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

Real Estate worth 7% less in low lying climate “believer” areas

Beach House, Pixabay, PaulBr75

Image Paulbr75

Beachfront property in skeptical areas is worth 7% more than equivalent homes in “believer” neighborhoods.

Presumably believers think those homes are at risk of being washed away — at least that’s what the researchers think. But it could be that believers suffer an immediate social penalty — imagine turning up to the local dinner party and having to admit to the thought-police that you just bought a beachside mansion?

Then again, the real motivator might be that people will pay more to live next to a skeptic.

This brings the dilemma for skeptics — save 7% on the new house, but live surrounded by snowflakes, or pay more and get on better with neighbors?

Does climate change affect real estate prices? Only if you believe in it

According to a new study from the UBC Sauder School of Business, buyers could end up paying significantly more for a home.

For the large-scale study, researchers combined sea level data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), geographic data about climate change attitudes from the Yale Program on Climate Change, and proprietary data on millions of repeat real estate transactions from Zillow to examine patterns in high-risk areas.

They found that, even after taking myriad variables into account, homes projected to be under water located in climate change “denier” neighbourhoods sell for roughly 7 percent more than homes in “believer” neighbourhoods.

“If everyone were to say, ‘I’m not buying beachfront property here because it’s going to get flooded,’ then prices would collapse. But if you don’t believe in climate change, you might say, ‘You guys are crazy. Climate change isn’t a real thing, so I see a buying opportunity,’” explains UBC Sauder School of Business assistant professor and study co-author Markus Baldauf.

Because so many people live close to coastlines, adds Baldauf, the effects are amplified. “If you wanted to create a society that’s really susceptible to climate change,” he says, “you would arrange it like they have in the U.S., because the population centres are really close to the water.”

The study did not examine the effect in other countries, but Baldauf expects it wouldn’t exist in Canada or Europe because belief in climate change is much more ubiquitous in those areas. Within the United States, however, the differences are significant; for example, in California, the effect is much less, likely because there is more agreement on climate change, whereas in Florida the gap is substantial, even though climate change risks in the waterfront-heavy state are especially high.

Heavier “on”?

The researchers also examined political party affiliations, and while right-leaning communities were heavier on climate deniers, the effect still occurred even when accounting for political differences.

Of course, calculating risk has always played a part in real estate, but historically, banks, realtors, investors and homeowners typically looked at past occurrences of things like fires and floods to price in future pitfalls. But because of the growing effects of climate change, past events no longer provide an accurate sense of what is likely to happen in the future, and predictions rely more heavily on future-focused climate science.

Baldauf emphasizes that when it comes to climate change and real estate pricing, the thing that nobody can accurately predict is who is right.

“Which price is the appropriate one? We don’t know. Based on the data, all we can say is there’s disagreement, but it could be that the deniers are right, or it could be that the believers are right. Or it could be that they’re both wrong,” says Baldauf. “All our study says is that they can’t all be right.”

 

REFERENCE

Markus Baldauf et al  (2019).  Does Climate Change Affect Real Estate Prices? Only If You Believe In ItSSRN Electronic Journal, 2018; DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3240200

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.9/10 (44 votes cast)
Real Estate worth 7% less in low lying climate "believer" areas, 9.9 out of 10 based on 44 ratings

292 comments to Real Estate worth 7% less in low lying climate “believer” areas

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    Taking the long term view, oceans have been on a continued path of decline over the last seven thousand years.

    Total sea level Fall has been four metres but more specifically there’s been a 1.2 metre fall in the last 2,000 years.

    The effects of this are visible locally in large areas that are flat and dry.

    Acknowledging that we are nearing the end of a warm interglacial means that from now on waterfront property is safe, the down side is that in a few thousand years the waterfront may move away.

    Our big worry is the approaching cold which is going to help fix more ice to the poles.

    KK

    121

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    “This brings the dilemma for skeptics — save 7% on the new house, but live surrounded by snowflakes, or pay more and get on better with neighbors?”

    There is no dilemma….there is no way I could handle being surrounded by climate “chicken littles”. Life has enough challenges without surrounding yourself wih clueless people.

    There is one guy at work who is a 100% climate numpty. We have exchanged words on occasion, and i could verbally shred him on the spot, but its not worth it. I do ask difficult questions occasionally that he cant answer and weve established a form of truce, to preserve peace.

    When he cranks up, it becomes a clueless runaway train of sound bites and climate propaganda, so I have to be mature one and walk away to stop it escalating. You cant reason with these people- they in many ways tragically mislead and will pay for it…..but are also sadly the worst kind of fool…..

    180

  • #
    Mark Fraser

    Another attention-seeker’s data-free post. 8 inches per century isn’t gonna threaten me much, and prices have gone up a bunch on this little road in paradise. Problem is, we have
    some technical / scientific backgrounds and don’t believe the teenagers, the movie stars or the green/red pols.

    171

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Meanwhile, at their abc, lifestyles of the gullible and ignorant is to be considered …

    The [global warming] risks to think about before you buy property

    “Karl Mallon is a climate risk analyst — and he has a message for people looking to get into the property market.

    “Personally, I don’t think anyone should buy a house without checking for extreme weather and climate change risks,” he says.”

    https://www.abc.net.au/life/climate-risks-to-think-about-before-you-buy-property/11617296

    Factcheck.

    Dan Pena: 3.10: … in response to question on sea level rise …

    “Let’s just say it’s true.
    That means that the best scenario vis-a-vie global warming is about 10 feet raise in water.
    That is the best scenario over the next 40-50 years.
    The worst scenario is about 100 feet.

    Let’s just take the 10 feet.

    If the water is gonna rise 10 feet, that means the southern part of the United States is gone.
    England is gone.
    Most of Europe is gone.
    Most of central America is gone.

    3.45: If that’s the case, let’s just take Florida for example, one of the fastest growing condominium beach front on the planet.

    In the prospectus, when you invest, there should be, in the footnotes … ‘if global warming happens, and water rises 10 feet, this investment
    you made is FA.’

    Not one single investment prospectus written this century, has alluded to ‘global warming’.

    Not one MF.

    If it was true, the banks wouldn’t invest.
    They wouldn’t finance not one MF condominium.”

    Dan Pena, 2017: Why the banks prove climate change is BULL$H!T (Yes, there is a bad language warning)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0&feature=youtu.be

    110

    • #
      Tarquin Wombat-Carruthers

      Has Ita Buttrose arranged for the trucks to start moving stuff out of the ABC’s Ultimo headquarters yet?

      120

      • #
        el gordo

        Won’t be too long.

        ‘The ABC is considering selling property, collaborating on news coverage in regional areas and even cancelling fixed phone lines.’ Oz

        30

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          We’re cancelling fixed phone lines at a rate of knots at the moment, I’d be worried if the ABC wasn’t.

          All the ISDN services are being shut down, and the SIP replacements can really be anywhere, so instead of having to have fixed lines into 100 different offices, they just need 2 SIP trunks into 2 data centres and bob’s your uncle, oodles of money saved.

          For smaller businesses, best thing is to put it all in the cloud somewhere and be a tenant on a much larger cloud-based system to achieve economies of scale. Just watch the licensing charges, they’re a bit steep mostly.

          23

      • #
        Bill in Oz

        What about Southbank in Melbourne ?
        It’s so close to the Yarra
        It faces flooding from higher tides
        When the seas rise !

        20

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Bill in Oz:
          40 odd years ago I was on the banks of the Yarra (actually on a wharf) when an iron bedstead floated slowly by (floating because of the submerged (but invisible in the muddy waters) wood bits). It as then so polluted that only eels lived in the lower reaches. The D/S foreman (Bob Pike) was with me and observed “If Jesus Christ came back to Earth and walked across the Yarra, the Herald-Sun wouldn’t even send a photographer”.
          I believe they have cleaned up the Yarra since but I lost all desire to live close to it.

          30

          • #
            yarpos

            yeah thats what happens, you dont go somehwere for 40 years and things change

            00

          • #
            Screaming Nutbag

            Yeah, I think the commie environmentalists pressured some Left-leaning politicians to pass fascist UN-sponsored Agenda 21 laws making it an offence for people to dump their garbage in the river.
            Obviously the economy tanked and the marxists took over as a result of people trying to keep garbage out of the river.

            13

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      The truth would be for him to say,

      “Personally, I don’t think anyone should buy a house without checking for extreme weather and climate change risks,”…

      But what is the truth really worth these days? It has become a subjective thing open to individual interpretation and a large faction in society seems to want it that way.

      40

  • #
    Another Ian

    This might ruin your calculations

    “Well this is a worry….

    https://infmonk.blogspot.com/2010/10/europes-super-volcano-and-neanderthal.html

    The potential super volcano that I am most curious about at present is the steadily swelling Iwo-Jima caldera several hundred of miles off the southern coast of Japan. Within this volcano, the island of Iwo-Jima has been uplifted over one hundred twenty meters (approximately three hundred sixty feet) during the past four hundred years. The location where the US Marines first landed during the famous and bloody assault on the island of Iwo-Jima is now twenty meters (sixty feet) above sea level.

    60 feet uplift since WW.II ? That can’t keep up for long…”

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/w-o-o-d-30-october-2019/#comment-119297

    70

  • #
    el gordo

    Here we see the editor of the Australian (Mathieson) defending his journalist to Media Watch on the question of decelerating sea level.

    https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1125_ozresponse.pdf

    80

    • #
      Screaming Nutbag

      Excellent, that was in 2011.
      8 years later, with hindsight, who was right? The scientists or The Australian?

      https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

      Well, you could blow me down with a feather! Turns out The Australian was peddling nonsense! Sea level rise is in fact doing the exact opposite to what editor Clive Mathieson told us it was doing.

      Lucky we sceptics treat anything published in The Australian with caution, huh?

      82

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Oh good. I was wondering if the seas were warming and thus rising. And obviously they would be releasing CO2 (Henry’s law) so the rise in CO2 cannot be all assigned as man made.
        There is a problem that the tide gauge found in Fort jackson in Sydney Harbour shows no sea rise since 1911 (although some fluctuations). As Australia is a pretty stable tectonic plate that must you wonder if the sea level is really rising? But that would mean that the oceans aren’t warming, all the CO2 rise is man-made but it isn’t causing much warming. I guess we will know as the ocean circulates over the next thousand years.

        102

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          Both the carbon budget as well as isotopic analysis prove you are wrong, Greame.

          38

          • #
            tom0mason

            No evidence, Screaming Nutbag.
            The latest oceanic CO2/carbon isotopic research shows that Graeme No.3 is correct.
            I’ll leave you to find that evidence Screaming Nutbag — something to do with nuclear bomb fall out, incorrect assumed timing, and carbon isotopes in the deep ocean.

            81

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              Nuclear bomb fallout has nothing to do with the C-13/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere and the very clear evidence from that falling ratio that proves the extra CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels.

              The rest of your random word-salad doesn’t explain to me what it is you believe so I can’t really comment on it.

              I assume you are also completely unaware that the carbon budget shows very clearly that the human emissions of CO2 every year add up to about twice the total increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
              We’re emitting twice as much as what’s accumulating.
              Think about it.
              That means the rest of the carbon cycle is currently acting as net sink for half of what we are emitting.
              If you can’t add that up, there is no hhelping you.

              37

              • #
                AndyG55

                So you can’t follow basic science

                Raving nutcase.. get some help

                NO SCIENTIST are you.

                61

              • #
                Chad

                ….the C-13/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere and the very clear evidence from that falling ratio that proves the extra CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels…..

                ..and if you are as clever as you think you are,… then you should be able to use that change in ratio to calculate exactly how much of the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic .
                Let me know if you need any help with that. !

                60

              • #
                tom0mason

                Screaming Nutbag,

                Nuclear bomb fallout has nothing to do with the C-13/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere and the very clear evidence from that falling ratio that proves the extra CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels.

                You haven’t a clue! There is NO proof!

                61

              • #
                tom0mason

                Screaming Nutbag,

                Some argue that the decreasing C13 / C12 isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 is an anthropogenic signal, but another study found that these trends actually mirror natural C13 / C12 variability during interannual fluctuations of sea surface temperatures (Spencer, 2012, pg. 130 and also see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/). Key quote — “If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??”

                That CO2 causes global temperatures to rise is axiomatic among climate change activists. But how well supported is this belief? Pedro et al. (2012) reported that, during deglaciation, rising Antarctic temperatures preceded increases in CO2. Using Antarctic and Greenlandic ice cores, they were able to show that atmospheric CO2 has lagged temperature since the Late Paleolithic. Rising CO2 is attributed to unspecified bio-geo-chemical processes occurring in the ocean, further implicating temperature as the variable modulating CO2 variation, rather than vice versa.
                There is some indication that if CO2 increases, temperature will actually either increase less rapidly or even decrease, indicating a negative correlation. Changes in temperature and CO2 variation occur on ocean and land surfaces first, before affecting the lower troposphere.
                Further, global changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration are non-anthropogenic, since they occur near the equator before spreading to the poles, not in the industrialized North as expected if AGW was true (Humlum et al., 2013).
                Not only that, other data reveal no correlation between fossil fuel emissions and concentration of atmospheric CO2 (Munshi 2017).
                Investigators have tentatively hypothesized why CO2 lags temperature: the solubility of CO2 in the ocean waters decrease as temperatures rise, leading to “net outgassing” of CO2 into the atmosphere.

                And finally what researchers looking at the carbon isotopes in the oceans found was a clear signal of the 1950-1970 A-bomb tests showing that the IPCC’s assumed overturning of atmospheric ‘carbon’ taking centuries was entirely wrong.

                61

              • #
                AndyG55

                It doesn’t matter where the extra CO2 is coming from…

                SO LONG AS IT KEEPS COMING
                :-)

                I like to think that humans are responsible for at least some part of the rise,

                …because with China, India and many other countries getting into the “development” race, those human CO2 emissions are only going to keep on climbing.

                More LIFE-GIVING CO2 for the total benefit of ALL LIFE ON EARTH

                And there is absolutely NOTHING all the whinging and whining AGW cultists can do about it ;-)

                They certainly won’t do all the things they say they want everyone else to do.

                They will have their little feel-good virtue-seeking demonstrations and then, just like you, they will go about the fossil fuelled powered lives like as if their CO2 emissions just didn’t matter to them at all.

                51

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Roy Spencer’s regression analysis is completely bogus, which is probably why this thought bubble sank without a trace when he first blogged it 10 years ago.
                It certainly never entered the scientific literature.

                You’d have to be very un-sceptical to swallow a bloggy regression analysis the completely omits to factor in the well known amount of human CO2 emissions, as well as somehow forgetting any “unknown” variables for the effects that human emitted CO2 might be having….

                11

              • #
                AndyG55

                Noted that nutters yet again only present baseless rhetoric, unsupported by any science.

                Displaying your ignorance, seems to be your ONLY course of action, nutters. !!

                “the effects that human emitted CO2 might be having….”

                In your fantasy religion….

                No evidence of anything except increased plant growth.

                10

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                I see – “increased plant growth”.

                And what did Spencer’s regression analysis forget to provide a variable for?
                You guessed it – increased plant growth.
                He didn’t include seasonal variation in plant growth and he didn’t include the CO2 fertilisation effect.

                12

              • #
                AndyG55

                “I see – “increased plant growth”.”

                Yep… Its the ONLY thing that is scientifically supportable on the effects of increased atmospheric CO2.

                As you keep proving by present ZERO EVIDENCE.

                00

      • #
        el gordo

        The Australian editor was correct, because sea level is still within natural bounds.

        “What we are seeing in all of the records is there are relatively high rates of sea-level rise evident post-1990, but those sorts of rates of rise have been witnessed at other times in the historical record,” Mr Watson said.

        70

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          Mathieson was peddling a very silly story about “deceleration” that didn’t happen.

          And if I remember correctly, Watson’s comment referred to 4 tide gauges and to *one* time period. He wasn’t referring to global sea levels and in the very same paper (but ignored by Mathieson) Watson said his results were not replicated when he used a different time period.

          Classic example of The Australia using some cherries to bake the Emperor some new clothes.

          And 8 years later the data shows he was 100% wrong.

          36

          • #
            AndyG55

            nutters doesn’t understand that there are cycles about a linear trend

            There is NO ACCELERATION in any long term tide gauge.

            He knows that, because he can’t find any.

            52

      • #

        Screaming: what’s happened to sea levels? Across the Pacific in a study of 709 islands, only 11% were shrinking. The number that were inhabited and contracting was *zero*. 2018 study.

        121

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          Surveys of island total land area isn’t how sea level rise is measured.

          As the study said, ” climate‐ocean variability, sediment production, and human activities were the major controls on island change”.

          Also, the Maldives had 41 islands decrease in size and 11 islands increase, with a measured sea level rise of 3.2mm/yr.
          The paper says sea level rise in Tuvalu is 3.9mm/year.

          The paper says the sea level is rising. It says that other factors play a more important role at this stage in determining an island’s land area.

          Trying to use island land area as a very vague proxy for something we have actual measurements for is a strange choice to make.

          58

          • #
            AndyG55

            Sea level rise is only an issue if it actually does something.

            Seems it hasn’t affected the Maldives in any way whatsoever, except to bring in massive amounts of money for airport expansion and luxury buildings.

            52

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          Surveys of island total land area isn’t how sea level rise is measured.

          As the study said, ” climate‐ocean variability, sediment production, and human activities were the major controls on island change”.

          Also, the Maldives had 41 islands decrease in size and 11 islands increase, with a measured sea level rise of 3.2mm/yr.
          The paper says sea level rise in Tuvalu is 3.9mm/year.

          The paper says the sea level is rising. It says that other factors play a more important role at this stage in determining an island’s land area.

          Trying to use island land area as a very vague proxy for something we have actual measurements for is a strange choice to make.

          47

          • #
          • #
            Kalm Keith

            “Trying to use island land area as a very vague proxy for something we have actual measurements for is a strange choice to make.”

            So why did you make that choice?

            KK

            30

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              I said that, so you’re asking the wrong person.

              Why *would* you use island land area as a proxy for sea level rise, whilst at the same time referencing a research paper that quite specifically states the two are not currently even correlated?

              13

              • #
                AndyG55

                So you ADMIT that the very slight sea level rise has had NO EFFECT on these islands.. except to make them grow a bit.

                Thanks for finally waking up to reality.

                20

              • #
              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Yes Andy, increased sea level makes islands grow.
                Obvious, innit?

                Can I have some of what you are smoking?

                22

              • #
                AndyG55

                “increased sea level makes islands grow.”

                WOW ! You got something right, purely by accident. !

                Poor nutters has zero idea, do you twerp.

                Never studied any basic oceanography

                Oh dearie me, WHY are you so determined to be ignorant !!!

                00

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            “Surveys of island total land area isn’t how sea level rise is measured.”

            At last, we agree on something.

            Yes, it’s much better to use a tape measure.

            30

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            If the sea is rising at 3.2 mm per year then the prediction 31 years ago about The Maldives being underwater in 30 years has proved wrong. But if the 3.2 mm per year you claim for (about) the last 30 years is right, then there average height above sea level would have decreased from 2 metres to 1.9 metres, so only 594 years to go before they’re underwater. Probably explains why the locals are ignoring IPCC predictions.

            And if your figures for Tuvalu & The Falklands are correct then the first has had a rise of 121 m.m. in the last 31 years, whereas The Falklands has only had 77.5 m.m. Shouldn’t the IPCC find a way of levelling water?

            And another thought: On a trip a few years ago I saw the Watergate (sometimes called Traitorsgate) at the Tower of London at low tide. The water in the dock was quite low, indeed I understand that every so often one of the workers dons rubber boots and sweeps the coins up and collects them. The Watergate was built in 1285 A.D. so even at 2 m.m. per year for 700 years the water should have risen by 1.4 metres. Wouldn’t they have noticed?
            The tidal range at that point in the Thames is about 4 metres. It has been so for over 2,000 years, as we know from Julius Caesar (55 B.C.) although his comments weren’t peer reviewed by the IPCC. Interestingly his port in England for the invasion is now almost landlocked. Other Roman ports in England are also inland, as is the biblical port of Ephesus which is now 8 km. inland. Nothing on the situation in (what is now) Iraq where the ports of Ur and Uruk are 80 and 90 km. from the Persian Gulf. That’s an awful lot of silting.

            20

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              the prediction 31 years ago about The Maldives being underwater in 30 years

              Is it too much to ask that you reference your claim?

              the first has had a rise of 121 m.m. in the last 31 years, whereas The Falklands has only had 77.5 m.m. Shouldn’t the IPCC find a way of levelling water

              Oh dear. Did you think all the world’s sea level is level? That level of simpletonism is going to be a problem for you, going forward.

              And another thought:

              You should have quite while you were behind.
              Amazing to think that a tourist casting his vacant stares at the Thames while queuing to see the Crown Jewels produces such accurate sea level data, when the scientists who study this full time say stuff like:

              https://www.jstor.org/stable/74029?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
              “Despite the uncertainty associated with tidal measurements…it is clear that the tidal regime of the river thames has undergone major changes…”

              And yet Graeme is able to draw sweeping conclusions about global sea level from this complete lack of data!
              Astounding!
              Could you make it up?

              01

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor raving scrot.. didn’t read the part that says

                “A Discussion on Problems Associated with the Subsidence of Southeastern England

                Poor ignorant ditz, just keep splatting those eggs on your face.

                11

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                “Could you make it up?”

                You do it all the time.

                10

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Graeme, Andy’s calling you a liar – he says South East England is subsiding, therefore your story about the Watergate being exactly where it was 700 years ago isn’t true.

                01

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor nutters, not reading his own links.

                “A Discussion on Problems Associated with the Subsidence of Southeastern England

                That is the subtitle of YOUR link.

                Why are you so determined to appear SO DUMB, nutters ?? !!!

                10

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                If that part of England is subsiding, then Graeme’s story about the Watergate built 700 years ago being at the same level as it was then must be false, right?
                So you’ve just proven that Graeme is wrong, right?
                So why are you addressing your comment at me?
                Did you think the tall story about the Watergate was something to do with me, Andy?

                01

      • #
        John in NZ

        If you want to make it looks like sea level rise is accelerating all you need to do is average all tide gages. If you look at only individual gage records that start in the early 1900s or earlier there is no sign of acceleration.

        101

      • #
        AndyG55

        No sign of acceleration at ANY tide gauge.

        No CO2 warming signal in sea level data.

        Only if you commit the mathematical NONSENSE of splicing adjusted satellite data onto tide data. The only “man made” change, but its NOT REAL. !

        In fact, Sea level rise is DECELERATING

        93

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    I can see why that might be. Who’d want to live in a suburb full of Malthusian nutcases?

    120

    • #
      Mal

      Unfortunately we live in a country full of maltheusian nut cases
      And the political climate, mass media and of course the champion of victimhood, the ABC, all support this position
      The thing that will get the common man rebelling against these “elite” will probably when we have power blackouts, ongoing job losses in manufacturing due to the high energy prices and blackouts and cost of living increases beyond wage growth
      In the end people are very sensitive to the hip pocket nerve and generally vote accordingly
      Once they realise they’ve been had there will be a blood bath

      140

      • #
        el gordo

        Your hypothesis is wrong, the Klimatariat will be vilified when the climate noticeably cools. The attack will come from the Murdoch print stable and Sky News.

        History has taught us that the masses in midlatitudes become overaught when unseasonal weather prevails.

        51

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          Commiserations. I sure gets harder and harder to make sense when the stuff you’ve been peddling for 2 decades become every more obviously wrong, doesn’t it?

          49

          • #
            el gordo

            Climate change takes time but its finally happening now. A meandering jet stream, blocking high pressure and cold air outbreaks are indicative of global cooling.

            https://www.weatherzone.com.au/synoptic.jsp?d=0

            31

            • #
              el gordo

              … and look at the complex low bringing freezing conditions, its not caused by a benign trace gas.

              http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDY65100.pdf

              11

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Golly gosh! All the climate scientists who say the weather is caused by CO2 should be sacked forthwith!

                13

              • #
                AndyG55

                All these scientists (lol) should be able to produce EVIDENCE

                But they have NONE. NADA,… Empty !!!!!

                Yes, they should be fired for gross INCOMPETENCE.

                30

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                YAP!

                YAP! YAP! YAP!

                YAP! YAP!

                02

              • #
                el gordo

                CO2 has no impact on weather or climate and here is the 65 year oscillation to test anew.

                ‘Regarding sea level rise, we have entered a phase in the 65-yr oscillation that instead of adding to the rise it subtracts from it, and for the first time since 1900 the low in the 65-yr oscillation coincides with a low in solar activity.

                ‘The consequences should be fully expected by experts but they will become as completely unexpected because the experts are looking at the finger, not at the Moon. Sea level rise is decelerating for a period of a couple of decades.

                ‘It will make every expert prediction of 21st century sea level rise completely wrong, except the highly criticized and superseded IPCC B1 scenario.’

                Javier (Climate Etc)

                00

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘All the climate scientists who say the weather is caused by CO2 should be sacked forthwith!’

                That won’t be necessary, they will be so humiliated by their past words that they’ll retire early.

                00

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                I don’t know who “Javier” is, but you should have been more sceptical.
                The 60-year oscillation that they’re babbling about is, in the words of the researchers who proved it is real, both uncertain and insignificant:

                “…even if a 60‐year oscillation is occurring in GMSL, it is still a small fluctuation about a highly significant rate of rise. Modeling a 60‐year oscillation does not change the estimated trend in any reconstruction time‐series of GMSL by more than 0.1 mm yr−1 (Table 1), which is lower than the uncertainty. Thus, it does not change the overall conclusion that sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm yr−1over the last 110 years. “

                00

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Thus, it does not change the overall conclusion that sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm yr−1over the last 110 years. “”

                And nothing has changed

                There was a slower rise for a decade of so, been playing catch up for the last decade or so.

                Just part of the cycle.

                There is NO ACCELERATION in any tide gauge data.

                20

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Also, 7 years more recent than your 2012 paper that said there *might* be a 60-year oscillation is this:

                https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6443/814

                “…outside researchers have conceded that the idea of regular multidecade cycles in the ocean is getting harder to defend.”

                01

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Screaming Nutbag:

            Your comment is so appropriate, except that the “carbon causes lots of warming” has been going for 47 years, although only making the newspapers etc. since 1988.
            How long before the nonsense you’ve been peddling become obviously wrong even to those slow to understand it?

            41

          • #
            AndyG55

            ” sure gets harder and harder to make sense when the stuff you’ve been peddling for 2 decades become every more obviously wrong”

            First hand experience from nutters. ALWAYS wrong

            Poor fella is totally confused about his cultism.

            and STILL has no actual real science.

            32

          • #
            el gordo

            And in the NH ‘blocking’ is having an impact.

            ‘Early next week, most of the eastern two-thirds of nation could be 10 to 20 degrees below normal for mid-November. “A widespread killing freeze is likely to end the growing season across much of the South early next week,” AccuWeather’s Dan Kottlowski said.

            USA Today

            00

      • #
        Russ Wood

        We’ve got all of those problems already in South Africa. However, the government blames it on ‘the apartheid government’ (last seen in 1993) or ‘white privilege’ (which no-one can actually define).

        00

  • #
    Drapetomania

    I do ask difficult questions occasionally that he cant answer

    Re the climate numpty…
    I ask them crazy hard questions like
    1/What geological period are we living in?
    2/What parts CO2 were we in pre industrial revolution and what parts are we now..
    Blank looks..and sound bites.
    A friend of mine in QLD filmed himself politely asking Greenpeace members handing ot climate crap leaflets really simple questions.
    The young woman looked puzzled and was stumped.
    She called her team leader over..blank looks and “scientists say stuff” was their best shot..
    The best word for this disease is
    sciolism
    The practice, or an instance, of expressing opinions on something which one knows only superficially or has little real understanding of..

    140

    • #
      Salome

      A quick Google search leads to the following answer to 2: ‘Before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, global average CO2 was about 280 ppm. During the last 800,000 years, CO2 fluctuated between about 180 ppm during ice ages and 280 ppm during interglacial warm periods. Today’s rate of increase is more than 100 times faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age ended.’ That’s from: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/news/7074.html

      Elsewhere (on http://www.climate.gov) I read that levels as high as ours haven’t been seen for 3 million years.

      Are these figures correct?

      50

      • #
        • #
          Salome

          Thanks. Anyone got the real figures?

          40

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Hi Salome,

            The difficulty with getting the correct picture on past atmospheric CO2 levels is due mainly to one thing.

            Too many web sites are set up to get people searching and make sure that the correct info is buried deep.

            one fact about human adaptation is that we currently inhale about 400 ppm of CO2 and exhale about 40,000 ppm. An exchange rate of 100:1.

            This suggests that we are well adapted to dealing with potentially higher CO2 levels that are found in places like theatres and submarines, 8,000 ppm.

            Past records going back millions of years suggest that CO2 levels have been falling.

            KK

            50

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Hi Salome,
            A significant factor in comparing current CO2 levels with the past is that past records are to some extent of a relative nature.

            Millions of years ago, if I remember correctly, CO2 levels were possibly twenty times their current levels and have fallen.

            Over the last half a million years CO2 levels have been driven by temperature changes through cycles of about 100 ppm varying from just under 200 to about 300.

            These values were obtained from ice cores and possibly other surrogate methods involving plants.
            Best seen as relative measurements.

            In the past hundred years or so it has been possible to assess CO2 levels by chemical analysis and get an absolute value.

            Clearly the two methods are valid on their own, but should not be combined as happens with climate extremists trying to mislead.

            CO2 levels are really not all that important, they’re controlled by the vast CO2 reservoir in the oceans and we can’t change that.

            That said, the virtue signallers will makes us try just so that we know who’s boss.

            KK

            120

            • #

              there you go Salome, KK’s “if I recall” are your correct figures.

              37

            • #
              sophocles

              Chemists over the 19th Century were measuring 330 – 350 ppm with regularity. Must have been all that coal.

              That’s been carefully excised from the record.

              100

              • #
              • #
                Another Ian

                Beck. E-G. 180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods.

                Energy & Environment (2007) 18 (2) 25 pp.

                Ian Plimer Heaven & Earth PP 411-428 section on CO2, 81 references listed.

                In his section “Measurement of CO2″ figures quoted:-

                1812 – 1961.
                > 90,000 measurements, accuracy 1-3%.

                Pettenkofer method

                Peaks 1825, 1857, 1942,

                1942 peak 400ppmv

                50

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Good grief. Beck? Seriously?

                37

              • #
                AndyG55

                Nutcase.. seriously.. Nothing to offer, hey drone.

                43

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Screaming Scrote, seriously?

                32

              • #
                Another Ian

                “The IPCC want it both ways. They are prepared to use the lowest determination by the Pettenkofer method as a yardstick yet do not acknowledge Pettenkofer method measurements showing CO2 concentrations far higher than now many times since 1812″

                Ian Plimer

                20

              • #
                gee aye

                I meant where did they do the measurement.

                01

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Come on guys, it’s 2019. We have access to long term automated and very accurate CO2 measurements.
                *Nobody* in their right mind considers Beck’s measurements to be any kind of representation of global CO2 levels.

                02

              • #
                AndyG55

                Come on yapper..

                its 2019

                You should have some empirical evidence of warming by CO2 by now.

                Be very thankful for that slightly raised atmospheric CO2 level,

                it enable most of the Earth’s people and animals to be fed.

                Still far too low, but getting there slowly. ;-)

                And there is absolutely NOTHING your cult-religious whining can do about it.:-)

                30

          • #
            AndyG55

            The circled measurements are what the AGW scare is built around

            Much cherry picking.

            132

          • #
            Serp

            There’s a Tim Ball presentation which you’ll find helpful. Explicit reference to variation of earth’s carbon dioxide levels is made at about 4:40 (and elsewhere).

            70

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              This is the Tim Ball about whom a judge said he couldn’t possibly defame anybody because nobody in their right mind would find him credible?

              47

              • #
                AndyG55

                The one that trashed Mickey Mann in court.. made Mickey run and hide..

                You would never be able argue a single bit of science with him would you, mutters

                You don’t have any science. !!

                63

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                The judge found that Tim Ball’s nonsense was so obviously nonsense that no sensible person would believe him.

                The only person who got “trashed” was Tim Ball, when he was found by a court of law to be responsible for producing error-strewn nonsense.

                02

              • #
                AndyG55

                The judge ruled totally in favour of Tim Ball.

                Mickey Mann did the big COP-OUT,

                too scared to expose his failed junk science to even further scrutiny.

                GET OVER IT !!

                20

              • #
                Serp

                So Screaming Nutbag, you’d be referring to the judge mentioned in this article.

                There’s science and there’s polemic and Ball engages in both. It was Ball’s excesses of polemic that attracted the judge’s ire, not his charting of carbon dioxide’s paleohistorical levels.

                I suppose you may have prejudiced Salome against looking at the video but if so that’s not at all a feather in your cap rather a self denunciation as being one of the infestation of no-platforming zealots plaguing today’s world.

                00

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Yes, that’s the one, Tim Ball is, in the words of that article, “too ludicrous” to be able to libel anybody.

                You then go on to claim that Tim Ball does science.
                Being sceptical, I wouldn’t believe you without any evidence.
                I *do* know that Tim Ball has a history of padding his credentials and making things up about his academic achievements and positions that he’s held.
                From memory, he last published some research science relevant to climate change over 30 years ago.

                So, no, I am pretty certain Tim Ball only does “ludicrous” polemic and not any science.

                00

              • #
                AndyG55

                ie, the judge realised it was meant AS A JOKE.

                Pity mickey mann has such a thin skin.

                And NOTHING to back up his temperature fabrications. ;-)

                I do know that you have a propensity to make unsupportable garbage statements.

                In the Ball v Mann case, the judge threw it out of court and award full costs to Tim Ball, because mickey could produce anything be cause he KNEW that “discovery” would show up his either gross ineptitude, or gross maleficence.

                Mickey yelped and squealed , saying he was going to appeal..

                He couldn’t even get up the guts to do that, cowardly little weasel that he is.

                00

            • #
              AndyG55

              typo.. mickey COULDN’T or WOULDN’T produce any evidence.

              More than a bit like you and PF, hey ;-)

              00

      • #
        Travis T. Jones

        Are these figures correct?

        Salome: “I read that levels as high as ours haven’t been seen for 3 million years.”

        So why isn’t” sea level about five to 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than normal.” (whatever ‘normal’ is)
        https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/7/graphic-carbon-dioxide-hits-new-high/
        “That was the Earth about three to five million years ago …”

        >> Perhaps carbon (sic) is not the cause …

        Ancient air challenges prominent explanation for a shift in glacial cycles
        An analysis of air up to 2 million years old, trapped in Antarctic ice, shows that a major shift in the periodicity of glacial cycles was probably not caused by a long-term decline in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03199-8

        As for your first link to the Great Lakes, you don’t wanna go there with your junk science …

        In 2008, Science Daily reported on a study that attributed the decline in Great Lakes water levels to global warming.
        https://issuesinsights.com/2019/06/09/great-lakes-reveal-the-fatal-flaw-in-global-warming-science/

        Record-shattering Great Lakes water levels could be even higher in 2020
        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/11/great-lakes-water-levels-even-higher-2020/3941750002/

        80

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Salome:

        We don’t really know what the CO2 level was. The ice core figures are the ones used by “climate science” but run into problems with why the last few interglacials were warmer than now but with lower CO2 levels
        Consider the interglacial before this one (called the Eemian and other names). We know it was warmer and about 2.5℃ than the present time because of the O18/O16 ratios. Also the ocean levels were at least 6 metres higher due to ice melt. Also fossils of lions, giraffes, elephants and hippos have been discovered in the Thames Valley in England (and those of rhinoceros from Yorkshire). Yet the CO2 level supposedly peaked at 285 p.p.m.
        So much for CO2 as the global temperature control.

        60

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          Oooh, gosh, do you suppose there might be *other* forcings that act on climate?

          Quick, tell the scientists before they make fools of themselves by claiming there is only one thing that you can attribute the state of our climate to!

          411

          • #
            AndyG55

            NO evidence at all that it is CO2

            The ONLY warming in the last 40 years has come from El Ninos

            The energy for those El Ninos comes from the sun and decreased clouding over the topical oceans.

            Stop making a fool of yourself, nutters !!

            112

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              Just for a laugh, could I possibly assign you a challenge?

              Here’s your mission:
              Find any ONE scientist who says that El Nino causes global warming.
              Just ONE will do.

              48

              • #
                AndyG55

                So you can’t understand basic graphs

                Yes we had established that ages ago

                You really think El Ninos don’t warm the atmosphere ?????

                WOW.. such IGNORANCE. !!!

                72

              • #
                Another Ian

                I saw a description recently of someone looking like a “condom filled with walnuts”.

                Noise wasn’t mentioned

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                Hey nutters, what happened to the atmospheric temperature at the 1998 El Nino?

                What happened during the long El Nino of 2015-2016?

                Are you saying that there was no atmospheric warming, despite the measurements showing two large peaks ???????.

                WOW !!!!!

                Take off your blinders and open your eye, twerp !!

                53

              • #
                Craig Thomas

                A hubcap full of nuts?

                00

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘ … El Nino causes global warming.’

                Thats right, sir.

                ‘Though El Niño is not caused by climate change, it often produces some of the hottest years on record because of the vast amount of heat that rises from Pacific waters into the overlying atmosphere. Major El Niño events—such as 1972-73, 1982-83, 1997-98, and 2015-16—have provoked some of the great floods, droughts, forest fires, and coral bleaching events of the past half-century.’

                Earth Observatory

                00

      • #
        tom0mason

        Salome,

        Take a look at https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=200 for CO2 links to paper on historic Co2 levels.
        Also of note is that CO2 can not warm the oceans… see https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-greenhouse-gases-wont-heat-oceans.html

        40

        • #
          Salome

          Thanks. This Prof. Ball chap is wonderful!

          10

          • #
            Screaming Nutbag

            He hasn’t published any relevant science for decades.
            He has been caught out numerous times making false claims about degrees he has or university positions he has held.
            And a court says his opinions are so ludicrous, nobody could possibly take him seriously.

            “Wonderful”?
            I suspect you’ve failed to be sceptical.

            00

            • #
              AndyG55

              You haven’t presented any relevant science since you started your mindless AGw regurgitations.

              Just “believe” nutters.. its all you can manage.

              00

  • #
    a happy little debunker

    I’m guessing there are not many climate change ‘believers’ found around Martha’s Vineyard these days!

    90

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Hmmmm….reality disconnect?

    This article appears to be framing
    climate science = socialism = good
    Xapitalism = sceptic = bad

    https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6478332/climate-manifesto-in-age-of-disbelief/?cs=14258

    “At its base, climate science is a straightforward piece of data gathering on the weather. Thousands of scientists spend their waking hours measuring and monitoring the likes of ice cores, ocean temperatures, sea levels, growth rings, and elements in the air and water. They crunch the data and produce the graph.

    “The problem is they ran smack bang into the fundamentals of the capitalist era and 100 years of exponential exploitation of the earth’s resources in the pursuit of growth. Capitalism is built on growth; and Australia is tying itself in knots right now over how to boost growth back to long-run levels considered essential for a humming economy. This is where science meets vested interest.

    50

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Plenty lefties own properties with frontage to the water .

    80

    • #
      • #
        Screaming Nutbag

        Well, leftards buying waterfront properties is pretty much the final final final final final nail in the coffin of CAGW, obviously.

        55

        • #
          AndyG55

          And all that flying to conferences in jets etc

          THEY DON’T CARE about CO2 emissions.

          More the merrier as far as they are concerned.

          72

          • #
            Screaming Nutbag

            Yes, the fact that people catch planes to go places was the final final final nail in the coffin of CAGW, I think we dealt with that in a previous episode.

            47

            • #
              AndyG55

              Great that these climate glitterati don’t have to cut down their use of CO2

              Just everyone else

              Its called HYPOCRISY and is the MAJOR FEATURE of the climate change religion.

              THEY DON’T REALLY BELIEVE, do they !.

              Neither do you. You are just in it for the scam.

              You are just trolling mindlessly, presenting absolutely ZERO verifiable evidence .

              62

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Is this where I offer a mea culpa and promise to in future do better by emulating your studiously well-researched and amply-referenced writings?

                23

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yep, you live in a mindless world of your cognitive malfunctionality and monumental stupidity.

                Still no evidence, have you little toady.

                Keep trolling.. its the only high point in your life.

                Sad, almost pitiful.

                10

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Fascinating. Gosh Yes.

        10

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    When one considers the political views of most true believers, one can readily understand the
    value differential. In fact, I am surprised that it is so small….the constraints on property
    through regulation by liberals….often supposedly to preserve values, frequently have the opposite
    effect.
    Have ya ever been nibbled to death by ducks?
    You can’t re-paint without getting the color approved by the community association.
    The trash container can’t go out more that two hours before the truck is due, and must be taken
    back in within two hours after the truck has come.
    Cars may not be parked in driveways, but must be in garages, and the garage door must be fully closed.
    Faulty lamps must be replaced within 24 hours.
    Dead vegetation is not permitted.
    You must pic up after your dog.
    You must pick up after a stray dog.
    We don’t want to hear the music you are playing in your yard in our yard so you need signed permission
    72 hours in advance to have a garden party.

    The home in the gated community we didn’t buy actually had a list of rules running 14 pages. Owners there currently can’t
    sell at all because of dueling lawsuits from various competing claims & assessments for contracts in the common space that somehow
    didn’t get paid for.

    If your neighbors are true-believing liberals they are more interesting in managing your life than their own, and membership in the climate change cult is a prime indicator.

    So to repeat, I’m guessing that 7% is less than the true risk of having leftists as neighbors, especially if they come to constitute a voting majority in the community…should that happen, evacuate while you still can!

    100

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Let’s see if I can put this study in the proper light. People expressing an interest in buying low-lying property can be put into one of two Groups (1 and 2). People in Group 1 believe it is unlikely that nature will have a negative effect on low-lying property and people in Group 2 believe that in the not-to-distant future nature will negatively impact low-lying property. After giving the matter studious thought, the authors of the study conclude (1) that people in Group 1 will pay more for low-lying property than people in Group 2, and (2) both groups can’t be right about nature’s impact on the property. Well, color me amazed. If I funded this study, I’d ask for my money back.

    120

    • #
      Screaming Nutbag

      It does seem to be an exercise in stating the bleeding obvious, doesn’t it?

      I was trying to think of some analogies. Like maybe, “People who like to eat bananas spend more money on bananas”.

      76

      • #
        AndyG55

        Climate scientists and scaremongers that want to live on the water edge, live on the water edge.

        They KNOW sea level rise scares are a LOAD OF BOLLOCKS.

        93

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          The question is, Andy, are they as big a load of bollocks as the silly story about Obama’s 40metre elevation house that’s more than half a km away from the beach somehow being “at sea level” and “on the water edge”?

          47

          • #
            AndyG55

            Poor nutters, thinks 2mm per year SLR is scary.

            Go and get your nappy changed, little child.

            Put on your crash helmet.. the sky is falling !!

            83

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              The only one panicking here seems to be you.

              Nappies, helmets, sky falling. It must be terrifying being inside Andy’s head.
              Also, there must be a seriously deadly echo in there.

              47

              • #
                AndyG55

                You poor little trollette.

                Desperation at the effectiveness of Jo’s blog

                And unable to present a single bit of actual science to counter it.

                So you just yabber mindless, empty, regurgitated junk-science

                So pathetic.

                64

              • #

                Regarding recent thread bombing by he of the grating nomenclature, well it may, of course, be an involuntary outburst of the extreme symptom of Tourette Syndrome, Coprolalia, thereby deserving of our sympathy, though maybe warranting some editorial intervention, or it may just be political thread bombing according to the Gramsci long march through the media and X Revolution activists taking over the streets… ‘We shall curtail your right to speak and your right to move.’

                40

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              Oh, and it was 2mm/year about 30 years ago.

              Now, it is 3.3mm/year.

              You should do a bit of research Andy, make sure you aren’t posting stuff that’s wrong.

              https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

              47

              • #
                AndyG55

                Again you show your complete mathematic ineptitude.

                Accepting faked and adjusted data, the climate scam way.

                The adjustments started way back in 2002, you did know that, didn’t you.?

                Or are you as IGNORANT of that as well and you are of the effect of El Ninos.???

                There is no acceleration at ANY tide gauge anywhere.

                62

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Gosh, should I believe the yapper on the internet or should I trust the rocket scientists?

                That’s a tough one!

                https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

                Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

                11

              • #
                AndyG55

                By adding adjustments to satellite data.

                Short term record.

                Mathematical nonsense, designed for the stupendously gullible.

                And you fall for it every time. :-)

                11

              • #
                AndyG55

                No acceleration at ANY tide gauge, scrot. !!

                GET OVER IT !!

                12

  • #
    david purcell

    I have a Gold Coast waterfront house I built in 1986.

    The estuary is always open to the Pacific Ocean. The house slab is 2.1m above king tide level. The watermarks on my revetment have not shifted in 33 years so I am probably OK for at least the next 700 years or so!

    A few years ago a neighbour sold and moved to the hinterland some 100m above sea level because of predicted sea level rise. I am not aware of anyone else in my street selling for that reason.

    Real estate values and sales for these waterfront places have remained solid. There is no indication buyers are concerned about climate change /rising sea levels.

    160

    • #
      Screaming Nutbag

      You failed to reveal how many km inland you are, up your estuary, as well as your method for determining that the “watermarks haven’t shifted”.

      Also, just imagine if a scientist published something along the lines of, “Sea level is doing X, as per my study of some watermarks on a stone wall”.

      We sceptics would say, “haven’t you heard of scientific instruments?!?!?”

      Maybe we’d expect a competent analysis to be based on the likes of this:
      https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1704.php

      The Gold Coast is in fact extremely vulnerable to sea level rise – huge parts of it are very low.

      612

      • #
        AndyG55

        around 1mm per year.

        High vulnerability.. NOT !!

        What fantasy world are you living in , nutters. !!

        103

      • #
        Robert Swan

        We sceptics would say, “haven’t you heard of scientific instruments?!?!?”

        Yeah, like tree rings.

        110

      • #

        The Gold Coast is in fact extremely vulnerable to sea level rise – huge parts of it are very low.

        Yeah!

        That low lying land and waterfront land that there is so much of on the Gold Coast is of so little value now that because of climate change and rising sea levels, the Gold Coast City Council has deemed it valueless so the yearly rates charge for the land based on its value has fallen so far that it will be zero soon.

        Yeah! Of course it is!

        The value of that land is so low in fact that even the insurance companies are not charging insurance premiums on the land, based on its current worth.

        Yeah! Right!

        Tony.

        161

      • #
        Travis T. Jones

        “Also, just imagine if a scientist published something along the lines of, “Sea level is doing X, as per my study of some watermarks on a stone wall”.”

        It’s been done.

        It’s called the “The Lempriere-Ross mark”, the oldest known mean sea-level rise marks on the planet …

        “It was put there in 1841 by the famous Antarctic explorer Captain Sir James Clark Ross and amateur meteorologist Thomas Lempriere to mark mean sea level.”
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/467007.stm

        “In April 1842, he (Capt. Ross) stopped at Port Louis, primarily to make magnetic field and other measurements, but also to make repairs to his ships which had been badly damaged in the Drake Passage. Having set up a winter base, he took the opportunity to make careful measurements of sea level relative to two benchmarks cut into the cliffs and marked with brass plaques.

        These marks remain in good condition to this day.

        … researchers find that sea levels rose by an average of around 0.75 millimetres a year between 1842 and the early 1980s.
        They point out that this figure is similar to previous estimates for the long-term rate of sea-level rise at Port Arthur in Tasmania, measurements with which Ross was also associated, and at other locations in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.”

        https://phys.org/news/2010-10-sea-level-falklands.html

        If these sea-level markers showed any rise like UN predictions, climate zombies would be all over them like zombies over fresh brains.

        111

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          I’m not sure what it is you imagine are “UN predictions” but the very same paper you refer to says,

          “…they estimate that sea levels around the Falkland Islands have risen by an average of around 2.5 millimetres a year since 1992, a figure consistent with measurements made by satellite radar altimeters over the same period.”

          ” the rate of sea-level rise has accelerated over recent decades, ”

          Which is exactly what the UN predicts.

          48

          • #
            AndyG55

            “” the rate of sea-level rise has accelerated over recent decades, ””

            A total LIE, of course
            There is absolutely no sign of any acceleration of SLR at any tide gauge anywhere.

            You don’t seriously take notice of spliced adjusted data do you, nutters???

            Are you really that devoid of mathematical understanding ???

            NO SCIENTIST are you. !

            Just a mindless brain-washed trollette.

            64

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              Well, take it up with Travis – he’s relying on scientific research that says sea level rise is accelerating.

              What scientific research are *you* relying on, Andy? Can we have a read of it, to check it?

              11

              • #
                AndyG55

                No acceleration at any tide gauge.

                You have NOTHING trollette. !

                11

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                So that’s a “no” then Andy? You don’t have any scientific research to back your opinion, unlike Travis who showed us his research so we could check that it backed his opinion.

                That makes Travis’ opinion informed and potentially even correct.
                Andy’s opinion on the other hand would seem to be vapid nonsense based on no facts.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                Still waiting for your next empty, unsubstantiated comment, nutter

                No acceleration in any long term tide gauge, ANY WHERE. !!

                00

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor nutters, so PANICKED about even a tiny faked rise of 3.? mm/year

                Needs to put on his floaties so he doesn’t drown.

                01

      • #
        MudCrab

        Fun Fact – the Gold Coast is extremely vulnerable to heavy snow fall – there is next to no prevision for removing meltwater.

        Another fun fact – the Gold Coast is extremely vulnerable to naval assault – none of the beaches have barbed wire, land mines or other defensive obstacles.

        Another Another fun fact – Screaming Nutbag is extremely vulnerable to being eaten by a tiger – is a slow runner and lacks natural horns or thick ‘armour like’ skin.

        See where I am going with this? Pointing out a technically correct scenario is meaningless if the scenario is beyond the realistic scope of probability. This ‘As Far As Is Reasonable Practical’ mind set is how the real world deals with safety issues. Yes, it IS true you have no protection from a tiger, but it is also true that tigers have not been shown to turn up in the vicinity of the standard Australia internet friendly PC, and hence the money spent on building a steel tiger proof cage around each and every keyboard is better spent down the pub.

        (being a crab I of course are not at risk from tigers. Hard shell and claws. Tigers hate them! Honest!)

        Analysing the affects of a risk can, if done correctly, always be technically correct, but if the ‘risk’ isn’t proven to be ‘real’ it is meaningless.

        110

      • #
        el gordo

        “We found that the majority of the observed sea level rise acceleration originates from the Southern Hemisphere with a particular hotspot in the Subtropical South Pacific east of Australia and New Zealand,” Dangendorf notes.

        ‘In this region, the acceleration has been five times larger than in the global mean, while at the same time, sea levels decelerated further southward. The changes in the rate of sea level rise seem to be controlled by changes in the Southern Hemispheric westerly winds, also widely known as the Roaring Forties.’

        Phys.org

        60

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          So we can take out the SW Pacific and then say there’s been only slight acceleration?

          12

          • #
            AndyG55

            NO acceleration at any tide gauge, CT

            You know that

            Just fudged and adjusted satellite data.

            “Adjustments” started in 2002 , just in time, hey

            Still even with that “adjustment” , only 3.3 or something mm/years

            BE PETRIFIED , chicken-little.

            11

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘ … there’s been only slight acceleration?’

            There has been a slight deceleration worldwide during the hiatus and this is likely to continue with more La Nina activity and also the behaviour of the Roaring Forties.

            00

    • #
      yarpos

      In the 70s, a workmate of mine sold his 6 month old XU1 Torana because he believed that we were running out of oil in a few years. As long as people dont whine about consequences they can make all the dumb choices they like I guess.

      10

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Howsabout land values in Somalia?

    July 18 2019: In Somalia, the climate emergency is already here. The world cannot ignore it -

    “The climate has been wreaking havoc on Somalia’s seasons.
    Ordinarily there are four: the main rainy season between April and June (gu), the second rainy season between October and December (deyr), and the dry seasons that follow each of them.
    In recent years, the frequency and duration of these dry spells has increased.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/08/somalia-climate-emergency-world-drought-somalis

    November 5, 2019: Emergency Relief Pouring into Flood-Stricken Somalia -
    “More than 300,000 people have been made homeless by some of the worst flooding experienced by Somalia in years.
    Parts of the country, especially in the central Somali district of Belet Weyne, have been devastated.”

    https://www.voanews.com/africa/emergency-relief-pouring-flood-stricken-somalia

    Only UN solar panels and a carbon (sic) tax can save them now.

    80

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      Carbon (sic) caused the flood;

      Carbon (sic) caused the drought prior to the flood;

      Carbon (sic) caused the flood prior to the drought which occurred before the most recent flood;

      Carbon (sic) z z z z z z . . .

      40

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Howsabout land values in Finland?

    (Finland introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990) https://www.sbs.com.au/news/factbox-carbon-tax-around-the-world

    FINLAND’S COLDEST-EVER AUTUMN TEMPERATURE HAS JUST BEEN SMASHED + SNOW-DEPTH AT ITS HIGHEST LEVEL IN [AT LEAST] 60 YEARS
    https://electroverse.net/finlands-coldest-ever-autumn-temperature-has-just-been-smashed-snow-depth-at-its-highest-level-in-at-least-60-years/

    Better get to shovelling all that ‘global warming’ and tuning down that carbon (sic) tax.

    90

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Just maybe, the way things are going, the UNIPCCC May decide to introduce an Inverse Carbon emissions Tax.

      Countries which don’t produce enough CO2 per head of population may be required to pay the price.

      KK

      90

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        Our little Shaky Isles produce 0.17% of modelled make-believe GHGs (pop. < 5 million).

        Our electricity production is ~80% hydro and geothermal (so-called renewables, apart from the concrete & steel & tarseal & diesel).

        Yet per capita we are the 5th highest ‘polluter’ in the OECD, 21st biggest ‘emitter’ in the world – ‘dirtier’ than even China and India – so we’d like our money back, thanks! Plus interest. Plus GST. Plus goodwill. Plus an apology :-)

        40

  • #
    pat

    all over FakeNewsMSM today – no doubt others will follow:

    7 Nov: NBC: Reuters: Italy to make climate change study compulsory in schools
    Many traditional subjects, such as geography, mathematics and physics, would also be studied from the perspective of sustainable development.
    Italy will next year become the world’s first country to make it compulsory for schoolchildren to study climate change and sustainable development, Education Minister Lorenzo Fioramonti said.

    Fioramonti, from the anti-establishment 5-Star Movement, is the government’s most vocal supporter of green policies and was criticized by the opposition in September for encouraging students to skip school and take part in climate protests…

    Fioramonti, 42, the author of several books arguing gross domestic product should no longer be used as the main measure of countries’ economic success, has been a target of the right-wing opposition since becoming a minister in the two-month-old government of 5-Star and the centre-left Democratic Party.
    His proposals for new taxes on airline tickets, plastic and sugary foods to raise funds for education were strongly attacked by critics who said Italians were already over-taxed…
    https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/italy-make-climate-change-study-compulsory-schools-n1077451?yptr=yahoo

    Wikipedia: Lorenzo Fioramonti is a political scientist and (former) professor of political economy at the University of Pretoria and associate fellow of the Centre for the Study of Governance Innovation…
    For the LSE Review of Books, his research is a kind of “psychopath’s guide to bullying the world by numbers”, unmasking the pretension that “everything is ‘rational’, ‘independent’ and ‘objective’ and building fortresses of power around these intentional misrepresentations…Fioramonti’s work has been endorsed by … Kumi Naidoo, the former executive director of the environmental organization Greenpeace…
    By 2014, he also holds the UNESCO/UNU Chair in Regional Integration, Migration and Free Movement of People…
    He is a fellow of the Centre for Social Investment of the University of Heidelberg, of the Hertie School of Governance and of the United Nations University. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Guardian, Harvard Business Review ETC…
    After being nominated in January 2018 as a candidate for the Five Star Movement in the 2018 Italian general election,[8] Fioramonti has subsequently been elected to parliament and his name has been put forward for Minister of Economic Development.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Fioramonti

    a random oldie from Fioramonti:

    2014: IndependentOnlineSouthAfrica: from Cape Times: The risk of putting a price on nature
    Putting a price on the ecosystem would help conserve biodiversity , but this approach also spells danger for those resources, writes Lorenzo Fioramonti…
    https://www.iol.co.za/news/opinion/the-risk-of-putting-a-price-on-nature-1715827

    60

  • #
    Salome

    It appears that there are some who attribute mechanical processes such as erosion to ‘climate change’. As for me, I learned at Sunday School that it is unwise to build upon the sand, and consequently am inclined to limit my sympathy for those who have built on the sand right up to water’s edge.

    100

  • #
    David Maddison

    A lot of warmists like to live near the waterfront, e.g. “our” Flannery and Obama and Gore. It doesn’t seem to bother them, despite the fact they have scared people into not living close to the “rapidly rising” oceans.

    I am reminded of one of the Superman movies where Lex Luther plans to ignite a nuclear bomb in the San Andreas fault to cause LA and SF to slide into the sea. He had meanwhile been buying up cheap desert land East of the fault which would soon become expensive waterfront property.

    60

    • #

      great comment. Nailed them again.

      25

    • #
      Screaming Nutbag

      Being a sceptic, I previously checked this claim about Flannery’s, when it first appeared in the pages of the Daily Mail or whichever rag ran the story.

      Flannery’s House is nowhere near a flood zone according to his council’s flood map. His eleveation keeps him well above it.

      The sad thing is somebody makes up a silly lie about Flannery’s house, it is easily checked and shown to be wrong, but people carry on repeating the lie, because people just aren’t sceptical enough, they are happy to be led by the nose.

      37

      • #
        AndyG55

        So you admit that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DANGER to a sea level rise of 2mm/year

        Thanks for splatting that egg all over your face, dopey. It suits you.

        63

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          Sea level rise is accelerating, as everybody knows, and is now 3.3mm/year.

          39

          • #
            AndyG55

            A mathematical LIE. and I suspect you know that.

            If you don’t know that, then you mark yourself as a mathematical nincompoop.

            Splicing corrupted satellite data onto tide gauges with NO ACCELERATION

            You accept that fallacy.. just swallow and regurgitate, no rational thought required.

            Fact is that there has been a slight DECELERATION in sea level rise.

            But don’t let reality get in the way of a good fabrication !!

            Wouldn’t be “climate science” if you did.

            73

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Nice try, but should try harder
              https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

              2102 is 5 years ago

              /blowhard fail

              37

              • #
                AndyG55

                Come on dopey dizt, find a tide gauge with acceleration, bet you can’t.

                You really think acceleration would show up in 4 years.. so funny

                So mathematically INEPT !!

                You are even DUMBER than I thought you were. !

                Using fabricated satellite data.. really !!

                Corrections for this, correction for that, always making it steeper

                And STILL be best that can manage is 3.2mm/year

                ARE YOU SCARED, chicken little ??????

                dig deeper, gullible twerp.

                NO ACCELERATION at any tide gauge.

                Sydney 0.65mm/year

                Brisbane 0.99mm/year

                Bunderburg 1.58mm/year

                Mackay 2.09mm/year

                Cairns 1.83mm/year

                54

              • #
                Craig Thomas

                I wonder where Andy gets his numbers from?
                http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60201/IDO60201.201909.pdf
                Shows strong and accelerating sea level rise.

                23

              • #
                AndyG55

                lol, you can’t show acceleration with such short term data, moron. !!!

                You do know there are cycles overlying the general trend , don’t you

                You ALWAYS bring your ignorance in at every post CT.

                Its part of you that you seem destine to maintain all your life.

                11

              • #
                el gordo

                This from CT’s link.

                ‘Monthly mean sea levels were lower than normal at all locations this month with significant negative
                anomalies observed at Groote Eylandt (-16 cm), Darwin (-13 cm) and Broome (-10 cm).’

                September might be seen as an anomaly, but it could also be the beginning of a trend.

                00

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            See, sea levels have fallen a minimum of 4,000 mm in the last seven thousand years.

            Overall that’s an average of about 0.5 mms p.a.

            This isn’t the experienced rate as locals would have seen it because there were oscillations with an overall downward trend.

            Levels are now relatively stable and showing no influence from the dreaded CO2.

            KK

            71

      • #
        David Maddison

        Nutbag, Flannery lives on a low lying property on Coba Point, also known as Beauty Point. At that location the river is tidal and flood zones are not relevant. What is relevant is supposed sea level rise he and you claim is happening now. So why is he living on a low lying property if he believes his own BS?

        91

        • #
          yarpos

          but, but he did the research. Great example really of how valuable the results of some research is

          10

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          See, because I’m sceptical, I got hold of the council flood maps and checked for myself.
          Flannery’s house is way above sea level and no level of council-defined flood risk area is anywhere near his house.

          The difference is, I checked this stuff, you just relied on a made-up story in some tabloid. Flannery’s house is not a sea level and the council’s thorough hydrographical engineering report says it isn’t at risk from rising waters.

          The most fascinating thing is this: I’ve told you that you’re wrong, but instead of thinking, “gosh, I better check this for myself” like a sceptic would, you resort to blank denial.
          You have no idea what the truth is and you have no intention of finding out. Your position is based on ideology.

          11

  • #
    pat

    Fox News has been full-on CAGW of late.
    today:

    6 Nov: Fox: Sea levels to keep rising even if humanity hits climate targets, scientists warn
    By Chris Ciaccia; The Associated Press contributed to this report
    The research, published in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, notes that sea levels would rise approximately 20 centimeters by the year 2300 from emissions released between 2016 and 2030, when the Paris Agreement expires.
    “Even if we were to meet these initial goals of the Paris agreement, the sea level commitment from global warming will be significant,” said one of the study’s co-authors, Oregon State University climate scientist Peter Clark, in a statement. “When we pump more carbon into the atmosphere, the increase in temperature is almost immediate.
    Clark continued: “But sea level rise takes a lot longer to respond to that warming. If you take an ice cube out of the freezer and put it on the sidewalk, it takes some time to melt. The bigger the ice cube, the longer it takes to melt.”…

    ***The study follows news that the Trump administration has begun the process of pulling out of the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement…
    https://www.foxnews.com/science/sea-levels-to-keep-rising-even-if-humanity-hits-climate-targets-scientists-warn.amp

    ***yesterday, Fox’s Shannon Bream reported the following at length, with the same comment about how this comes a day after Trump began the process of pulling out of Paris. all reported in a very serious tone!

    5 Nov: Fox: Over 11,000 scientists warn of ‘climate emergency’
    by Christopher Carbone
    The essay presents more than a dozen charts showing in stark detail a wide range of change in human activities at a global scale from 1979 to the present day, including: significant increases in emissions, air transporation, global GDP, energy consumption, human population and livestock, and tree cover loss.
    Another set of charts show climatic responses over the last 40 years, including increases in methane, nitrous oxide, surface temperature and sea level, along with decreases in minimum Arctic sea ice, Greenland ice mass, glacier thickness and Antarctic ice mass…
    Still, the scientists end on a somewhat more upbeat note, citing recent actions taken by goverments and activists…
    https://www.foxnews.com/science/11000-scientists-warn-of-climate-emergency

    Shannon Bream followed immediately with this HuffPo rubbish (tho didn’t mention the source). Washington Times was strong on mockery, Fox was deadly serious:

    5 Nov: HuffPo: The Environmental Impact Of Your Thanksgiving Dinner
    By Alexandra Emanuelli
    We spoke with three researchers to find out more about Thanksgiving’s carbon footprint…
    Consider Taking The Turkey Out Of The Turkey Dinner…
    Go for a plant-based source…

    6 Nov: WashingtonTimes: HuffPost post: Save the planet — skip Thanksgiving
    by Cheryl Chumley
    The Huffington Post, in what’s probably going to go down as the stupidest idea in American history, put out a post calling for the outright skipping of some serious Thanksgiving traditions — like travel, like turkey — as a means, get this, of saving the planet from environmental damage.
    Holy crap, Batman.
    “You may want to consider skipping the turkey altogether — and, more importantly, the travel,” HuffPost tweeted, with a link to its posted opinion piece, “The Environmental Impact Of Your Thanksgiving Dinner.”…
    So what’s a poor radical environmentalist to do when that fateful Thursday in November rolls around? Eat plants, not meat, for one. And for God’s sake, stay home…

    There’s more; not all vegetables are alike.
    “Want to get into the nitty gritty? On the hierarchy of vegetables, asparagus and celery produce the highest quantity of CO2 per pound, with 7.33 and 7.09 respectively,” HuffPost goes on. “[S]quash and pumpkin only create 0.10 and 0.11 pounds of CO2 per pound, respectively. So instead of more turkey, help yourself to an extra slice of pumpkin pie or an additional serving of squash soup.”…

    Wait for it, wait for it. Next up: Christmas trees, and the environmental costs of cutting wood.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/6/huffpostpost-save-planet-skip-thanksgiving/

    30

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    I can see a generation of ‘climate change’ millionaires over this property scam. Buy now sell when the doo doo hits the fan during the next GSM! when levels will drop..

    30

  • #
    pat

    Beeb still looking for a pro-”climate change election” -

    ***What do the opinion polls show?, the Beeb asks.

    all you get is a single YouGov poll (see their fantastic new climate popularity graph) which YouGov/BBC connect to public approval of -

    XR, Greta, the revered tones of Attenborough & the “record-breaking heatwaves” of the past summer:

    6 Nov: BBC: General election 2019: How big an issue is climate change for voters?
    By David Shukman
    Could this be the UK’s first general election where climate change plays a defining role?…
    For Chris Stark, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, “this election really is the climate election”…
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50307304

    all that is required is “a tripling of solar and of the output of its offshore wind, switching away from using gas to heat our homes, together with massive improvements in the energy efficiency of all our buildings and greening all our transport”

    30

  • #
  • #
    pat

    5 Nov: Vox: The Paris climate agreement is at risk of falling apart in the 2020s
    It will be a perilous decade for the only international climate treaty going.
    By David Roberts
    With so much riding on the next election, no one has quite tallied up the damage done by the abdication of US climate leadership. But there’s reason to believe it is substantial. In fact, there a reasons to believe that the Paris agreement is in bad shape, that in the 2020s it could break down or even fall apart entirely.

    Those are the gloomy possibilities raised by Noah Sachs, an environmental law professor at the Richmond School of Law, in a new paper in Ecology Law Quarterly. He says a “downward spiral of dissent, dysfunction, and disengagement” is just as plausible as the optimistic story of ambition ratcheting perpetually upward…

    The gap between what has been promised and what is being done will only grow…
    To bridge the gap, all countries will need to reduce carbon emissions between 5 and 8 percent a year, something no country has ever achieved, and do it through the end of the century. That will involve, among other things, one-third of all known oil reserves and 80 percent of known coal reserves being left in the ground…

    In the 2009 Copenhagen accord, developed nations pledged to direct $100 billion annually in public and private resources to financing climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts in the developing world, helping poorer countries to clean up…
    Since then, countries have pledged $10.3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, which was set up by the UNFCCC to direct climate finance to developing nations. They have actually transferred about $3.5 billion…

    Ultimately, nations will do what they have the national political will to do. The Paris agreement reflects, but cannot change, the fact that collective will to address climate change remains sorely lacking.
    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/11/5/20947289/paris-climate-agreement-2020s-breakdown-trump

    20

  • #
    pat

    5 Nov: Bloomberg: Muni Bonds Contain New Fine Print: Beware of Climate Change
    The underwriters of municipal bonds are disclosing more about cities’ exposure to higher temperatures and rising seas.
    By Danielle Moran
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/how-serious-is-the-climate-change-risk-ask-a-banker

    20

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Körtik Tepe.

    It was often asked where did the people who built Göbekli Tepe come from?

    Seems they have found out: Körtik Tepe.

    Via Musings from the Chiefio [ https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/11/05/kortik-tepe/ ] comes this video:

    Körtik Tepe ~ Older & The Builders Of Gobekli Tepe & Debunking History – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7D5JdgRv3o

    40

  • #
    pat

    Steve Austin, ABC Brisbane, just shared concerned with an “auto expert” over 19 consecutive months of decline in new car sales.

    Austin: what about high-end vehicles (mentions Bentleys, SUVs).

    expert: no problem for cars in the $400,000-$500,000 range. waiting list of buyers who own 3 or 4 properties ON THE RIVER OR ON THE COAST.

    Austin: what about EVs/hybrids. there are charging stations between Brisbane & Cairns, but you don’t see them on the roads?

    expert: EVs tick the social boxes, but they are $20,000 more than the equivalent ICE vehicles, and need govt incentives. no country has increased EV sales without subsidies.

    5 Nov: Deutsche Welle: German government expands subsidies for electric cars
    The German government and car industry have agreed to increase joint subsidies for electric car buyers and extend the program to 2025. The news came as VW began production of its new all-electric vehicle
    Under the agreement, consumer subsidies for electric cars costing less than €40,000 ($44,500) will increase to €6,000 (about $6,700) from €4,000. Purchasers of plug-in hybrids in this price range would be given a subsidy of €4,500, up from €3,000.

    For electric cars over €40,000, there will be an increase in the subsidy by 25%. Any car priced over €60,000 will not supported by the scheme.
    Industry and government will evenly split the cost of the subsidies. The subsidies will also be extended from the end of 2020 to the end of 2025…

    Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office said the government would invest €3.5 billion to expand electric car charging stations. The target is for 50,000 publicly accessible charging stations nationwide by 2022, compared to 21,000 today. That figure is far short of the 1 million electric car charge points Merkel has said she wants across the country by 2030…
    https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-expands-subsidies-for-electric-cars/a-51113225

    20

  • #
    Andrew

    In climate hysteric areas, anything within 2m of the high tide mark is vulnerable not to the sea but to the Council. We’ve seen Lake Macquarie and other green councils effectively condemn homes that they believe will be under water in 40 years. By dezoning them for future upgrade /
    reno and slapping huge earnings on every sale contract they render the property almost worthless. Who wouldn’t pay 7% more to take away the risk that a green council ruins your largest asset and trashes your retirement?

    50

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      That’s a sick.piece of work from that council.

      Many good hardworking decent people abused for the moral majority at Lake Maq.

      The world just gets more disgusting every day.

      30

  • #
    pat

    7 Nov: Bloomberg: Russia Scraps Plans to Set Climate-Change Goals for Businesses
    By Natasha Doff; With assistance by Anna Andrianova, and Andrey Biryukov
    Targets, fines for companies abandoned after RSPP lobbying
    Russia ratified Paris accord, but doesn’t plan emissions cuts
    The measure was part of a bill intended to accompany Russia’s ratification of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change in September. Instead, the world’s fourth-largest carbon polluter scrapped the proposal after the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP) warned it would raise costs for companies and delay investment…

    While President Vladimir Putin has questioned whether human activity is solely responsible for climate change, he finally agreed to ratify the Paris accord this year and declared that Russia must do whatever it can to mitigate the effects of global warming. It’s a particular challenge for Russia’s economy, which is heavily dependent on oil and gas production and mining…

    The RSPP attacked the draft proposals at a meeting in parliament in March, warning they would lead to increased energy prices and inflation that would “negatively affect the well-being of ordinary people” and force companies to abandon investment plans.
    Critics also argued the measure was unnecessary because Russia can increase its emissions over the next decade and still meet its self-imposed target under the Paris accord…READ ON
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-07/russia-scraps-plans-to-set-climate-change-goals-for-businesses?utm_source=google&utm_medium=bd&cmpId=google

    20

  • #
    tom0mason

    Also of note is the latest research

    “As reported in 4 separately-published papers, scientists have discovered a mechanism whereby islands can build themselves up naturally, thwarting the threat of sea level rise. Tuck et al. (2019) affirm the “implications of island building are profound, as it will offset existing scenarios of dramatic increases in island flooding.””

    See so much more at https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/04/4-new-papers-one-alarm-dispelling-conclusion-future-sea-level-rise-may-not-threaten-islands-reefs-after-all/

    30

  • #
    pat

    6 Nov: AmericanThinker: Chile and the revolt against climate-change policies
    By H. Sterling Burnett
    Add Chile to the growing list of countries whose governments are suffering a backlash as average people, tired of elites forcing costly climate policies down their throats, take to the streets to protest higher energy costs…

    Although, undoubtedly, many issues stoked the protests on the streets across Chile, the Washington Post rightly notes that what finally drove the public to take to the streets was the government’s decision to curry favor with international agencies by pushing expensive energy restrictions to fight purported climate change. As the Post states, “[T]he catalyst [behind the protests] was a proposal to raise public transport fares and energy bills. There is ample evidence from across the world that these will incite rebellion like nothing else — a point that those who hope to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions via a carbon tax should bear in mind.”…

    The Chilean government’s climate policies are causing the country’s people to suffer. Chile’s electricity prices have risen 18% in just the past year — making Chile’s electricity costs the highest in all of South America. Before the riots, the government had announced that electricity prices would increase an additional 9% by the end of 2019, a plan it canceled in response to the violence in the streets.
    The final straw for Chileans was the announcement of Metro fare hikes…

    The public is tuning out the ever more shrill headlines proclaiming that the end of the world is near due to climate change, saying “enough is enough” to high energy prices that punish the most vulnerable, but do nothing to control the weather…READ ON
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/chile_and_the_revolt_against_climatechange_policies.html

    20

  • #
    pat

    7 Nov: Daily Mail: Houseplants DON’T improve indoor air quality: Scientists claim you need 93 plants per square foot of floor space to make a difference — and you’re better off opening a window
    •Researchers reviewed decades of studies into plants’ air cleaning effects
    •Previous experiments in contained environments were unrealistic, they found
    •Ventilation systems — or just opening a window — are vastly more effective
    •Plants clean harmful chemicals out of the air too slowly to be significant
    •As many as 93 plants per square foot would be needed to have a real effect
    By Ian Randall
    ‘This has been a common misconception for some time,’ said paper author and environmental engineer Michael Waring of the Drexel University in Philadelphia…READ ON
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7656137/Scientists-claim-youd-need-1-000-plants-square-metre-meaningfully-improve-indoor-air-quality.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    Obama’s Homeland Security boss, Janet Napolitano:

    5 Nov: Uni of California Press Room: UC President Napolitano’s statement on White House exit from Paris climate accord
    University of California President Janet Napolitano issued the following statement today (Nov. 5) following the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the United States from the landmark Paris climate agreement:
    It is the bitterest of ironies that the White House announces its plan to abandon the global coalition confronting the planet’s greatest existential threat as ***climate-change fueled wildfires ravage California.

    As the nation’s premier research university, UC will remain undaunted as we continue to pioneer cutting-edge approaches to curbing emissions and transitioning to clean energy sources…
    https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-president-napolitano-s-statement-white-house-s-exit-paris-accords

    A MUST-READ:

    4 Nov: Forbes: Why Everything They Say About California Fires — Including That Climate Matters Most — Is Wrong
    by Michael Shellenberger
    Many blame climate change.“The reason these wildfires have worsened is because of climate change,” said Leonardo DiCaprio.“This is what climate change looks like,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez…
    But can the increase in fires in California really be blamed on climate change?

    I asked Dr. Jon Keeley, a US Geological Survey scientist who has researched the topic for 40 years, if he thought the 2018 Paradise fire could be attributed to climate change.
    “It’s almost certainly not climate change,” he said. “We’ve looked at the history of climate and fire throughout the whole state, and through much of the state, particularly the western half of the state, we don’t see any relationship between past climates and the amount of area burned in any given year.”…

    Keeley refers to the Sierra fires as “fuel-dominated” and the shrubland fires as “wind-dominated.”…READ ALL
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/04/why-everything-they-say-about-california-fires–including-that-climate-matters-most–is-wrong/#211fa3bc4cb6

    30

    • #
      pat

      31 Oct: Fox News: California wildfires – Can 40 million suffer from third-world blackouts without voter revolt?
      Op-ed by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., Wall Street Journal
      California may well be entering a pre-revolutionary situation as the Marxists would call it. Unlike the rolling blackouts of 19 years ago, today’s outages cannot be stopped with a simple act of regulatory courage, which then consisted simply of guaranteeing that suppliers would get paid for power they supplied under long-term contracts…

      This week a homeowner told the Los Angeles Times: “They shut off the power and we still had a fire. I don’t understand it.” That’s because less than 10% of fires are caused by power lines. It’s impossible even to know if the intentional outages are doing more harm than good, though the question at least was broached in a state Senate hearing this year. Utilities make the decision. They are understandably focused on minimizing their own financial liability rather than weighing the trade-offs that outages impose on the public…

      It’s hard to see how 40 million people can go overnight from First World electric reliability to Third World electric reliability without a voter revolt…LINK WSJ (BEHIND PAYWALL)
      https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/california-wildfires-blackouts-revolt-holman-jenkins

      30 Oct: Fox News: Varney blames California’s ‘far-left climate change politics’ as wildfires rage
      by Yael Halon
      Fox Business host Stuart Varney had strong words for California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his state’s political climate as wildfires continue to rage there…
      “Just look at PG&E, which is getting all the blame for the fires and the blackouts. They’re not allowed to clear dead trees near their power lines. … The ‘greens’ insist on minimal forest management. PG&E is forced to spend billions buying expensive wind and solar power … an extra $2.2 billion each and every year — money that cannot be spent on fireproofing,” Varney said…

      “So now what?” the host asked. “Well, Californians are going to be paying much higher electricity rates. They’re going to be paying much higher home insurance rates. And somebody has to come up with maybe a couple of hundred billion dollars to bail out PG&E.”
      Newsom called on investor Warren Buffett to buy PG&E, but Varney questioned why the billionaire would put forth a serious bid to “run a business in that kind of regulatory and legal climate.”

      “And it gets worse,” he continued, “Governor Newsom is committed to reaching 100 percent renewable energy by 2045. You know what that means? Much, much higher energy prices for everyone. You think the climate crowd will back off? No, they won’t.
      “Get real,” Varney said, “there is no short term fix.”
      Later in the segment, Varney cited an op-ed published Wednesday on FoxNews.com by The Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins discussing whether “40 million Californians can suffer third world electric reliability without political upheaval.”
      “He’s put his finger on the problem, which is California’s far-left climate change politics,” Varney concluded…
      https://www.foxnews.com/media/varney-blames-california-wildfires-far-left-political-climate

      50

  • #
    robert rosicka

    OT , I wondered what was going on with the electricity price volatility yesterday , apparently wonderful renewable energy was supplying nearly all of our electricity for nearly ten minutes !
    Imagine that ten minutes wow ,really , wow .
    I have just two questions and that’s what are supposed to do for the other 23 hours and 50 minutes and reallllllllllllly ?

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-07/half-of-biggest-electricity-market-supplied-by-green-energy/11680766

    50

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      Get a really big battery and charge it fully during those 10 minutes. None of which exist at any price. Then live in darkness and not use all the life saving and time saving technology that has been developed for the rest of the day. Finally, accept the fact that, to save the planet, you, me, and the rest of us must die so we will stop using the planet’s precious fossil fuels.

      I will believe the above shortly after all the greenies on the earth put their lives where their mouths are and commit suicide to show us the way. Then I would go back to living my life as before but without their incessant, fact free, panic spoiling my days.

      40

  • #
    Hanrahan

    The house I lived in as a boy 70 years ago could get spring tides in our yard. Dad built it up with cinders from the local power station.

    I suspect that if today you offered the current owner 90c in the $ to take it off their hands they would laugh. After all this time that low lying suburb is still “desirable”. [I'd never go back: the sandflies!]

    40

  • #

    I just checked global temperatures fr 16,000 years ago. Compared them to today. Over 4 degrees of warming. Holy jumping catfish Batman it must be runaway global warming. Let’s move to Superman’s arctic fortress.
    But Robin, I Just checked temperatures from 3,500 years ago. Almost 2 degrees of cooling. A new ice age is beginning. Let’s buy a new lair on Tuvalu.
    Thinks the Joker, I will show them 1850 temperatures compared to today and get rid of these idiots once and for all. If I make a graphic everyone will believe me. Soon I will control all the world’s wealth. Hahahaha giggle.

    50

    • #
      Screaming Nutbag

      4 degrees in 16,000 years is 0.0025 degrees per decade.
      Warming since 1880 is 0.07 degrees per decade
      Warming since 1970 is 0.17 degrees per decade

      The global dip in temperatures in the late 18th century that is called “the little ice age” was a 0.5 degree dip in temperature.

      Your assertion about temperatures 3,500 years ago doesn’t make sense – it was the same temperature then is it was in the late 1980s.

      Looks like you should rely on others to provide these sorts of analyses.

      12

      • #
        AndyG55

        ” it was the same temperature then is it was in the late 1980s.”

        More ignorant assertions from the scrot. !!

        22

      • #
      • #

        You really believe warming occured as evenly as .0025 degrees per decade? I some ocean front property in Arizona you will likely be interested in. No chance of inundation.
        Have you even heard of the Younger Dryas.
        Now we will play your little game. Cooling from 1300 A.D H (height of the medieval warm period) to 1600 A.D (depths of the little ice age) approximately 6 degrees F. or 0.2 degrees F. of cooling per decade or about 0.17 C. And you think our current warming has been unprecedented?

        00

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          Your numbers are made up nonsense even if I don’t engage with your idiotic strawman about the rate being “evenly”.

          The height of the MWP (circa 1000-1150AD) to the depth of the LIA (about 1580AD) was well under 1 degree Celsius.

          00

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘The global dip in temperatures in the late 18th century that is called “the little ice age” was a 0.5 degree dip in temperature.’

        Focussing on SST in the Caribbean during the LIA.

        ‘ … coral that grew during the early Little Ice Age (LIA) (400 years B.P.) suggests that Caribbean SSTs were >5°C cooler than today. Conversely, application of our growth‐dependent Sr/Ca–SST calibration to Sr/Ca ratios derived from the LIA coral indicates that SSTs during the 5‐year period analyzed were within error (±1.4°C) of modern values.’

        Saenger et al 2008

        10

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          The LIA I was referring to was a global dip in temperatures.
          I’m not sure what your local effects in the Caribbean were called.

          10

          • #
            el gordo

            Thanks, well in that case the LIA began around 1250 AD and ended in 1900.

            00

          • #
            el gordo

            … and the global dip in temperatures was 1.5 C degrees cooler than present.

            10

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              What has “present” go to do with it?
              The LIA ended a long time ago, and the dip was 0.5 degrees.
              Since the dip ended, up to present, we’ve had almost twice that much in warming.

              00

              • #
                AndyG55

                Again more unsubstantiated rubbish from nutters.

                Dip was far more, MWOP was similar to current

                RWP was warmer again

                Be VERY thankful for the slight warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

                Guessing YOU live somewhere most WARM, hey nutters.

                Not Siberia.

                00

  • #
    observa

    They found that, even after taking myriad variables into account, homes projected to be under water located in climate change “denier” neighbourhoods sell for roughly 7 percent more than homes in “believer” neighbourhoods.

    Climate realists are smarter than climate alarmists and although they don’t have all the cosy grants and cushy public largesse commonly associated with alarmists they can still afford the better coastal sites on average.

    50

  • #
    AndyG55

    Thought I’d remind everyone of TERRIBLE PROBLEMS that the Maldives have with sea level rise. ;-)

    10

  • #
    AndyG55

    Yet another idiotic, anti-science, model-based sea level scare

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/08/another-climate-alarmist-sea-level-rise-attack-claim-on-a-california-coastal-city/

    Note the rapid acceleration in the ACTUAL DATA…. NOT !!!

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      quote

      “In all more than 200 coastal locations are included in these measurements with more than 100 of these coastal locations with recorded data periods in excess of 50 years in duration. None of these updated NOAA tide gauge measurement data records show coastal location sea level rise acceleration occurring anywhere on the U.S. coasts or Pacific or Atlantic island groups.”

      20

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>