. Also known as UN.

              10

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    This is why public debate is so important. It lets the public see how the science is NOT settled, and shows how the world is ticking along just as it’s all done. No emergency.

    It’s politics all the way down…

    130

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    I notice the Aust Bolshevik Collective is attempting to lay the (jack)boot into those who dare take the lawless climate numpties to task, especially “St Greta of Clueless”.

    Those who think have graduated from “deplorable” to “troglodites”. Hmmmm…so sho died and made Aunty Pravda , queen?

    Now where is my tin of yellow paint…..hiding behind a girl….tut tut…no courage in the hest of battle…..how deplorable….

    https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-28/unpacking-twitter-tirades-why-are-we-triggered-by-greta-thunberg/11545952

    “Why Greta Thunberg triggers the troglodytes among us

    “The internet has it in for Greta Thunberg, or at least it seems that way sometimes.

    “In spending any time probing the blather of bottom-feeders though, there’s a danger of amplifying it. A risk of implying that it’s common, ubiquitous even. It isn’t.

    “The teardowns and tirades aren’t everywhere: in my feed they certainly don’t outweigh all the love and praise, the admiration and all the go you good things.

    “But there’s an underbelly. A cruel and creepy world where it’s apparently perfectly fine — nay, encouraged — for adults, generally (but not exclusively) male adults, to shred a 16-year-old to pieces.

    “Greta ticks all the boxes. She triggers the troglodytes among us in some wholly predictable ways.

    100

  • #
    el gordo

    Out my way there is an air of indifference about this fabricated emergency.

    https://www.westernmagazine.com.au/story/6378140/is-council-declaring-a-climate-emergency/

    30

  • #
    Another Ian

    Somewhat O/T – Reaping the whirlwind?

    “Trust In Media Collapses – Again – Further”

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/09/27/trust-in-media-collapses-again-further/

    90

  • #
    Ross

    I am a great believer in what I call the pendulum theory. In markets, political issues etc. things swing one way and then the other over time but when it gets pushed so far one way as is the case with this climate hysteria then there is likely to be a big swing back the other way at some stage. Maybe not so far in the other direction but definitely a big correction . You saw it to some extent in the Australian election, in Queensland in particular.

    I will not predict what the trigger will be, on a world wide basis, because so much money and politics is tied up in the issue but I am sure there will be a massive correction at some stage. ( Maybe the big economic recession that some are predicting will “help”)

    170

    • #
      Binny Pegler

      True but it could be a while. How long did it take for the church’s ‘child abuse chickens’ to come home to roost.
      In a way there is a link. Human history tells us, as one religion declines another will rise to take it’s place.

      61

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        Redemption from the fires of eternal damnation? Yep, same-old same-old: pay up then down on yer knees.

        A fun little word game: climate emergency = greta i me clemency.

        30

  • #
    Lance

    Let me see if I understand this.

    Model simulations of a complex system that has been effectively reduced to a One Variable model, where said models cannot hindcast nor have they accurately forecast any verifiable results, now become the basis of Predictions some 100 years in the future, and that prediction now justifies sowing public panic, acts of violence, property destruction, etc.

    And this is somehow morphed into a “legal defense”??

    Apparently, superstition is now a legal defense.

    I wonder if the same thing applies to capital crimes as well. With Antifa and leftist violence becoming more common, such things might sadly be seen.

    240

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Well so far they havent “sacrificed” any children to thier green gods….

      Oh hang on….

      100

    • #
      David Wojick

      In the U.S. at least the Courts have consistently ruled that AGW is real.

      50

      • #
        Lance

        Courts ought to rule on Evidence, not superstition or the oversimplified models that consistently fail.

        Scientific fact or folly is not the purview of a Court.

        I wonder if the Courts have contemplated any rulings on Space-Time, Black Holes, Gravity Waves, Warp Drive, or a host of things beyond their ken.

        sarc on/ So, what you are saying is that if I can manufacture enough propaganda to sway public opinion and/or gain media stardom, then the US Courts will sanctify and give legal basis to my schemes? Sounds just simply too easy. / sarc off/

        120

        • #
          David Wojick

          It is not that simple, or silly. The federal Courts give “great deference” to the agencies who are the experts in a given technical matter. Every federal science agency endorses AGW. The Courts are not going to rule on the science. That is the agency’s job.

          51

          • #
            Lance

            No, the Agencies do not make rulings of fact.

            Agencies of the Govt, by definition, create politically correct positions. Not facts.

            It doesn’t matter how many agency heads endorse anything. They don’t make facts. They do what they are told.

            Been there, done that. Watched the USAF, USN, USA, USMC, NASA, NOAA, all toe the political line, damn reality.

            Their “job” is to state the facts. Their “reality” is to say whatever keeps their funding or power.

            Let’s not be naive.

            90

          • #
            TdeF

            We have the same. A Climate Emergency, man made Global Warming, man made Climate Change are all officially true. What is odd is the idea that +1C is significant anywhere. Except the North Pole in summer which has an average of +0.0C, so a lot more of the sea ice melts, as if that matters because it does not raise sea levels anyway. And the population at the North Pole is?

            70

        • #
          sophocles

          Well Lance: welcome back to the seventeenth century.

          Call somebody a witch — a denier — and act as you like.

          30

      • #
        Another Ian

        That how you pick a Democrat-leaning judge?

        40

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        ‘the Courts have consistently ruled that AGW is real.’ Maybe but AGW is a hypothesis it is not something that requires a legal ruling, it should have no basis in law. the courts (USA) are out of line.

        70

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          AGW is a hypothesis

          True.

          And, the thing is, the evidence doesn’t support it and doesn’t explain it.

          That’s science.

          Neither does the IPCC:

          TAR 3: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2. Page 774 )

          30

  • #
  • #
    bobl

    Open Letter to Scott Morrison.

    Scott,

    Finally we are seeing where your government’s silence and tacit acceptance of social cult memes is leading.

    Not only are you wasting close to 20 billion over the forward estimates in various appeasements to fringe dwelling activists, YOU! are allowing our children to be exploited and disturbed. It is not hard to see teen suicide and mental health problems explode over the next 10 years largely because of YOUR GOVERNMENT’S INACTION. In the last 10 years the government has caved in to a number of pressure groups ignoring destabilising issues, and now it’s crystal clear it is too much to bear for the children.

    Here are some of the pressures you are allowing to manifest in children.

    Climate Change – NOT an emergency, not scary, and not worth our children mental health, even if it was true, the worst effect is sea level rise two besser bricks high, not much reclamation is needed to deal with that. Tell the children the truth, possible outcomes are very mildly detrimental to positive (Higher crop yields, earth greening, fewer human deaths from cold (6 times more Australian deaths from cold than warm)). Any detrimental effects (should they actually ever happen) are easy to counter if we deconstrain our responses, EG Sea Walls, Fuel Load Management, Build more dams and improved irrigation water sources, Coal Power (to allow climate control for vulnerable Australians and pumping of water around the land of drought and FLOODING RAINS).

    Rainbow cult is disturbing our youths development of identity in their teens, after their success in the poll now they are gunning for full access to vulnerable children’s minds in protected places like our private homes, schools and churches. The marriage issue was handled wrongly, it should have been a separate act so children’s interests could be protected, now there are no safe spaces for Women AND more importantly NO SAFE SPACES FOR CHILDREN. We now desperately need a protected places act where our toilets, schools and churches, (teachers, child leaders and priests) can be protected from the governments own antidiscrimination measures

    Religiously motivated terrorism has our children on edge as it does other Australians as we continue to import dangerous people into our population without sufficient scrutiny aided by activists. The government is doing OK (Scorecard of 5-6) on this front but ASIO is watching an INCREASING NUMBER OF THREATS which is not good for our children as threat after threat is played out – even when the threats are thwarted. The effects are similar to the cold war anxiety inflicted on children with Nuclear attack drills. It’s time that all churches were compelled to ensure their messaging and other practices do not contravene the law on fear of being shut down – All religious ideologies. To do this the government has to roll back the Rainbow cult to ensure its not illegal for a church to simply recommend to followers that a Hom******l lifestyle is counter to gods teachings (Protected Places act). People have rights against active discrimination, No-one has a right to not be offended.

    The anti – GMO green rhetoric makes our children scared of their food

    The Vegan activism on which the government is also dropping the ball, is teaching children to follow a diet which is extremely damaging to their health, Veganism is far worse than smoking, a diet that can cause dementia, sterility or even kill. Lately children are being told they need to eat bugs – excuse (of course) is GLOBAL BLOODY WARMING, this is NOT GOOD FOR THEM.

    Drug culture – a majority of our children have tried mind altering drugs by the time they reach 18. Now the very seat of government – the ACT is legalising a mind altering drug that can cause schizophrenia, governments around Australia are considering pill testing, but after testing they give the pills back (that’s supply)! – just another circumvention attempt by pro drug activists. What message does this all send to children?

    Scott, stop the appeasement of the fringe dwellers and start governing for the silent and fed up majority of Australians that want Australia to be a safe place for our children’s vulnerable minds. It’s time for an act of parliament designed specifically to protect children and their mentors from the cult messaging especially in traditional protective places, homes, schools, toilets, scout/guide halls and activity clubs.

    Jo, this is important I’ve tried to keep within 18C by focussing on the actual problems and radical elements of the fringe activism inflicted on our children, please release from moderation.

    181

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    ‘the alleged law breakers don’t have to prove there is a climate emergency, they just have to prove that a reasonable person would think there is.’

    The Reasonable Person, is a long established legal fiction (fiction as it is not a real person like me, even though I’m entirely reasonable) it is used in all areas of law, including civil and commercial.

    So dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, exacerbating global warming is a statement that a ‘Reasonable Person’ could accept.

    Saying that man has no influence on climate, not so much

    120

    • #
      el gordo

      Objection.

      The use of the words ‘dumping’ and ‘exacerbating’ should be stricken from the record because they are emotive lies.

      190

      • #

        The use of the words ‘dumping’ …..

        Oh, look I dunno!

        If Peter Fitzroy breathes out CO2 every time he opens his mouth, I guess that means that every time he opens his mouth, ….. he’s umm, taking a dump!

        Tony.

        250

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          But I don’t make a profit from that reaction do I?

          110

          • #
            AndyG55

            “But I don’t make a profit from that reaction do I?”

            You most certainly.

            You are alive, aren’t you.

            And you are using the energy released by the exothermic reaction to run you computer and everything else in your basement residence.

            Your whole building was built using that energy or fossil fuel energy in one form or another.

            You are NOTHING…

            but a HYPOCRITICAL RELIGIOUS ZEALOT.

            90

          • #
            tom0mason

            Peter Fitroy,

            “But I don’t make a profit from that reaction do I?”

            Indeed you don’t, in fact you are a large deficit to the improvement of the human condition. With each comment you write, readers who take you seriously, loose cognitive ability, you are lowering the aggregated IQ of the readership here. No one profits from your anti-science sophistry. You are the sinkhole shadow of a black-hole in a universe of intelligent potential that tries to find truth. You are the very model of a PHd in cerebral regression.
            May you live long and help others see well that your way is not the correct path but is the one of many anomalous methods of thinking for the human condition — blindly accepting, incurious, and unskeptical. Your only comfort is knowing is that on this planet you are not alone, the virus of illogical notions and fancy towards science infect many.

            50

      • #
        • #
          AndyG55

          neither “dumping” or “exacerbating” are appropriate words

          They are the irrational words of a religious zealot

          first one should be “releasing” or “providing”

          second one is unproven scientific nonsense.

          But hey, that is all we expect from you nowadays

          You have NOTHING else to offer.

          70

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘how?’

          In all future discussions leave out emotive language and concentrate on law and science.

          70

    • #
      robert rosicka

      If the reasonable person was given enough information about CO2 a reasonable person would conclude that globull warming induced by CO2 is nothing more than a hoax .

      140

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        A hoax and a chimera –

        Chimera (Greek mythology) a fire-breathing female monster with a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and a serpent’s tail ✓

        A thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve ✓

        Well, that’s settled science if ever I heard it!

        40

    • #
      AndyG55

      “So dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, exacerbating global warming ”
      PROVEN LIES again from PF

      We are not “dumping” we are RELEASING into a system which is very much at the lower levels of what is needed

      There is NO EVIDENCE that this highly beneficial extra CO2 has any warming effect whatsoever.

      You are NOT what anyone could call , “A reasonable person”

      You are a rabid, brain-washed, anti-science, religious zealot.

      130

      • #
        el gordo

        …. and renewable paid troll.

        100

      • #
        • #
          el gordo

          You and Chad seem to be of the impression that CO2 can be observed, do not be afraid, its a harmless trace gas.

          When we think of climate emergencies it should relate to something tangible like sea level rise. As climate change is non linear I draw your attention to Meltwater Pulse 1A and the AD 1300 Event as exhibits A and B.

          70

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            at what concentration, the levels in the Permien, for example, would make you quite ill. Sorry EG but it is not harmless

            /not sorry

            111

            • #
              AndyG55

              CO2 at any levels possible in the atmosphere are TOTALLY BENEFICIAL

              There is NO down side in increasing atmospheric CO2 even 5 fold from current levels

              You totally RELY on CO2 for your everyday existence. PF

              Get over it. !!

              140

            • #
              AndyG55

              “would make you quite ill”

              Total RUBBISH as usual

              The human body easily acclimatises to higher CO2 levels.

              Submariners have no problems with levels around 4000 ppm and higher.

              Even in your bedroom it can reach 2000+ppm , yet you suffer zero problems

              (except in your case, where severe brain damage seems evident. But that is a different effect, psycho-sematic..)

              120

              • #
                tom0mason

                Yes indeed AndyG55,

                In 2018 a study (Rodeheffer et al., 2018) measuring the cognitive and decision-making performances of submariners exposed to elevated CO2 undermined the attempts to portray CO2 as a brain-function-impairing toxin.

                In the study, subjects were exposed to 3 CO2 conditions: 600, 2500, and 15000 ppm.

                The results indicated there were “no significant differences” in how the subjects performed for any of the CO2 exposure levels.

                60

            • #
              el gordo

              Fitz its rubbish going back that far, 18,000 years ago CO2 levels were at a low ebb and Bondi Beach was a further 20 kilometres to the east. The beachcombers living up the coast had no idea that Meltwater Pulse 1A was coming, their middens are now covered by the Tasman Sea.

              CO2 had no part to play in the initial transition.

              100

            • #
              theRealUniverse

              CO2 levels in submarines well exceeds the levels you talk about PF. It is scrubbed and it is the oxygen levels that are important to animals.

              80

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              @Peter Fitzroy

              “the levels in the Permien sic!, for example, would make you quite ill” ????????

              https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Estimated-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-during-the-Permian-shown-as-parts-per_fig5_225378751

              Note that there are considerable uncertainties in these estimates, which are based on modelling and proxy data, but they indicate a general warming, caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, throughout much of the Permian.
              Classic nonsense WE BELIEVE CO2 causes warming, THEREFORE CO2 MUST HAVE BEEN INCREASING. If you look at the (unreliable by own admission) chart shown you will see that the level in the Guardalupian was about what it is now.
              The Guardalupian was the first (and lesser) of 2 extinctions. The major End Permian was after massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia with enormous releases of gases like sulphur dioxide, sulphur trioxide, hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride, which a lot of people think are harmful.
              The source of the CO2 is supposed to be from coal fields set alight by molten lava. As there hadn’t been enough time to form coal beds and there is some doubt too about the ability of coal to burn under 2 kilometres of molten (oxygen excluding) rock, you would appear to have achieved a state of novana (transcendental gullibility).

              90

        • #
          AndyG55

          No evidence of any warming in that paper.

          Just this mythical “forcing” within the system, NOT from outside the system

          Its just another energy transfer mechanism.

          Also, they just “happened” to start their data at a La Nina and end at the peak of an El Nino.

          Also, the change they tortured from their data, using models, then modelling the “forcing” using models and neglecting convection, conduction air pressure movements etc etc etc (took them 5 years) is minuscule compared to the everyday changes in cloud and solar forcing

          130

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Thanks Hal

          26

          • #
            AndyG55

            Proven irrelevant MANY times, like all your links are, PF.

            There is NO WARMING LINK mentioned in the paper.

            Just a link to some mythical modelled “forcing”

            If you could read and comprehend the paper, you would know that.

            But you can’t comprehend it, can you.

            It actually COOLED by 4C at the Alaskan site over that period.

            120

        • #
          theRealUniverse

          That is a wrong model and incorrect misleading (deliberately). phys.org is PRO climate change agenda, for some unknown reason. Also it is very establishment in science. The CO2 effect is incorrect. That is it. Cray all you want.

          60

        • #
          tom0mason

          See my comments below at http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/the-unseen-danger-of-declaring-fake-climate-emergencies/#comment-2196597

          And note that the study you link to shows that CO2 HAVE A NEGLIGIBLE EFFECT ON WARMING THE ATMOSPHERE

          40

    • #
      Ross

      Peter

      Lets put some perspective into this “dumping” :

      In 2010 they said human activity was putting 90 giga tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
      The oceans were releasing 90-100 giga tonnes
      Rotting vegetation etc. 50-60 giga tonnes.

      So the human activity contribution is within the margin of error of the other two.

      60

      • #
        AndyG55

        And the beneficial natural warming will have warmed up cold areas thus releasing lots more CO2

        They can’t have it both ways

        They can’t say man is contributing ALL of the extra CO2, then go hysterical about releases of methane and CO2 from thawing areas and warmer oceans..

        Its just DUMB

        60

      • #
        Ross

        ooops typo. It should 9 giga tonnes for human activity

        10

    • #
      Hal

      Im a reasonable person too Peter and:
      The denial of climate history
      The denial of the scientific method
      The denial of access to data
      The denial of access to method
      The destruction of raw data
      The denial of a platform
      The failed predictions
      The lies, half truths and obfuscation
      The name calling
      The hysteria
      The politicization of children
      and much more have led me to a different conclusion.

      160

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      So the oxidation of coal is done by stealing from the atmosphere 2/3rds of the rubbish* generated, and industry gets that for free. They then dump the oxidized rubbish into the atmosphere, while using the exothermic results of that oxidation to make a profit.

      It is stealing from the commons, as any reasonable person would attest
      It is dumping into the commons the waste product of the oxidation, as any reasonable person would attest.
      The reason it is dumping is simple, there is no payment and there is no attempt to manage the pollution caused by such disposal, leaving it for others to clean it up eventually.

      Use all the ephermisms you want but it fits the definition so that is what it is.

      * only considering the big C atom here (there is much more rubbish and pollution generated, but this will suffice for this example)

      113

      • #
        AndyG55

        Nature gets all that released CO2 FOR FREE , PF.

        Even YOU use it.. You should be PAYING the coal companies.

        Again, you are proving to be a TOTALLY IRRATIONAL RELIGIOUS ZEALOT and are not basing your blathering on anything even slightly related to REALITY.

        90

      • #
        AndyG55

        Poor little PF shows his ABJECT IGNORANCE of the carbon cycle.

        You are STEALING OXYGEN, PF. !!

        And wasting it.

        90

      • #
        AndyG55

        “leaving it for others to clean it up eventually.”

        Yep, cleaning up the TRASH left by the solar and wind industries when they run out of other people’s money for maintenance , is going to be highly expensive.. almost certainly to the taxpayers.

        110

      • #
        AndyG55

        “dumping into the commons the waste product of the oxidation”

        I insist you live by your words, and STOP “dumping” CO2 into the atmosphere, PF

        Or label yourself as a self-centred HYPOCRITICAL religious zealot.. !!

        80

      • #
        sophocles

        Peter:
        You forgot to measure how much of that “rubbish” disappears into food for you and others like you.
        Plants sequester CO2 – they use it to grow. Do away with it and YOU go hungry.
        About 80% + of your daily food was made from CO2.

        All the bread you eat: used to be CO2
        All the green vegetables you eat: used to be CO2
        All the meat you eat used to be CO2 further up the chain.

        Any reasonable person would say: sew your mouth up and stop eating.

        100

        • #
          sophocles

          80% is a very conservative estimate. Salt does not come from CO2, nor water. Both are necessary to live.

          80

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Are you trying to suggest that without coal oxidation there would be no CO2? what a strange point of view. OR are you happy for a company to take O2 from the commons, use it to make a profit, dump its waste back into the commons, based on the excuse that this is what carbon based life does? equally strange.

          Reasonably there is a difference between a company stealing and dumping to make a profit, and life, which regards carbon as an essential nutrient. To conflate the 2 is the strangest of them all.

          017

          • #
            AndyG55

            Not waste dumping

            You have a really stupid idea of how nature works

            Every single molecule of that CO2 is used by nature

            Why do you want to STARVE the very thing that keeps you alive.. WOW. !!

            Bizarrely irrational cognitive non-functionality from PF.

            100

          • #
            AndyG55

            Poor PF he cannot bring himself to ADMIT that he receives the greatest profit of all from that CO2

            Seems he thinks his LIFE is worth nothing

            Many others probably agree.

            110

          • #
            Lance

            Are you trying to suggest that the millions of tons of ore needed to provide the steel, concrete, rare earths, transmission line extensions, composite blades, solar panels, etc, don’t occur without massive amounts of petroleum Carbon fuels?

            Seems to be a dishonest bit of propaganda, eh Peter?

            Reasonably, there is a difference in claiming a moral high ground and achieving it.

            You seem to ignore and excuse the Carbon involved in your supposed solutions, quite easily. Almost as if someone is paying you to do it, as the linkage is quite obvious to a Reasonable Person.

            As well, you avoid including the Carbon that backs up your solutions when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. Tell us how that works.

            Pretty disgusting when the Solutions simply Aren’t, even according to your own Agenda.

            110

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              No Lance, I’m saying that it is reasonable to conclude that if you dump CO2, a known greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, it will have an effect on climate.

              116

              • #
                Lance

                So, then, the CO2 expended to mine, process, and manufacture, all of the solar and wind products that cannot sustain a grid without nuclear, hydro, or gas/coal backup, is insignificant?

                Your challenge to modernity is either foolish, ignorant, or ideological, because you can’t sustain modernity without them.

                So your actual ideology is a reversion to the Black Death, biotic agony, no modernity of any kind.

                I get that. Modern power, ancient power, or no power at all.

                Please explain your position.

                90

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘ … if you dump CO2, a known greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, it will have an effect on climate.’

                Your fixation with a benign trace gas is misguided, serious climate change is happening now and it has nothing to do with CO2.

                The collapse of the subtropical ridge and blocking highs are a symptom of global cooling, show me your global warming signals?

                100

              • #
                AndyG55

                “it will have an effect on climate”

                And yet you can provide ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of this

                Nor can you even say what has actually changed

                So NO EFFECT, NO CHANGE…..

                You really are in a total fantasy la-la-land, aren’t you, zealot.

                60

              • #
                Lance

                So What?

                Having an Effect and having a Controlling Effect are entirely different.

                From an Engineering perspective, your arguments are insufferably ignorant.

                60

              • #
                Another Ian

                “There seems to be no reason whatever to believe this except the pressure of a keen desire for it to be true”.

                Actually Bill Bryson on an element of the career of Shakespeare but seems to fit here

                50

              • #
                tom0mason

                No it is not see here</strong> why you are so very wrong

                40

              • #
                tom0mason

                No great effect as Miskolczi, 2010 shows.

                40

              • #
                Mary E

                All of your green businesses – those that make and promote alternative energy, storage, use – they do the same as any other company that “robs” the air of oxygen to dump “carbon” back into it. And they are making the same, if not better, PROFIT$$, than the oil, gas and coal industries are.

                Find another reason to flog your green socialist dreams. The curtain has been up on the profits to be made in alternate energy speculation (and as long as there are incentives, plant installations) for a long time ow.

                00

          • #
            sophocles

            Coal was made from CO2. The dead trees which make up coal were once CO2.
            Of course I don’t mind coal being burnt: I benefit from the electricity it’s used to make.
            The plants benefit from the CO2 returned to the atmosphere.
            I benefit again from the benefiting plants forming my food.

            O2 is put back into the atmosphere by plants photosynthesizing CO2. Most of the O2 comes back from the plankton in the oceans. O2 is not used up.

            It’s sequestering CO2 which steals O2 from the Commons. Leaving coal in the ground is one way.

            Modern coal plants and any run according to western regulations all have precipitators fitted to their smoke stacks to suppress the other pollution. You can worry if you want to but do it quietly and keep your whimpers to yourself.

            All those companies you are railling against are just using energy (sent to us from the Sun) to work on parts of the planet’s photo-chemical cycles. They might make a profit but but they pay taxes for that profit. Those “stealing” sunlight and wind aren’t paying adequate taxes.

            Really Peter: you don’t think and end up spouting a lot of crap.

            90

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Before the formation of all the coal, CO2 in the atmosphere was at toxic levels for mammals. Is that what you want to return to? O2 on the other had has not changed in atmospheric concentrations since the first large flowering of photosynthetic life, buffered by the seas as it is.
              If you believe that those anti-pollution measures are 100% effective 100% of the time, look at the levels of mercury in the LaTrobe as an example.

              Lastly if you are making a profit stealing from and dumping into the commons, should not the shareholders of that commons (you and me) get a portion of those profits? It is our atmosphere after all. As an example, coal mines pay royalties.

              113

              • #
                Lance

                Before the formation of Logic and Scientific Methods, Saint Peter Fits Roy was an ordinary person, but in his mind, he was on the road to Sanctimonious Priesthood.

                He believed that he ought to say whatever he was paid to say or in other words, Agenda Supercedes Honour, Truth, Fact, or Reality.

                He believed that an unreliable, intermittent, taxpayer and ratepayer subsidised, form of power generation could be sold to the rubes and idiots if only enough propaganda could be deployed.

                For a time he was correct.

                Magically, the Populace realized that they were being conned. Higher prices, fewer choices, less liberty, chastisement for complaints, etc, ensued.

                Peter tried to sell the idea that previously stable power, prosperity, job security and national security were simply stupid things that He ought Rule over for the benefit of the stupid people who actually built the World.

                If Peter actually believed that his fantasy of Renewable Energy was realistic, 100% of the time, 100% effective, 100% economical, 100% sustainable, 100% capable, of maintaining modern life, he is somehow unable to explain that.

                Lastly, Peter denies his own role in making things worse. Peter denies the Carbon Cost of each and every aspect of his Solutions so that he can make a profit by selling unsustainable, unreliable, power or by being paid to propagandize said illusions, or because of an irrational belief in a fantasy of his own choice.

                It is up to “Reasonable People” to evaluate the Sizzle or the Steak. What sustains your life? Unicorn Farts, Moonbeams, and Fanatics, or Reliable, Proven, Time Tested, Affordable, Convenient, Predictable, Power.

                Thus ends the lesson.

                110

              • #
                AndyG55

                “It is our atmosphere after all”

                And we should be PAYING the coal-fired power stations for providing much needed CO2 FOR FREE.

                You just TAKE, TAKE, TAKE, of the benefits of that CO2, don’t you PF.

                And in return you give your incredibly idiotic HATRED for the very gas that sustains you and all other life on Earth

                Massive cognitive non-functionality , PF

                Find the switch that turns your brain on, if you can.

                100

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Lance, the cognitive dissonance displayed in this post is almost up to 11. I’m saying that if you add a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, then the temperature of that atmosphere will rise. Are you saying that is unreasonable?

                18

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Question for Patricia – kg for kg, what impact does water vapour have on heat storage in the atmosphere vs CO2?

                90

              • #
                AndyG55

                “the cognitive dissonance displayed in this post is almost up to 11″

                Yep you sure have taken your cognitive dissonance right off the scale, PF

                Basically in every post you now make.

                Hyper-alarmist, hyper-ventilating, hyper-STUPID

                So hilarious.

                That’s what you want isn’t it, to try to emulate Queen Greta !!

                ” I’m saying that if you add a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, then the temperature of that atmosphere will rise”

                Yet you cannot produce one bit of empirical evidence that is the case.

                Your words are MEANINGLESS GARBAGE because they cannot be backed by any actual REALITY

                They represent the deepest, most idiotic scientific fantasy..

                80

              • #
                sophocles

                There weren’t any mammals that long ago Peter. You hadn’t been invented then, thank all the Gods.
                Most of that CO2 is now in the world’s resources of limestone: adorning Washington DC and many other capital cities around the world. Limestone is that white rock which was used to build all those government buildings from the White House to the Jefferson Monument. Besides, it was only 4500 ppm which most animal lifeforms were well able to tolerate.

                For CO2 to become toxic to the planet’s animal lifeforms and in particular to the homo sapiens sapiens varieties which range from homo sapiens incredibly stupidus upwards, it has to be at about 65,000 ppm. So far, it has only struggled up to somewhere around 400 ppm. (If we burnt all the coal, and oil, it would only rise to about 750 ppm. Not good enough.) I cannot recall the Earth’s atmosphere ever containing that quantity/concentration at any stage since the Hadeon and especially since the start of the Phanerozoic. So where did you get that strange idea from? Just invented it, didn’t you?

                You Stupid Boy.

                O2 has changed in concentration: it peaked at about 34% near the start of the dinosaur era. If you look at the pterosaurs, the fliers, they only got as large as they did because of an oxygen “rich” atmosphere. The large insects embedded in amber were the same. It fell rapidily after the Big Rock from Space smashed down 66MYA and dropped to about a little less than it is now because of the enormous fires the impact lit in the (huge) forest. It bounced back to about 21.5% as the planet recovered from that bang. The current oxygen level is now less than 21% and has decreased by about 0.7% over the last 800.000 years. It is still decreasing for Reason/Reasons unknown.

                Didn’t look it up, did you? No-Research-Peter rides again.

                Go read my post again Peter and tell me where I said the anti-pollution measures were 100% effective 100% of the time? Go on. Tell me where! If you don’t like the high levels of Mercury in the La Trobe valley, then don’t live there. I don’t. Are you afraid you might contract Minamata Disease if you did? How many cases of Minamata Disease has that mercury caused? If the answer is zero/none/nil/not-a-sausage then that Mercury is within safe limits — it can’t be bad.

                Lastly if you are making a profit stealing from and dumping into the commons, should not the shareholders of that commons (you and me) get a portion of those profits? It is our atmosphere after all. As an example, coal mines pay royalties.

                For decades, those coal-powered power stations were owned by the people of each state. They — the people — benefited from cheap reliable electric power — until the World Bank said they should be privatised. After that, they paid taxes.

                If you didn’t fight that privatisation nor purchase shares in their new owners, then it sounds like you’re getting your just deserts.

                Dumping? Very emotive language my boy. According to the IPCC, mankind’s CO2 emissions form only 3.75% – 3.8% of the annual emissions of CO2. Nature is by far the major emitter. And your power stations are only a tiny part of that small part. No, “dumping” is not a reasonable expression.

                120

              • #
              • #
                el gordo

                ‘ … water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature.’

                Surely that can’t be right, low cloud cover has a cooling effect?

                70

              • #
                sophocles

                Peter Fitzroy @ 18.6.5.2.3
                said:

                Lance, the cognitive dissonance displayed in this post is almost up to 11. I’m saying that if you add a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, then the temperature of that atmosphere will rise. Are you saying that is unreasonable?.

                No Peter, the cognitive dissonance displayed by you in your response is over 100! I published a link in yesterday’s article which shows how and why you are totally and absolutely wrong.

                https://principia-scientific.org/outstanding-new-website-global-warming-solved/

                Read it slowly and carefully.
                Take notes.

                100

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Answer for unoriginal shirley “

                Some scientific ignoramus sprouting UNPROVEN, UNMEASURED AGW mantra.

                EMPTY still, PF

                80

              • #
                robert rosicka

                I’m still trying to get over the “before coal the air was toxic to animals” , step back from the coolaide fountain .

                60

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Puhtricia, that article was complete tosh, old chum. CO2 circulates and is created and absorbed by numerous things, its complete nonsense to say it builds up in the atmosphere.

                Chemists should stick to chemistry and stay out of atmospheric physics…sheesh….

                Mind you, your source has apparantly signed on as climate numpties, so no surprises they might prommulgate nonsense….

                70

              • #
                Bobl

                If you want to protest mercury, I’ll be right there with you, if you want to protest CO2 then I’ll be there writing a referral to the nearest funny farm.

                Clumsy strawman you built there Pete. You exhale CO2 and a number of other chemicals, harmful ones if you smoke anything, into “The commons” without charge, but perhaps you’re special?

                10

        • #
          sophocles

          Any reasonable person has to conclude your daily life is a massive benefit and a high level of profit indeed.

          110

        • #

          The anti-lifers who call themselves ‘Greens’ would ban the very things that are the basis of life, even this!
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

          80

      • #
        Lance

        Stealing from the Commons would include:

        Energy generation schemes that cause grid instability.

        Fantasy legislation about costs of unreliable power.

        Subsidies, direct and indirect, that encumber the populace for the profit of wind and solar energy scams.

        Hoaxes, foisted off upon the Commons , with cherry picked start dates, manipulated datasets, unreproducible modeling results, failed predictions of sea level rise / warming / cooling / ice loss / ice gain / economics / reliability / costs / life expectancy of equipment / denouement of taxpayers and ratepayers for no net gain.

        What boggles my mind, Peter, is how you can deny the power engineering and social responsibility of a stable grid in favour of your political agenda, yet still attempt to claim some moral high ground. Your logic is inverted and denies reality.

        100

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Lance I’m talking about CO2 and warming, and the contribution that coal has in all that. Your then misconstrue that and start talking about power itself – which is not what I’m talking about. So I’m gusiing you accept that Coal is contributing to CO2 production and therefore global warming

          09

          • #
            AndyG55

            “I’m talking about CO2 and warming”

            Which there is absolutely no evidence of in the last 40 years

            So you are talking MEANINGLESS GARBAGE as usual. !!

            70

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              It obviously has no concept of chemical reactions which involve the concept of equilibrium which requires consideration of the availability of reactants as well as temperature, pressure and other accelerating or retarding conditions.

              This is on top of the failure to consider the many sources of supply of the reactants and sinks available to remove reaction product which then may induce continuance of the reaction.

              Well done to the Climate Sciantists who have exposed detail of approximately 0.0032% of the CO2 cycle and then expect real scientists to swallow it all and pay up forever.

              Weird stuff indeed.

              KK

              60

          • #
            sophocles

            Peter:
            The contribution of Australian coal is insignificant. You’re like the drunk who has dropped his keys in the dark and is looking for them under the nearest street light.

            30

      • #
        Lance

        So your solar panel and wind turbine and battery waste would also qualify as “Dumping” according to your own definition.

        Let’s tax that waste. Let’s put a “Waste Tax” in place on all of those things so the evil renewable energy crowd have to be “made responsible” for their crimes against Gaia and Humanity.

        Yes, let’s tax the solar and wind industries for their reliance upon Congolese child slave labour. Oh the Humanity!!

        All of those fat cat, rich, slave supporting, renewable energy oligarchs must be tried and convicted for their crimes against nature and humanity. It only logically follows from your own premise.

        Have a nice day, Peter.

        110

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          I’m guessing that you now accept my statement that Coal power steals O@ and dumps CO2 at no cost, but for profit. And yes a waste tax is a very good idea, but let’s not limit it, we could follow the German lead in forcing manufacturers to recycle – it has not hurt their economy.

          111

          • #
            AndyG55

            No fool,

            It uses a combustion to USE O2 to produce electricity and RELEASE CO2

            Both these things are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for modern civilisation.

            The coal fired power stations are THE ULTIMATE IN RECYCLING.

            And they are actually INCREASING the abundance of the carbon cycle that provides for all life on Earth.

            EVERY little bit of their CO2 and electricity is USED and then the CO2 is recycled

            Heck even their coal ash has multiple uses, its all around you, PF

            Your very life exists because of CO2.

            Yet you HATE it with a vengeance.

            That is just bizarrely IDIOTIC !!!

            90

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Mammals evolved in a 300 ppm CO2 world. There has always been enough CO2 to go around.

              09

              • #
                Dave

                No evidence or link here Peter.

                “Mammals evolved in a 300 ppm CO2 world”

                60

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Mammals evolved in a 300 ppm CO2 world”

                More LIES and TOTAL BS from PF.. !!

                70

              • #
                AndyG55

                The FACTS are that…..

                the first mammals evolved toward the end of the Triassic period from a population of therapsids, the “mammal-like reptiles” that arose in the early Permian period and produced such uncannily mammal-like beasts as Thrinaxodon and Cynognathus

                Now lets look at CO2 levels around the end of the Triassic

                Oh looks like CO2 levels were around FIVE TIMES current levels, then climbed during the Jurassic to around 8 times current levels

                PF has yet again been caught in either a DELIBERATE LIE/FABRICATION, or GROSS IGNORANCE

                Which is it this time, PF ??

                90

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                It must be getting cold in Peter’s little world, Andy.

                He’s gone into hibernation to avoid responding to your evidence.

                40

              • #
                tom0mason

                Peter Fitzroy,

                “Mammals evolved in a 300 ppm CO2 world. There has always been enough CO2 to go around.”

                And your evidence is what???

                40

          • #
            sophocles

            it’s not a theft. the O2 is returned to the atmosphere later after a plant has photosynthesized the CO2.

            100

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              But do we really need plants.
              I’m sure that the warmers would be able to survive without plants cos they have syence on their side.

              60

            • #
              tom0mason

              sophocles,

              And oxygen is a large part of the atmosphere, even if we burn all the fuels we have NOW the O2 level would barely flinch.

              50

              • #
                sophocles

                Very true, Tom. Thank you for the reminder.

                Peter Fitzroy, the green with a brain the size of a galactic dust particle trying to imitate/emulate Greta-esque faux outrage at anyone making a profit (after tax) by “dumping CO2″ into his Commons. He’s trying to rage about CO2 emitted by coal-burning power stations which is about, say, 12-13% (and that’s probably a way overgenerous estimate) of Australia’s 1% contribution to mankind’s 3.8% annual contribution (I’m rounding up to be generous) to global CO2 emissions. A back of the envelope calculation here (no calculators, abaci, or computers were over taxed or otherwise strained by it!) makes the contribution at most about 0.00004% of the planet’s annual CO2 emissions. It has an atmospheric half life of c. 4-7 years. “Dumping” 0.00004%. Definitely not worth even considering.

                Peter: you aren’t a 16Yr old Vegan schoolgirl who doesn’t go to school any more. You’re an aging d*pst*ck with no decent science education who doesn’t go to school any more and hasn’t for some decades, trying to imitate a 16yr old adolescent girl.

                Your gross ignorance makes you and your attempt a laughing stock, sad to say.

                50

          • #
            Bobl

            No because CO2 is not waste and doesn’t cause any detrimental problems except in your mind. Again if you want to protest mercury, have at it, but protesting CO2 is akin to protesting the number 1 greenhouse gas – Water. At the same time the irrational hysteria of people like yourself is causing huge mental health issues among our children and you need to stop it and get some perspective on what is a truly a bit issue.

            10

    • #
      Latus Dextro

      It is clear that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is theoretical, tenuous and temporally distant. Further, the constellation of complex feedbacks are very far from being fully described. “Settled politics” definitively, “settled science” – no chance and an ignorant oxymoron at best.
      Any ‘reasonable’ exploration of the scientific literature, unadjusted historical weather record, examination of the historical temperature data, will reveal the absence of a causal link, aside from the malfeasance of adjustment and manipulation. The global warming hypothesis failed in 1998 when the eighteen year unpredicted pause began. Just consider that. Climate models established with “settled science” should at the very least be able to forecast solid predictions and hindcast accurately. As you know, they did not and cannot. Ipso facto, no settled science of causal relationship.

      As for unfalsifiable “climate change” and any indirect and direct anthropogenic influence upon atmospheric composition (and land usage), this UNFCCC definition is a political statement that makes it nonsensically explicit that expunging humanity from the face of Gaia is the only way to zero sum “climate change.” As this is unlikely, it therefore provides justification in perpetuity for totalitarian intervention. There are ample examples of local “climate change” – UHI, large bodies of water, dams, cities and so on, global climate change, to borrow your words, “not so much.”

      And finally, with regard to “emergency” … been there, done that before. The date: Feb. 28, 1933 and the signing of the Reichstag Fire Decree, that allowed the a similar bunch of fanatical Left wing socialist fascists to escalate their atrocities against all manner of minorities under the guise of a ‘National emergency’.

      As most appear willingly and culpably ignorant of history, one could argue that we are therefore doomed to repeat it. A tragedy indeed, but perhaps the only way by which the sane and rational will face and rid the World of the insane and irrational, just as once, the UN replaced the League of Nations, so the same fate awaits them.

      The murderous and failed 1848 experiment of Marx and Engels drags on in its various guises, once again engaged in the repetition of its societal and individual destruction. It begs permanent consignment to the dust bin of history and should be expunged from political, social and educational discourse.

      80

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        It is clear that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is theoretical – from Hal up thread – https://m.phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html

        as to the rest of you comment – I’m saying that it is reasonable to conclude that if you dump CO2, a known greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, it will have an effect on climate.

        012

        • #
          TdeF

          Sure, but only if it stays there. And it doesn’t. That’s fact. Further the increase is perfectly natural due to warming oceans. Henry’s law. That should be self evident from the fact that the oceans are warming, CO2 is going up and temperatures are not.

          90

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Sorry TdeF, but although there is gas exchange between the Atmosphere and the Oceans, that was what maintained the approx 300 ppm figure. The oceans can not, for no reason suddenly pump CO2 into the atmosphere. And if you look at the link that Hal provided you would see that the scientists are certain about the origin of the extra CO2

            011

            • #
              TdeF

              “The oceans can not, for no reason suddenly pump CO2 into the atmosphere”

              Correct but warm a beer, champagne, lemonade and the CO2 comes out. You know this without scientists telling you.

              Henry’s law says that gases leave a liquid if you warm the surface. It is used to predict the amount of gas above and below the surface and this is a water planet and by far the most soluble gas on the planet is CO2.

              Climate Scientists will tell you that if you warm the ocean, CO2 goes in, but they are not real scientists. Flannery and Gore could not pass a science exam in a fit. That’s why they have degrees in English.

              70

              • #
                TdeF

                Also every scientists will agree as established fact that 98% of all CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. Without asking a Climate Scientists, what do you think a tiny amount of warming would do?

                70

            • #
              TdeF

              As for the link, it is not whether CO2 produces warming which is the point of your link, the critical point is whether mankind is responsible for the increase in CO2. A lot of scientists miss this point and concede without question or proof that the CO2 increase is man made.

              Also as I have written many times, you have a simple test to distinguish between ancient fossil fuel CO2 and recent CO2. The radioactive C14 marker proves conclusively that the total man made CO2 is around 2%, certainly under 5%. And it vanishes quickly into the vast reservoir of CO2 which is in the deep ocean. So the increase in CO2 is natural and due to warming.

              Warming is not due to CO2. With only pub science, CO2 is due to (ocean surface) warming. Occam’s razor.

              70

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                How did we go from 300 to 400 PPM only in the last 100 years? as to C14 – this link refutes your claim https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c14tellsus.html

                27

              • #
                sophocles

                How did we go from 300 to 400 PPM only in the last 100 years?

                Look at the sun. Through solar activity.

                90

              • #
                el gordo

                Don’t know, probably human beings had something to do with.

                You might find this interesting, high resolution ice core from WAIS is better than Law Dome.

                https://nsidc.org/data/agdc/summary-results-wais-divide-ice-core-project

                50

              • #
                TdeF

                Thanks. Now that is plain deceit. I find it unbelievable that NOAA would publish this! If there were science police, I would call them.

                Yes, C14 doubled in 1965 with the atom bomb blasts. Mainly 1965. It has been heading back quickly to the old C14 level very quickly, proving the BERN diagram is completely wrong. Proving that the IPCC conjecture that the deep ocean was not involved is wrong.

                So they have shown you a tiny snap shot of it coming down, inferring that this is due to fossil fuel.
                What is means is that fossil fuel CO2 is vanishing very quickly, the complete opposite of what is being said.

                You can see prior to 1965, the level was 98. It had been almost constant for 20,000 years. This is reference 100 on the Y axis.

                98% means 2% C14 free fossil fuel.

                I will study this article and write to NOAA. It is the most outrageous article I have read in years and by picking
                just a few recent years, the deceit is intentional. Fr*ud. I have seen many presentations where proponents of Man Made Global Warming have picked the starting point,
                but this is a record low in science.

                100

              • #
                el gordo

                Do you agree that the world emerged from the LGM because of volcanic activity in West Antarctica?

                ‘The water stable isotope record shows distinct differences from records in central East Antarctica cores. In particular, the West Antarctic isotopic warming began ~2 ka prior to the East Antarctic warming at ~18 ka, indicating an influence of orbital forcing (WAIS Divide Project Members 2013).’

                50

              • #
                AndyG55

                “300 to 400 PPM only in the last 100 years”

                We have been VERY LUCKY to have lived through a warming period after the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

                This has been the strongest time for human development in the whole of history.

                Thanks goodness for the warming and

                THANK GOODNESS for the extra CO2.

                The whole world is BENEFITTING GREAT from this fortunate combination.

                60

              • #
                TdeF

                “The steady downward trend in Δ14C of background air shows that the additional carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere must have a lower Δ14C value than what is already in the atmosphere.”

                No, the C14 is vanishing rapidly and the logic here is faulty. The amount of C14 free CO2 added each year is tiny. For this rapid fall, the pulse from 1965 is still vanishing.

                As the half life is 5400 years, that doesn’t explain it. It is vanishing from the entire biosphere. There is only one place. The deep oceans.

                60

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Plain old chemistry is a mystery to the resident blog flogger, sorry if some might associate that with consterpation.

              http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/the-unseen-danger-of-declaring-fake-climate-emergencies/#comment-2196522

              KK

              50

        • #
          AndyG55

          “It is clear that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is theoretical”

          Yet it has NEVER been observed or measured in any part of the atmosphere

          Seems the theory is incomplete or erroneous, doesn’t it, PF !!

          80

        • #
          AndyG55

          “it is reasonable to conclude “

          NO it is a LOGICAL FALLACY to conclude that, until you have some actual evidence.

          AND YOU DON’T !!

          It remains barely as a hypothesis… more like “maybe, if you imagine”

          70

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Peter Fitzroy:

          And what is your definition of a Greenhouse gas?

          A greenhouse gas causes warming
          CO2 is a greenhouse gas
          Therefore CO2 causes warming.
          Circular reasoning.

          Does CO2 absorb some IR radiation, yes it does.
          Does it trap that heat, NO, check out John Tyndall’s work (HINT he proved that it radiated it very quickly). Also explain why extra CO2 at the Tropopause doesn’t increase radiation to space.
          Would increasing CO2 cause some warming, YES.
          From the Ideal Gas Law we can expect about 0.07℃ at 820 p.p.m.
          Does this justify hysterical screams of impending doom from a minority political group? NO.
          I suggest you calm down and start thinking logically (if you can). If that fails at least check you “facts” before posting. Permien OMG!

          By the way, your claim that burning coal uses up oxygen is laughably stupid. Firstly, a rise of 0.013% of CO2 means a loss of 0.009% of around 21.5% of oxygen. Secondly, as others have pointed out this isn’t permanent and plant life recycles a lot of the oxygen.

          60

          • #
            AndyG55

            “is laughably stupid”

            That description defines PF to a tee !!

            He is a great source of laughter in this household, I can tell you :-)

            Thanks, PF !!

            Great slap-stick comedy.. but where do you get the energy to keep going ?

            Not from CARBON BASED food, I hope.

            That would be HYPOCRITICAL.

            60

        • #
          tom0mason

          No Peter Fitzroy and Hal,

          As has been said many times about this study …
          This study show that CO2 HAVE A NEGLIGIBLE EFFECT ON WARMING THE ATMOSPHERE

          “Over the decade the authors examined (2000 to 2010), the average level of the gas (CO2) in the atmosphere went up by 22 parts-per-million. And the time series shows a steadily rising trend in its impact, layered on top of the seasonal changes. By the end of that period, the gas was retaining an extra 0.2 Watts for every square meter of the Earth’s surface compared to the start.

          Still, it seems worth noting that the continued increase in greenhouse energy retention measured during this time coincides with a period where the Earth’s surface temperatures did not change dramatically. All that energy must have been going somewhere. [i.e. to space] ”

          Their earlier graph plots DID NOT show CO2 levels against temperature but CO2 levels against theoretically derived (modeled) construct called forcing (which were later converted to anything they wanted).

          The authors started in the 2000 La Nina, and ended at the 2010 El Nino – when troposphere temperatures were half a degree warmer. Then they noticed that there was slightly more downwelling long wave radiation [DWLR], which they blamed on increased absorption from the increase in CO2.

          NOTE 1: Alaska over the study period, the average temperature actually FELL by four degrees. So rising CO2 must cause cooling?

          NOTE 2:The authors admit in the abstract below that the CO2 contribution to the alleged overall trend of downwelling longwave radiation is a mere 10% of the total. So what caused the other 90%?

          From the abstract …

          …The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation 5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

          See https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/new-result-shows-co2-has-almost-no-effect-on-temperature/

          Finally earlier studies that covered all sky conditions (not just cherry picked ‘clear sky’), there is Dong, Xi, Minnis 2006, under “ALL sky” conditions, that found the reverse.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7284311bd39f1b54da5654cf20551919fa9f4c3e7880870c2c03fc6d223dac9.jpg

          ”Similar to the clear-sky study, we also provide the all-sky upwelling SW and LW fluxes to study the surface radiation budget under all-sky conditions. The rates of net SW and LW fluxes are −0.07 W/m^2 [per year] and −0.37 W/m^2 [per year], respectively, resulting in a decrease of 0.44 W/m^2 per year in NET flux at the surface (Figure 3b). The decline of NET flux, however, does not correlate with the increased surface air temperature as illustrated in Figure 3a. The surface air temperature is determined by the sum of NET radiation fluxes (downwelling and upwelling SW and LW fluxes) and nonradiative fluxes (sensible and latent heat fluxes, ground heat flux and energy flux used for melt), as well as the large-scale advection [Wild et al., 2004]. Wild et al. [2004] investigated this counterintuitive result and concluded that it may be due to a decrease of surface evaporation and associated reduced evaporative surface cooling.”

          ”… using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates that an annual increase of 0.04°C air temperature each year corresponds to an increase of 0.4 W/m^2 per year in upward LW upward surface emission. However, the measured change is a decrease of 0.26 W/m^2 per year as shown in Figure 2e.”

          Dong, Xiquan, Baike Xi, and Patrick Minnis 2006. “Observational evidence of changes in water vapor, clouds, and radiation at the ARM SGP site.” Geophysical Research Letters
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027132/full

          40

        • #
          Bobl

          It is not reasonable to apply a theory that applies only to a small, uncoupled, closed, linear, non chaotic system in an experiment (IE a test tube) and expect that will operate in a massive, coupled, open , non-linear, chaotic system and expect the same results. So, no it is not scientifically reasonable to say that. There is also no evidence for it.

          30

    • #
      Lance

      So, Peter:

      If crimes increase as the immigrant population increases, and a Reasonable Person observes such a correlation, then it would logically follow that restrictions on immigration would be defensible. Increased police powers to stem the rising tide of immigrant correlated crime would also be defensible, as would limits on immigration.

      The same might be said for crime associated with “recreational drug use” or Antifa based anarchist violence.

      Similarly, a Reasonable Person could make the case that People kill People, not inanimate firearms.

      Another extension would be National Debt and the relationship of that to Social Welfare programs.

      Golly, one might even go so far as to ask a Reasonable Person if their electricity rates, grid reliability, jobs, and general prosperity are somehow related to Wind and Solar power.

      There’s simply no end to how that “Reasonable Person” argument might go within the Court system.

      It cuts both ways. Eh?

      90

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        sure it does, which is the basis of most legal arguments.

        18

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Yeah but science has a high level of repeatibility and therefore proof is self evident.

          The whole CAGW argument is, based on observed activities of CAGW believers, effectively shouting down anyone who dares disagree, or appeal to authority – and said “authority” is based on science that hasn’t been proven.

          If someone walked into a bank and asked for a loan, they would ask for business plan, documentation etc.

          However in the bank of CAGW, money is sprayed around with zero assessment of risk or verified documentation.

          Or worse, you get some grumpy, self indulged muppet/sock puppet emotive teenager yell at people in positions of actual responsibility and call them idiots.

          By any stretch of imagination, no wonder people laugh at the CAGW crowd – they are manipulative fools.

          60

        • #
          tom0mason

          Peter Fitzroy,

          You are again misreading what the paper shows.
          It is an exerciser in computer modeling ‘forcing’ and it fails to show that there is any significant warming due to CO2 being in the atmosphere.

          40

    • #
      Travis T. Jones

      ‘Listen to the scientists’: Greta Thunberg urges Congress to take action -
      “Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who has ignited a global youth climate movement, said at a congressional hearing that she had no prepared remarks other than to submit the landmark IPCC report, published last year, that warned of the rapidly approaching catastrophe of global heating.”
      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/18/greta-thunberg-testimony-congress-climate-change-action
      Wait. What?
      I’m listening!

      Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

      “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

      https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

      Back to skool for Ms. Greta.

      80

    • #
      Lance

      If you REALLY believed what you are selling, you’d strictly attend a carbon free diet.

      Say NH3 and HNO3. No Carbon. You’re a Saint in your own mind.

      80

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Saying that man has no influence on climate, not so much”

      So, come on PF, In what scientifically proven way has man influenced the global climate in the last 40 years

      YOU make dumb idiotic statements that you don’t have the guts to back up with anything except ducking and weaving in manic avoidance and COWARDICE

      70

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      ‘they just have to prove that a reasonable person would think there is.’’ PF………………NO logical person with a brain larger than that of a urchin should think there is a ‘climate emergency’ of any sort.

      70

    • #
      tom0mason

      Peter Fitzroy,

      Dump all the sophistry you like but Scafetta et al., 2017 are reasonable people and have shown that the long and medium term changes in global temperatures are at behest of solar effects, …

      A millennial climatic oscillation would suggest that a significant percentage of the warming observed since 1850 could simply be a recovery from the Little Ice Age of the 14th – 18th centuries and that throughout the 20th century the climate naturally returned to a warm phase as it happened during the Roman and the Medieval warm periods.We critically analyze the year 2015-2016, which has been famed as the hottest year on record. We show that this anomaly is simply due to a strong El-Niño event that has induced a sudden increase of the global surface temperature by 0.6 °C. This event is unrelated to anthropogenic emissions. … Herein, the authors have studied the post 2000 standstill global temperature records. It has been shown that once the ENSO signature is removed from the data, the serious divergence between the observations and the CMIP5 GCM projections becomes evident. … Since 2000 there has been a systematic tendency to find lower climate sensitivity values. The most recent studies suggest a transient climate response (TCR) of about 1.0 °C, an ECS less than 2.0 °C and an effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) in the neighborhood of 1.0 °C. …Thus, all evidences suggest that the IPCC GCMs at least increase twofold or even triple the real anthropogenic warming. The GHG theory might even require a deep re-examination.

      50

  • #
    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      So the paper was not retracted when the UN drafted its report, and therefore it was completely rational to include it.

      112

      • #
        AndyG55

        RETRACTED now though.

        PROVEN to be wrong.

        So sad that PF STILL regards RETRACTED papers as science.. WOW !!

        90

      • #
        Latus Dextro

        As we — and others — have reported, almost immediately after publication of the paper Nic Lewis blogged about his concerns with the analysis, concerns that eventually prompted the retraction.

        It surely cannot have been lost on you that Nic Lewis threw the stats into question almost directly after publication. Any self-respecting scientific organisation would know that and would avoid citing the article until the question had been resolved, particularly if their argument relied in large part upon it.
        However, as we both know, the IPCC is not a scientific body and the small climatism cabal that hold it in their vicious grip, one that has been well described elsewhere by genuine scientists and climate researchers, merely continues to peddle the ideological Green Trojan horse required to advance the UN 2030 objectives.

        100

      • #
        robert rosicka

        They knew before they came up with the latest report that there was an error in that paper but went ahead with the latest gloom and doom fable anyway .
        Not seeing any retraction from them or the MsM and don’t expect to , do expect to hear more about dangerous sea level rise and melting ice and the sky is falling hypothesis.

        70

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Latus and robert: Rubbish – how could they know? In any respect how is that statement reasonable?

          17

          • #
            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              I’m talking about dates.

              07

              • #
                el gordo

                You’re splitting hairs, take the time to read the comments at Climate Etc, the heavyweights are battling it out.

                The aim of the game is to be informed, not opinionated.

                50

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Have it your way, but that is not how the process works, blog posts are not counted

                06

              • #
                AndyG55

                Once retracted, the paper is no longer viable

                To keep citing it is totally unscientific

                Exactly what we expect from you, PF.

                40

              • #
                sophocles

                You’re right: blog posts don’t count on their own. A letter/email from two heavyweight scientists like Dr. Nic Lewis and Dr. Judith Curry pointing out an error in the paper author’s latest paper is the proper procedure, and it will have been followed.

                However, if the paper author doesn’t move quickly enough then the public blogging can light a fire under his/her/their bums. It gets results.

                70

              • #
                tom0mason

                Peter Fitzroy,
                The date is immaterial, in order for the IPCC to have any credibility, they should do due diligence to ensure what they quote is as close to the truth as possible.
                Can they not call on any number scientific experts to ensure this happens? Of course they can — they ‘own’ plenty of them! They don’t because they are only politically motivated, and so they act like a Stalin figure towards the scientist who agree (or disagree) with Trofim Lysenko.

                Basically this incident is just another example that shows the UN-IPCC is not open or accountable to a proper scientific process. They just cherry pick papers that help further their cause of establishing a new World Government along communist lines.

                I certainly understand that you, Peter Fitzroy, agree with these UN political ideas because you defend them so readily. It is the job of all who believe in individual freedom, individual responsibility, and individual rights (and not oppression by communist inspired collectives), to ensure that your flimsy arguments are cut down at the earliest opportunity, and expose the wickedness that lies at the heart of the UN’s (and your) motivations.

                90

          • #
            sophocles

            Sigh. Papers are published as pre-press on the author’s web site for other interested researchers to read it and maybe point out errors/problems. In the meantime the copy of the paper in the publisher’s hands goes through peer review and any required modifications and finally is typeset for publication in the journal it is to be published by. The journal applies its copyright and the pre-press paper is taken off the Internet.

            Obvious, really.

            70

      • #
        Lance

        So your argument is that “it was true until it wasn’t” so therefore I’m right.

        What in the world are you defending? Truth or Ideology? Its difficult to tell the difference.

        100

        • #
        • #
          Lionell Griffith

          What he is defending is that reality is not real and that truth depends upon HIS whim and only HIS whim. Further, he is defending the notion that there is an truth is an ancient superstition. Thus truth is defined by public opinion and is thereby CREATED by agreement and destroyed by disagreement. Hence ALL disagreement must be banned and all who disagree must be punished and their opinions adjusted to be more agreeable. Otherwise there is no truth.

          If the above is true, it is not clear how he can know it is true. Actually, he can’t. All he can do is assert. The assertions are nothing but verbal noise without meaning (without reference to anything real). As such, ALL of his utterances can be treated as less real than a clap of thunder.

          50

        • #
          tom0mason

          It is definitely the wicked ideology of the communist inspired UN!

          50

      • #
        Another Ian

        Completely rational to retract it now then?

        50

  • #
  • #
    Serge Wright

    When you consider that the climate is essentially unchanged and the alarmists seeking radical and violent change tend to live in cold climates that would only benefit from warming, you can’t help but think that the fake climate emergency is just a political strategy designed to give themselves free reign above the law to initiate their violence and attacks on society.

    However, if you play out this scenario of green anarchy it could only ever lead to a complete break down in law and order and you would end up living in a Mad Max type of society. Companies and businesses would need to provide their own security to defend against the green alarmists once they realise the police, government and legal system have deserted them. Even at a domestic level, people would acquire guns and weapons for personal protection if they held a non-alarmist political viewpoint.

    Of course this breakdown is unlikely to happen any time soon because the majority of people are not alarmists, but governments need to act quickly and make sure that laws are in place to deal harshly with this type of civil disobedience before it escalates into a bigger problem. If groups of protesters damaging infrastructure find themselves jailed for 25 or 30 years it sends the right message and delivers the right outcome.

    PS – A note to the green anarchists. If you watch Mad Max 2 you’ll note that the prize posession in their society is neither solar panels nor wind turbines.

    80

  • #
    el gordo

    Bad choice of words.

    ‘Recent research by the Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub found that the term “climate emergency” didn’t resonate with Australians as much as other phrases, such as climate change, global warming, extreme weather, climate crisis, and complex weather. Only 6.93% of Brisbane respondents and 4.03% of Melbourne respondents preferred “climate emergency” to the other terms.’

    The Conversation

    70

    • #
      joseph

      Since we’re in a solar minimum maybe “trans climate” would resonate.

      90

      • #
        el gordo

        Complex weather is more to my liking, because its something people can relate to.

        Unseasonal cool wet weather, followed by a couple of heatwave days, then plunged back into cool wet, is not a normal summer. Questions will be asked.

        Now that global cooling has begun we can rejoice, its a miracle.

        80

        • #
          She

          About a decade ago the British Met Office admitted that global warming stalled during 1998, later they indicated that a new Little Ice Age was likely to take place within not many years time.

          And added that once the cooling was over global warming would recommence. It reminded me of summer following winter.

          60

          • #
            el gordo

            Essentially its true, as the world slides into a mini ice age it’ll be in fits and starts, dependent on solar forcing and earthly oscillations.

            We know from the LIA exactly what we can expect, in midlatitudes the average temperature will dip a bit then along the timeline there will be occasional warm blips. Over the next 500 hundred years it becomes a slippery slope.

            50

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        Joseph,
        Since we’re in a solar minimum maybe “trans climate” would resonate.
        Let’s cut to the chase: it’s a gender-fluid emergency – run!

        50

  • #
    pat

    unbeknownst to me, Jo had this thread going re Nicole Rogers/SCU School of Law and Justice, while I’ve been collecting stuff on Aidan Ricketts/SCU School of Law and Justice.
    Ricketts was on community radio 4RPH overnight (I think it was via Fierce radio, 2NCR/River-FM Lismore!) pushing for civil disobedience on CAGW and promoting his activism course in Dec.

    presumably it was this segment which has no audio available:

    2NCR: River FM 92.9 Lismore on Fierce FM !
    4 days ago: Aidan Ricketts, School of Law and Justice at Southern Cross University and internationally recognised social change trainer, talks about the rise in specific anti-protest legislation in Australia, due to climate and animal rights protesting, and how that affects rights of minority groups like LGBTIQ+ <3
    Lismore Ngara is presenting The Erosion of the Right to Protest with Aidan Ricketts…
    http://2ncr.org.au/

    Nicole & Aidan have a connection:

    ePublications@SCU: School of Law & Justice
    Rogers, N & Ricketts, A 1999, ‘Third party rights in NSW environmental legislation: the backlash’, Environmental and Planning Law Journal, vol. 16, pp. 157 – 163.
    Peer Reviewed

    JSTOR: FEAR OF FREEDOM: ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS AND THE CHALLENGE TO AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRACY
    Nicole Rogers and Aidan Ricketts
    Singapore Journal of Legal Studies
    (July 2002), pp. 149-175

    following is virtually the same as Ricketts has planned for SCU Gold Coast Campus this year – don't know if it's been going on annually:

    Aug 2012: Aidan Ricketts: Study activism and count it towards your uni degree
    The course runs as a one week face to face intensive with Aidan Rickets this December (8-14) in Byron Bay NSW Australia.
    Ahri Tallon, 21, founder of the Northern Rivers Youth Environmental Society and co-coordinator of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition in NSW says:
    "This course is amazing! As a young person who left University to pursue activism this was a perfect program that combined the academic rigour of University with the practical and relevant knowledge and skills needed to be an effective activist. I am now employed in the campaign to stop coal export expansion in Nth Qld and am so grateful to have had such a great opportunity to prepare me. The deep and well explained content, the balance of learning styles that are catered for and the idyllic setting make this program an essential for any up and coming radical."
    https://aidanricketts.com/study-activism-and-count-it-towards-your-uni-degree/
    1999: Aidan Ricketts: Third party rights in NSW environmental legislation: the backlash
    (Authors) Nicole Rogers and Aidan Ricketts
    Environmental and Planning Law Journal, vol. 16, pp. 157 – 163.
    https://aidanricketts.com/third-party-rights-in-nsw-environmental-legislation-the-backlash/

    the event being promoted last night on 4RPH:

    Southern Cross Uni: School of Law & Justice: Summer Law School
    Public Interest Advocacy (PIA) (LAW 10160)
    Intensive dates: 3-7 December 2019
    Location: Gold Coast campus
    Explores the theory and practice of community activism and social change with an emphasis on the intersection of law with these areas of social engagement and provides students with a broad based introduction to the skills and techniques necessary to bring about useful social change in a highly corporatised and technocratic society.
    Presenter: Aidan Ricketts…

    Ecological Jurisprudence (LAW30001)
    Intensive dates: 8-11 January 2020 (TBC)
    Presenters: Dr Alessandro Pelizzon and Cormac Cullinan…ETC
    https://www.scu.edu.au/school-of-law-and-justice/courses/summer-law-school/?fbclid=IwAR0OACCt_JyNs7FvcM8eh3xQJNbRn8LfalK-zpq4YrdIzIblXzuPulNo6sY

    31

    • #
      pat

      Rogers and Ricketts listed as Speakers:

      The Future of Australian Environmental Law: Politics, Reform and Community Activism
      Australian Earth Laws Alliance
      Thursday, 20 October 2016
      Griffith EcoCentre, Brisbane
      With the removal of Australia’s carbon price in 2014 and Australian governments continuing to ignore climate science and build our economic future on the mining and consumption of fossil fuels, what hope is there to protect our natural world?…
      Confirmed speakers so far (includes)
      •Professor Matthew Rimmer, QUT Law School
      •Dr Nicole Rogers, Southern Cross University Law School
      •Aidan Ricketts, Southern Cross University Law School
      •Jo-Anne Bragg, CEO, Environmental Defenders Office Qld
      •Brendan Sydes, CEO, Environmental Justice Australia
      •Sue Higginson, CEO, Environmental Defenders Office NSW…etc
      http://www.ecoshout.org.au/event/future-australian-environmental-law-politics-reform-and-community-activism

      2 Apr: EchoNetDaily: Persons of interest – Aidan Ricketts
      In the lead up to the Adani rally and convoy on April 21, The Echo profiles some of the activists behind the effort to stop the largest coal mine on the planet being built.
      Aidan Ricketts is lecturer with the School of Law and Justice at the Southern Cross University and was a key activist in the CSG free Bentley protest movement.
      RICKETTS: I grew up in Bjelke-Petersen’s QLD, so I have experienced a rigged electoral system and an authoritarian police state from an early age…
      I had friends arrested simply trying to walk to the Clash gig at Cloudland Ballroom, (luckily I got through)…

      The Activists Handbook was released fortuitously at exactly the time that the coal and gas campaigns by Lock the Gate were taking off around the country so suddenly there were many new activists skilling up and the book hit the spot to meet their needs…

      Q: Why support the Adani convoy?
      RICKETTS: It’s a no-brainer. At this time in the late Anthropocene we are in an extinction epidemic, we are facing a dangerous climate emergency and the time for real action was a decade ago, yet our corporate dominated major political parties can’t bring themselves to stop building new coal mines. Adani isn’t the only one either, NSW is planning just as a big an expansion but over several projects. It is climate crime. Adani is however the one that really projects the madness of the coal huggers in our parliaments onto the biggest global screen possible
      Activism is always the best experience in your life and in this time in the Anthropocene, the most worthwhile thing we can do.
      https://www.echo.net.au/2019/04/persons-interest-aidan-ricketts/

      12 Mar 2018: NewMatilda: The Price Of Protest: Choosing Between Forests Or Freedom
      By Mick Daley
      A KEY scene from the 1992 occupation video shows activist/police liaison Aidan Ricketts inviting Inspector Collings into the building, to ask the two remaining Forestry staffers if they’d had been held there against their will. They answered no, confounding the Commission’s later claims in court that 20 employees had been held hostage in a violent rampage…

      Aidan Ricketts took a job teaching law and activism at Southern Cross University, Lismore…
      AIDAN Ricketts again acted as police liaison during the epic citizen’s coal seam gas blockade at Bentley, NSW, near Lismore in 2014. He says a senior inspector described it as the largest public order challenge the NSW police had ever faced.
      Through a Freedom of Information request Ricketts discovered that the police determined not to proceed with a planned bust of the blockade because of “the likelihood of casualties, possibility of death and massive litigation that would follow an operation of 800 police against 5,000-10,000 mainstream citizens in their own community”.

      That information showed what lengths a NSW government was prepared to go to to enforce an extractive industry, no matter how it would impact on the environment.
      In that kind of political landscape, Ricketts says that being labeled as terrorists is a genuine risk for modern activists.
      “Probably the greatest fear people would have would be an extended and novel use of anti-terror laws against people…
      https://newmatilda.com/2018/03/12/price-protest-choosing-forests-freedom/

      24 Jun 2016: Greens pin hopes in Page on 18-year-old activist who pranked Metgasco
      Party wants to make inroads in northern NSW seat with candidate whose April Fools’ Day joke made national news
      by Amanda King, Southern Cross University
      On April Fools’ Day 2014, Kudra Falla-Ricketts, then 16, was getting ready for school. Her mood was low. All she could think about was the protest in Bentley, a farming community west of Lismore, against drilling for coal seam gas. She wanted to be with her community at the front line of the Northern Rivers’ resistance…

      Now 18, Falla-Ricketts is the newly endorsed Greens candidate for Page in the 2016 election. Her party is hoping to capitalise on her local popularity and the strong anti-CSG sentiment in the community…
      Falla-Ricketts grew up in an atmosphere imbued with rallies, actions and awareness about climate change. Her father, Aidan Ricketts, the well-known activist, educator and author of The Activist’s Handbook, has been an influential figure in her life. Falla-Ricketts acknowledges her self-confidence derives from the encouragement he provides…

      A version of this story has also been published on UniPollWatch, Australia’s biggest student journalism project. Guardian Australia is collaborating with UniPollWatch during the general election campaign.
      https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/24/greens-pin-hopes-in-page-on-18-year-old-activist-who-pranked-metgasco

      21

  • #
    el gordo

    Morrison is unlikely to get on the climate emergency bandwagon, the global warming of recent times and the global cooling ahead are acts of god.

    ‘This is why further action on reducing carbon emissions to counter the environmental damage wrought by climate change may have little intellectual purchase with the PM. If the end of the world through climate change is part of God’s providential plan, there is precious little that we need to or can do about it.’

    The Conversation

    50

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yeah but that conversation commenter doesnt understand that Biblically speaking, last time i looked it never mentioned climate catastrophe. Wars and famibe and disease, yes, but climate change, no…..

      70

      • #
        el gordo

        Nevertheless, Morrison firmly believes that if the world is coming to an end then its god’s will and there is nothing we can do about it.

        In a real world context, the Morrison government will only be paying lip service to climate change, he reckons we have done enough.

        20

        • #
          Serp

          As so often el gordo I do hope your statement is borne out by events but my expectation is that Morrison will succumb to the manifold influences conducing to boost the climate industry; let’s see how soon the Trump effect’s temporary support for his resolution wears off.

          50

          • #
            el gordo

            Angus Taylor said there won’t be any more subsidies for renewables and already the market has practically collapsed. As I mentioned previously, we are in tandem with our biggest trading partner on this issue.

            Morrison has told the UN that we are still in the game and reached our targets ahead of time, all very world statesman like.

            So the gig is up for the renewable industry and now Ita Buttrose needs to lean on the ABC journalists and get balance, then climate change folly will disappear from view until the Royal Commission is announced.

            40

  • #
    She

    Climate Emergency!

    All donations gratefully received, target $100 billion a year.

    Donate and the IPCC will send you a photograph of the child you will save from extinction.

    90

    • #
      Lance

      Sarc on:

      Are the climate related children at risk of extinction somehow different from those who are at risk of extinction via abortion? Or is the IPCC valuation of life different depending on an agenda? Just curious.

      Sarc Off.

      100

    • #
      David Wojick

      Cool! However, the $100 billion a year is just the beginning. UNEP estimates that compensation to the developing countries for “loss and damage” might run $400 billion a year. Extinctions are in the loss column.

      50

    • #
      AndyG55

      “child you will save from extinction”

      You mean the ones dying because their parents have to cook by burning dung because the World bank and others are on an anti-CO2 crusade and refuse to fund decent reliable electricity supplies.

      Those children ???

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Or the children in India that are denied reliable electricity because the AGW thugs don’t want them to use Australian coal .

      00

  • #
    pat

    NYT a bit late with this story:

    27 Sept: Breitbart: New York Times: 3 Malibu Millionaires Help Pay for Climate Change Protests Worldwide
    by Joel B. Pollak
    The New York Times reported Friday that the wave of worldwide protests against climate change is partly being paid for by the Climate Emergency Fund, which is funded by a mega-wealthy trio that includes “the Kennedys and the Gettys.”
    The co-founders are Trevor Neilson, Rory Kennedy, and Aileen Getty — whose family fortune, ironically, was made in the oil business. Their money funds protests staged by “Extinction Rebellion” and other groups, the Times notes (LINK)…

    The Times quotes Neilson as saying that he would cut off funding to any group that broke the law. However, one of the recipients of Climate Emergency Fund cash, Roger Hallam, a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, told the Times that he believed breaking the law was all right as a matter of “civil disobedience,” as long as it was non-violent and non-destructive. “Sometimes it’s common sense that you have to cause harm to prevent a greater harm,” he told the Times…
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/27/new-york-times-three-malibu-millionaires-pay-for-climate-change-protests-worldwide/

    original:

    12 Jul: Guardian: US philanthropists vow to raise millions for climate activists
    Fund donates £500,000 to grassroots Extinction Rebellion and other groups, with promise of more to come
    by Matthew Taylor
    A group of wealthy US philanthropists and investors have donated almost half a million pounds to support the grassroots movement Extinction Rebellion and school strike groups – with the promise of tens of millions more in the months ahead.
    Trevor Neilson, an investor and philanthropist who has worked with some of the world’s richest families, has teamed up with Rory Kennedy – daughter of Robert Kennedy – and Aileen Getty, whose family wealth comes from the oil industry, to launch the Climate Emergency Fund.

    Neilson, who has worked with figures such as Bill Gates and Richard Branson, said the fund was inspired by Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg and the Extinction Rebellion protesters in the UK in April.
    Neilson said the three founders were using their contacts among the global mega-rich to get ***“a hundred times” more in the weeks and months ahead. “This might be the single best chance we have to stop the greatest emergency we have ever faced,” he told the Guardian.

    The new fund has the author and environmentalist Bill McKibben, who set up 350.org, and David Wallace Wells, who wrote international best seller Uninhabitable Earth, on its advisory board…
    The money will initially be used to support school strike and Extinction Rebellion groups in the US, but will also be available to help “seed” similar groups around the world…

    A spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion welcomed the move, saying: “It’s a signal that we are coming to a tipping point. In the past, philanthropy has often been about personal interest, but now people are realising that we are all in this together and putting their money forward for our collective wellbeing.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/12/us-philanthropists-vow-to-raise-millions-for-climate-activists

    51

    • #
      pat

      International Institute for Sustainable Development:

      6 Aug: IISD: Climate Emergency Fund Established to Support Climate Activists
      by Catherine Benson Wahlén, Thematic Expert for Human Development, Human Settlements and Sustainable Development (US)
      The Climate Emergency Fund Board of Directors includes Trevor Neilson, Rory Kennedy and Sarah Ezzy. The Advisory Board includes Aileen Getty, Bill McKibben, David Wallace-Wells, Katie Eder and Margaret Klein Salamon. In a story on Medium, Neilson explained that the fund will ***“catalyze hundreds – if not thousands – of new climate activist groups.”…

      The Fund provides three levels of grants based on the entity’s size and maturity. Level 1 grants receive funding for printed materials, bullhorns and other supplies for grassroots climate activists. Level 2 organizational development funding grants are for groups that have grown beyond the start-up phase and are working to create a more sophisticated or permanent structure. Level 3 provides operational funding for climate activists whose organizations are mature and need support for office space, salaries, housing stipends, marketing and communications and other needs.
      https://sdg.iisd.org/news/climate-emergency-fund-established-to-support-climate-activists/

      7 Sept: Daily Mail: Getty oil heiress donates nearly £500,000 to fund for protesters Extinction Rebellion because ‘disruption is necessary for climate action progress’
      •Heiress Aileen Getty, 62, has pledged £487,000 to the Climate Emergency Fund
      •CEF gave £283,000 to Extinction Rebellion this week in first payment to group
      •Ms Getty, granddaughter of oil tycoon J Paul Getty, said ‘disruption’ is necessary
      •Said Greta Thunberg was inspiration and she’s open to changing travel habits
      By Bryony Jewell
      Ms Getty told the Times that Extinction Rebellion protests are ‘necessary because it is evident the public still is not sufficiently engaged.’…
      She explained how ‘most of us have the information at our fingertips’ and will eventually have to answer to future generations.
      The oil heiress, who is still flying but is ‘willing’ to change her travel habits, said Greta Thunberg was one of her inspirations…
      The CEF donated £283,000 to Extinction Rebellion this week in its first payment to the group. ..
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7437397/Getty-oil-heiress-donates-500-000-fund-backing-protesters-Extinction-Rebellion.html

      21

      • #
        pat

        not political:

        Wikipedia: Trevor Neilson
        Co-founder and Chairman of the Climate Emergency Fund…
        Upon leaving Washington State University, Neilson moved to Washington, D.C. where he became an intern for United States Representative (Democrat) Jolene Unsoeld… Following that internship and Bill Clinton’s election as president, Neilson moved to the White House where he became an intern in the White House Office of Scheduling and Advance. After serving in that role, Neilson became a member of the White House Advance Team, travelling ahead of President Clinton to manage meetings and events around the world…
        Neilson serves on the advisory boards for a number of companies, foundations and non-profit organizations including The Malibu Foundation, The Climate Mobilization, the ONE campaign and Rising Holdings.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Neilson

        40

  • #
    Ruairi

    What a shame if judges excuse,
    Alarmists who actively choose,
    To destroy power stations,
    The lifeline of nations,
    While saving the planet their ruse.

    130

  • #
    Furiously curious

    Ross hit the nail on the head with the term “climate hysteria”. Possibly it was Karl Rove, who came up with “climate change”. back in G W’s time, in an attempt to defuse the term “global warming”. Unfortunately that has become an own goal, allowing the hysterics to emotionally diddle themselves into a frenzy at any change in the weather. I think “climate hysteria” will fit perfectly into any conversation.(Here’s another fitting term – emotional masturbation – of great relevance in any encounter with ‘victim studies’.)

    40

    • #
      pat

      it was Republican pollster, Frank Luntz:

      Wikipedia: Frank Luntz
      Global warming
      Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe “global warming” as “climate change” since “climate change” was thought to sound less severe. Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the Bush administration did after that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it…

      On July 25, 2019 Luntz spoke in front of the United States House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis where he shared his advice to people pushing for action on the climate crisis. Furthermore he stated that “I’m here before you to say that I was wrong in 2001″,”That was a lifetime ago” and ” I’ve changed.”. He promised to help the Democrats on the climate committee, provided that they put “policies ahead of politics” and commit to nonpartisan solutions…
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

      25 Jul: Grist: Frank Luntz, the GOP’s message master, calls for climate action
      By Kate Yoder
      Frank Luntz’s up-close encounter with our increasingly wild weather came at 3:15 a.m. one morning, when the GOP master messenger woke up to his phone blaring an emergency evacuation warning. Luntz saw flames outside his bedroom window. The famous pollster’s home in Los Angeles was in the path of the ***Skirball Fire, one of the many wildfires that destroyed parts of Southern California in December 2017.
      Luntz, whose advice helped Republicans hold power for years and also keep their heads in the sand when it comes to climate change, cited the fire as an example of the climate crisis made personal…

      Luntz was one of three Republicans invited by Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, to speak to the Special Committee on the Climate Crisis about breaking down partisan barriers and taking action on climate change…

      During President George W. Bush’s first term, his infamous memo warned Republican party leaders that they were losing “the environmental communications battle,” an issue on which Bush was “most vulnerable.” He advised them to emphasize a lack of scientific certainty around climate change and drop “global warming” for the less scary-sounding “climate change.”
      Luntz is now offering his messaging services to the cause of climate action. “I’m here before you to say that I was wrong in 2001,” Luntz told the Senate committee. “Just stop using something that I wrote 18 years ago, because it’s not accurate today.”…

      It’s not the first time Luntz has taken up the cause of the environment. Back in 2010, he teamed up with the Environmental Defense Fund and laid out advice to persuade Americans take up the cause of ***clean energy…

      Stay away from the complicated science of climate change and personalize the message instead, Luntz advised. “How many of you know of someone who either lost a house because of a ***hurricane, a ***tornado, a ***forest fire?” he turned to ask the audience at the hearing. ***Many raised their hands.

      “If I can give you a solution that will prevent most of that from happening, would you invest in it? … What would you be willing to pay to get that home back, to get that opportunity back, to get that life back? The answer for most people is everything.”
      https://grist.org/article/the-gops-most-famous-messaging-strategist-calls-for-climate-action/

      setting aside Luntz’s attempt to associated fires, hurricanes & tornadoes to CAGW, there’s a little problem with the Skirball fire!

      Wikipedia: Skirball Fire
      The Skirball Fire was a wildfire that burned in the Bel Air neighborhood of Los Angeles, California, United States, and one of multiple wildfires that broke out across Southern California in December 2017…
      On December 12, it was reported on that the fire had been sparked by an illegal cooking fire at a homeless encampment within the pass…

      12 Dec 2017: LA Daily News: Cause of Skirball fire was ‘illegal cooking’ in homeless camp, LAFD says
      by Wes Woods II
      An illegal cooking fire at a homeless encampment was determined to be the cause of the Skirball fire, which began last week, authorities said Tuesday…
      According to the National Park Service, about 90 percent of wildfires nationwide are human-caused…
      Angeles National Forest and CalFire officials said they are aware that transients live in and frequent the forest, adding that the human aspect remains a major concern for the authorities tasked with limiting the risk of wildfires.
      Incidents of concern range from someone not watching their campfire to people driving through the forest with a trailer not realizing their chains were loose and causing sparks on the ground, Judy explained.

      28 Aug: CBS Los Angeles: LA considers clearing homeless encampments on high-risk fire days
      “That means that on these hot, red-flag days that come up during the summertime and increasingly year-round, we can now take a major step toward reducing the likelihood of encampment fires like we saw in 2017 with the Skirball Fire and last month in the Sepulveda Basin.”
      The 422-acre Skirball Fire, which broke out in December 2017 near the Sepulveda Pass, destroyed six homes, damaged 12 others, and prompted the evacuation of about 700 homes. It also shut down the 405 Freeway. The fire was deemed to have been sparked by a cooking fire at a homeless encampment near the 405 Freeway…

      30 Aug: KCRW: LA’s new fire enforcement ordinance lets cops remove homeless people from high risk areas
      Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti recently announced an ordinance that would allow authorities to move people out of homeless encampments in high-risk fire zones…
      And when the 2017 Skirball fire that ripped through affluent Bel Air was determined by city officials to be started by an encampment’s cooking fire, it sparked conversations about economic inequality around the country…

      30

    • #
      TdeF

      Climate Change is embedded in the IPCC title. As Global (Air) warming fails, they will swap back to Climate Change. Extreme Events was a recent creation. Extinction is entirely new, as if it is our job as humans to make sure no species goes extinct when almost all former species on this planet are now extinct and it is not our fault.

      60

  • #
    pat

    26 Sept: TheFederalist: Climate Worship Is Nothing More Than Rebranded Paganism
    We’re seeing sexualized dances, hallucinogens, worshiping nature, confessing sins in pagan animism, worshiping purified teen saints, all to promote a supposedly greater cause.
    By Sumantra Maitra
    (Sumantra Maitra is a doctoral researcher at the University of Nottingham, UK, and a senior contributor to The Federalist. His research is in great power-politics and neorealism)
    The Left Created a Climate Crisis and Worships It
    Consider a new letter (LINK) by more than 500 scientists, ***which the mainstream media completely ignored. It urges the United Nations to have an open debate between scientists from both sides of the argument and states there’s “no climate emergency.” The report goes on to say, among other things…
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/climate-worship-is-nothing-more-than-rebranded-paganism/

    30

  • #
    Zane

    UN Agenda 2030. A nightmare made real.

    50

  • #
    Aussie Pete

    The notion of personal responsibility has been in decline ever since we started handing over decision making to computers.This new development now gives all of mankind the way to abandon it completely. The universal acceptance of the “no responsibility defence” will be quickly followed by moral decay and the emergence of an a-moral anarchy.
    Am I being too harsh?

    60

  • #
    Dave

    Seems the Alarmism regarding the Gondwana Rainforest being burnt was::

    FALSE

    Even one commenter here stated it was the 1st time ever.

    Reports out now say only the eucalyptus & sclerophyll forests were burnt!

    None of the rainforest within Gondwana burnt ate all!
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/false-alarm-the-great-rainforest-fire-that-wasnt/news-story/1c24f7245f6ff74385be112567c79198

    But you won’t see an apology for spreading FAKE news!

    The Guardian, ABC & Fairfax were all publishing that the rainforest is burning for the 1st time EVER?

    60

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      In NSW they were burnt.

      06

      • #
        AndyG55

        Pockets of rainforest have burnt many times in the past, idiot !!

        It is nothing unusual.

        Stop you chicken-little manic panic, its totally moronic.

        60

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          https://www.bellingencourier.com.au/story/6393102/fighting-fire-in-rainforest-that-never-evolved-to-burn/

          Please stop, you know nothing, you have no proof, all you want to do is start a flame ware

          05

          • #
            AndyG55

            Other pockets of rainforest areas have burnt.

            Just ignore reality, fool.

            You are just DUMB enough to “believe” there are only a few pockets of rainforest. DOH!

            You just keep piling up your ignorance, don’t you PF.

            Australia has had many droughts and warm period in the past.

            There has been no warming in Australia this century.

            40

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              I’ve told you before, insult me to my face, do not hide behind a fake name, and using your keyboard. But as before you do not have the integrity.

              The rainforests we were discussing, as Gondwana Refuge Rainforests – they have never burnt until now. Other rainforests, like littoral rainforest will burn, but, and this is important, the replacement species after a fire in a rainforest are not the same as the species that were burnt. For example, Myall Lakes littoral rainforest is dominated by tuckaroo, bobiellia and swamp mahogany. After a fire the regrowth tends to be banksia, acacia and melaleuca. The burnt areas of the Refuge Rainforest species will undergo a similar species change.

              It is generally good news that the queensland fires did not, after all, burn the refuge rainforests, like they did in NSW

              07

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor diddums

                You are a pathetic little man, PF.

                You have NO HONESTY and NO INTEGRITY

                You cringe and hide from answering questions.

                You lack any scientific nouse or intelligence.

                You are here purely as a slimy Getup! troll

                You know that, everybody knows that.

                Man up and admit it.

                Its this your latest method of trolling, to whinge and whine??

                ——

                And then eventually the rainforest will re-establish itself

                Same for any land that is burnt by nature.

                Thanks for showing that it is not all that unusual for rainforests to burnt

                Just accept your loss and stop digging.

                70

              • #
                AndyG55

                “I’ve told you before,….

                SO WHAT !!

                50

              • #
                beowulf

                Myall Lakes littoral rainforest is dominated by tuckaroo, bobiellia and swamp mahogany. After a fire the regrowth tends to be banksia, acacia and melaleuca. The burnt areas of the Refuge Rainforest species will undergo a similar species change.”

                Yes, except by your description what burnt at Myall wasn’t even rainforest and it certainly wasn’t refugial Gondwanan rainforest by any stretch of the imagination. I think you know enough botany to know the difference. Two of the three species you name are not rainforest — just coastal species.

                For starters Swamp Mahogany is an open forest eucalypt; Coastal Boobialla (Myoporum ellipticum — not Bobiellia, which doesn’t exist) is a low-growing groundcover, not a tree, as is Common Boobialla (Myoporum insulare), both of which are in the area. Both will bounce back in no time after fire as will the Mahogany. Tuckeroo IS rainforest and is something I grew a lot of years ago. It is as common as muck and tough as nails. That’s why they plant it in shopping malls and car parks. It is not at risk. Existing young plants will be killed, yes, but there will be recruitment of new seedlings after rain.

                If eucalypts are a dominant species in the area there, then we can also say with confidence that the area has burnt previously. If Banksias and Acacias pop up does that not indicate that their hard seed has been in the soil waiting for such a fire event? And does that not further indicate that in order to establish a seed bank in the soil, they grew there previously? The fairies don’t carry their seed into an area, nor do birds vector it in. They will nurture the climax species and provide a ton of nectar for Lorikeets and honey-eaters in the meantime. The species mix changes for a while — so what? The area is rejuvenated botanically.

                If you are saying that the Beesnest rainforest will suddenly become filled with coastal species then you are having yourself on. Yes there will likely be short-lived wattles springing up around the margins, but not deep in the forest. Acacia melanoxylon is the only true rainforest acacia and it doesn’t grow that far north. You’ll get a ton of pioneers like Red Ash and Stinging Trees and Bleeding Hearts and Poison Peach and so on covering the burnt areas. Birds do vector in such seed.

                I have observed littoral rainforest get utterly burnt to bare sand with a few dead stumps at Fingal Bay. Three weeks after the fire I returned to find a mass of Kangaroo Apple (Solanum aviculare) almost chest high where none had grown previously (I had many previous trips to the area). Young banksias and a ton of ground-covers were making good growth all over after a shower of rain. Rainforest vines were twining up the dead stumps. The good rain we had down this way last week will fix the Myall in no time. Don’t fret. The Beesnest will repair itself too after the first rains.

                70

              • #
                beowulf

                Having further examined your evidence of the destruction of the Bees Nest rainforest in the Bellingen Courier-Sun, I have to say it is a joke. From his profile, the ecologist named as the main source of the information is a member of a radical green activist group and a Greens Party member of the local council. “Mark was once committed to remaining childless as part of his effort towards a sustainable population. However, his position gradually shifted, and he is overjoyed to be a father.” So a partly reformed green zealot.

                The photos in the article of the “destruction” are mostly his. Knowing that he would select the worst areas to photograph to bolster his case, they are laughable. The destruction pictured is so minor that a week of rain will fix it straight away. There will absolutely be no massive shift in species to “banksia, acacia and melaleuca”. If the photos are representative, the forest is intact bar a few small patches burnt and some old stump that was already dead. It is green, it is leafy; there is no scorching of trunks; much of the leaf litter is still in place. Where is the alleged massive destruction?

                “ . . . some of the biggest and deepest chunks of rainforest on the Plateau haven’t burnt”

                Asked if he thought climate change, with its more intense droughts and fires, would inevitably push such rainforests towards savannah, he said we may well be on the path to such change.” This bloke is a froot loop. Savannah my ar$e.

                40

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Prove your warming statement if you can

              06

              • #
                AndyG55

                The data proves it,

                Seems you can’t even read a graph, you poor mathematically inept fool. !

                60

              • #
              • #
                AndyG55

                So you don’t know what UAH is.

                IGNORANCE, yet again !!! Not unusual for you, is it.

                Everyone knows that BOM data is incredibly TAINTED by bad siting, adjustments, made up data, urban warming, homogenisation and other general problems that makes it TOTALLY UNFIT for measuring temperature changes over time.

                40

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor little-P doesn’t know what UAH is…

                SO, SO ignorant.. How does he exist from day to day !

                Everybody, on the other hand, knows that BOM data is a scrapheap of grossly UHI affected site, massive data homogenisation and fabrication, airport reading etc etc.

                TOTALLY UNFIT for measuring a change in anything !!

                40

              • #
                el gordo

                The Great Climate Shift of 1976 is clearly visible.

                40

              • #
                Ian G

                Peter,
                Go check the data from the timeseries site you reference to the yearly summaries on the BOM site from 2000 to 2017.
                Ah yes, all different aren’t they?
                Every max mean has been adjusted up thanks to ACORN2.
                Once we had 3 years of below average max mean since 1999 – now we only have one.
                Slowly, bit by bit, the BOM have reduced temps prior to the 60s and increased them post 1960.
                Even GISS has almost got rid of the 1945-1975 cooling, the pause earlier this century and is slowly eliminating the 1910-1940 ‘blip’. They use the words ‘adjusted’, ‘cleaned’ and ‘homogenised’ to justify the changes.

                20

            • #
              tom0mason

              I note from the document ‘Managing for Risk — Dorrigo National Park’ at https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/-/media/visitor/files/pdf/education/rainforests-of-nsw/managing-for-risk-rainforests-dorrigo-national-park.pdf

              Page 3.
              Under a photo of National Parks employee in a helicopter and clutching a device, is this caption —

              “Incendiary devices dropped from helicopters are a part of modern fire modern control methods.”

              This implies that firefight is required, and probably because it has happened in the past.

              Also on the same page is

              Indigenous management strategies for rainforests are not well known for the Dorrigo Plateau, but would have included access track maintenance, and possibly some intentional seed dispersal of useful species. Research into Aboriginal practices on other areas of the plateau has led to fire being considered as a management tool in the native grassland area of the park.

              [my bold]

              30

            • #
              tom0mason

              Indeed AndyG55,
              “Other pockets of rainforest areas have burnt.”
              There are a few listed in https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=Dorrigo+forest+fire&l-australian=y&s=20

              40

          • #
            AndyG55

            From your beloved “The Con”

            “It shouldn’t come as a surprise that tropical forests can grow back after major disturbances. Tropical forests can be affected by a number of different large-scale natural disasters like floods, fires, landslides, major storms and volcanic eruptions. “

            Poor PF, shown to be WRONG yet again

            Batting ZERO from everything.

            40

          • #
      • #
        Dave

        Link please Peter!

        “In NSW they were burnt.”

        30

        • #
          Greg in NZ

          Rainforest fires in NSW are caused by snow falling in Western Australia in October.
          Y’know, flapping butterfly wings and all that funky-science jazz:

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

          3 Oct Thur: -7˚C wind chill, light snow
          4 Oct Fri: -7˚C wind chill, snow showers

          Then again, hey, it’s just a girl model.

          50

          • #
            Greg in NZ

            Anyone clicking the (above) snow-forecast link to Bluff Knoll will find that – shocking! – the climate changed and the model fell over. A sneaky little low pressure decided to park itself offshore from Perth, drawing in air off the desert before peeling away south-eastwards toward Tassie and then us, so no blazing burning fiery southerly gales to dust the summit with snow in October. Like a lot of models, they look stunning – till they fall over (or get retracted).

            00

    • #
      Maptram

      Alarmists tell us that bushfires, and these would include those that burn rainforests, are caused by climate change. Bushfires need fuel, weather, and something to ignite them. The fuel is often there because greens and the like won’t allow fuel reduction by cool season burning. Strong winds and heat can help bushfires to spread but without the fuel, the same weather doesn’t result in bushfires. Then there’s the third element, something to ignite the bush, sometimes dry lightning, often accidental or deliberate lighting of fires. Perhaps some “expert” can tell us how any of that is caused by climate change.

      40

  • #
    Serp

    Jo, in trying to verify that Peter Fitzroy has emerged as far and away the most prolific contributor I discovered the Recent Comments & News page which I like very much but, alas, there is no “league table” with which to confirm or deny my supposition.

    50

  • #
    Ian G

    In 1970 we had Earth Watch. Many were predicting a ‘great die-off’ and the end of the Earth’s environment. Pollution was the problem, SO2 and CO, and it was causing Global Cooling.
    So we cleaned up the atmosphere and used catylic converters to change CO to CO2.
    Now after all that we have created another catastrophe, Global warming.
    What unintended consequences will we create when we go down the renewable energy path?

    30

  • #
    • #
      PeterS

      That’s the reason why Russia is now back on track to becoming a more Christian nation than the US. Since the fall of communism there churches have been re-opened and re-built by the thousands. Many of the people there were secretly attending meetings for worship during the Soviet regime at the risk of being put in prison. Now they are free to worship in public. It appears in the West the trend might soon be the other way. Ironic isn’t it?!

      40

  • #
  • #
    PeterS

    The whole climate change alarmist talk is not about science. It’s all about an event in future that can’t even be agreed upon (too many models in a disagreement) let alone tested. In the past all models have been shown to be wrong. So by the standards of real science the theory is a crock. However, people are still pushing forward the climate emergency for a number of reasons. The main one is a hatred of the establishment in the West. We all know there are flaws in it but it’s not that bad. Until it’s recognised that the alarmists are out to destroy the West as we know it and that it has nothing to do about “fixing” the climate (impossible to alter the climate for various reasons) it will continue to grow and be an increasing threat to our lives in the West by the very extremists who are screaming out we have so many years to live. Russia and China must be licking their chops waiting for the West to destroy itself. Let’s hope they are disappointed and that it never gets to that point. However, as long as we aloof leaders like Morrison such a risk is very real.

    60

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘However, as long as we have aloof leaders like Morrison such a risk is very real.’

      There is nothing aloof about him, he is always speaking to the farmers and workers, sometimes jovial and other times serious, but I’m not sure if he has creative vision.

      One thing is certain, there’ll be no crash and burn on his watch, its a matter of divine providence.

      40

  • #
    hunter

    The goal of forcing every government possible into declaring a Climate Emergency is to overthrow the rule of law and replace it with a dictatorial climatocracy.
    There is no more a climate emergency today than there was an emergency in Germany during the infamous Kristelnacht. That was used to impose emergency law on Germany.

    40

  • #
    pat

    lol:

    27 Sept: WashingtonTimes: Tom Steyer’s climate plan calls for crackdown on ‘environmental crimes against humanity’
    Democratic contender would create international ‘tribunal’ for states, corporations
    by Valerie Richardson
    The billionaire hedge-fund manager unveiled Friday his International Plan for Climate Justice, calling for U.S. carbon neutrality by 2045 while vowing to create “something like a UN Environmental Crimes Tribunal” to hold nations and corporations accountable for violations.
    “I will work to define environmental crimes against humanity so that countries and multinational corporations are held accountable for uncontrolled pollution and deforestation that endanger millions of lives,” Mr. Steyer said in his launch video.

    On the home front, he would sic federal law enforcement on U.S. individuals or companies that have “knowingly and intentionally spread false information or engaged in other illegal acts, including election interference” aimed at blocking “meaningful climate change policy.”
    Would that include so-called climate skeptics who challenge global-warming doomsday predictions? Mr. Steyer didn’t say, but his call to pursue perpetrators of “environmental crimes” has upped the ante for 2020 Democratic candidates wooing the climate vote.
    “I’m the only candidate who will declare a climate emergency on day one and use the emergency powers of the president to address it,” said Mr. Steyer.

    He also called for creating a Climate Security Intelligence Center; quadrupling U.S. investment in clean energy; ending all American coal, oil and natural gas investment abroad, and stopping U.S. fossil-fuel exports.

    Like the other Green New Deals, the Steyer plan comes with a social-justice emphasis with goals such as ensuring “reproductive healthcare” and “freedom from sexual violence and harassment,” as well as adding youth representatives from all nations to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    The plan would also increase the number of U.S. refugees by ensuring entry for those fleeing “climate related disasters and conflicts.”
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/27/tom-steyers-climate-plan-calls-for-crackdown-on-en/

    21

  • #
    pat

    2 Sept: PassBlue: They Call It Multistakeholderism. Where Does That Leave the UN?
    by Harris Gleckman
    (PassBlue is a nonprofit news site; affiliated with the New School’s Graduate Program in International Affairs, supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York)
    Global governance is slipping away from the United Nations…
    Where nongovernmental organizations were once the largest nonstate entities attending UN system meetings, transnational corporations have become the biggest players. They participate in well-attended public-private partnership sessions at the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the Human Rights Council and the High-Level Political Forum, the key body for following up on the Sustainable Development Goals.
    The latest institutional foray is a World Economic Forum-UN partnership (LINK) agreement. Under this arrangement, senior UN leaders are invited at national, regional and international levels to interact with forum members, many of whom are actually causing the global problems that the UN system is tasked to fix, such as climate change…

    A result of the increase in institutional ties between the UN and senior corporate executives is that civil society organizations, educators, scientists, women and other social communities have less ability to influence the behavior of the UN bodies and the intergovernmental process.
    The weakening tie is driven both by outside factors and internal realities. The pressures on the UN system are significant. There is the cumulative effect, for example, of more than 30 years of flat or negative regular budget growth of the UN. As an extension of President Trump’s effort to deconstruct the domestic regulatory state in the United States, his administration is also striving to deconstruct the UN system…
    https://www.passblue.com/2019/09/02/they-call-it-multistakeholderism-where-does-that-leave-the-un/

    prog left CommonDreams:

    27 Sept: CommonDreams: 200+ Groups Denounce UN-WEF Agreement That Entrenches Corporate Interests Driving Global ‘Social and Environmental Crises’
    “It moves the world dangerously towards a privatized and undemocratic global governance.”
    by Andrea Germanos
    At issue is the “strategic partnership agreement” between the U.N. and WEF for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The agenda purports to be “a plan of action for people, planet, and prosperity.” Signed in June, the agreement says the U.N. and WEF will “strengthen their partnership by focusing on jointly selected priorities and pursuing a more strategic and coordinated collaboration.”

    But, according to the groups, the agreement threatens to “de-legitimize the United Nations and provide transnational corporations preferential and deferential access to the U.N. system,” adding that the system “is already under a big threat from the US. government and those who question a democratic multilateral world.”
    Those concerns are laid out in an open letter (LINK) to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres released on Wednesday. The letter was signed by groups including Action Aid Global, Friends of the Earth International, and the Transnational Institute, as well as national groups including Attac France and Uganda’s Initiative for Social and Economic Rights (ISER)…

    “We know that agribusiness destroys biodiversity and sustainable and just food systems, oil and gas corporations endanger the world’s climate, Big Pharma weakens access to essential medications, extractive corporations leave lasting damage to countries’ ecologies and peoples, and arms manufacturers profit from local and regional wars as well as repression of social movements,” they wrote. “All these sectors are significant actors within the World Economic Forum.”

    As analyst Harris Gleckman wrote earlier this month, the agreement continues a trend in which transnational corporations are overtaking NGOs to become the biggest players in U.N. system meetings…
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/09/27/200-groups-denounce-un-wef-agreement-entrenches-corporate-interests-driving-global

    21

  • #
    Bribiejohn

    It’s the old (1884) story of Henny Penny in England and Chicken Little in America.

    https://americanliterature.com/childrens-stories/henny-penny-the-sky-is-falling

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Thought Experiment: Eco-terrorists replicate the Esso Longford gas explosion and shut down gas supplies in Victoria for a number of weeks causing massive economic damage to the state and disrupting people’s daily lives.

    They admit culpability for the action but claim this ‘defense,’ to avoid prosecution.

    [1] Is it reasonable to conduct a class action against them for economic damages under tort law?

    [2] Will insurance companies pay out on damages associated to this shutdown or does it come under ‘terrorism,’ and get excluded?

    [3] Will people who can’t get a hot shower or cook their food with gas accept the argument of ‘necessity,’ or will they harden against the eco-terrorists and their agenda?

    40

  • #
    Cynic of Ayr

    So, I can walk up to a council diesel vehicle, ensure there’s no none inside, and set fire to it with immunity?
    It’s a Climate Emergency, and it is my civic duty to remove at least one toxic vehicle from the pollution stream.
    OK. Works for me.

    30

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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