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



Australian Speakers Agency


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



ABC BOM suddenly discover historic weather records (but only for snow)

Snow again in Western Australia?

South West WA got snow at Easter this year, a remarkable event, and then snow a week ago with predictions of more –  which maybe fell on July 5. Concerned that two or three* bouts of snow didn’t fit the narrative, the ABC and BOM suddenly found an interest in our historic weather archives:

Snow has been falling in Western Australia since records began

Australian snow is usually associated with the alpine region of the east coast, but the fluffy white stuff has been falling in Western Australia since records began in 1846.

  • It is estimated that Western Australia experiences an average 1.7 snow events annually
  • This could be more as meteorologists do not have an observational system to record them
  • The Bureau of Meteorology have said there could be another snow event this weekend at Bluff Knoll as a cold front approaches the south of WA

What the ABC never seem to report:

Heatwaves have been happening in Western Australia since records began

50 degrees? It’s occurred all over Australia and many times

Heatwaves, Perth, Geraldton, Western Australia.

125F in Geraldton. The Chronicle newspaper, Trove, Jan 11 1896

When it’s hot, it’s proof of a climate crisis, when it’s cold, it’s all happened before.

Let’s not forget the BOM lost the coldest ever April record for Albany this year (near Bluff Knoll). Accidentally adjusted up by 15 degrees C.

Put away those ideas it might be snowing more, it’s just a facebook thing, eh?

 The rise of social media

Reports of snow have significantly increased since 1846 but that is not to said (sic) it is snowing more, it might just be people’s fascination with touching the fluffy white stuff. Mr Bennett said the advent of social media meant people were getting out, taking pictures of the snow and the result may have led to an increase in record numbers.

How many heatwaves, fires and droughts would have been recorded in 1850 if they had “social media”? We’ll never know, and the ABC will never ask.

It’s easy to predict if a science story will get published on the ABC. Ask the question:

Will this help elect the kind of people who give the ABC more money?


PS: Weekend Fun. Who knew Bluff Knoll in WA is listed in a “ski resorts” report?

You can find out handy live data like today it has 0mm of snow and “0 out of 0 lifts open.”

Jonas from Australia comments on the ski page:

Don’t listen to these locals who just want to scare away skiers to keep the slopes to themselves. The fact is Bluff Knoll provides the best snow conditions anywhere for thousands of kilometres and ski conditions were supreme last ice age!

*The Snow report of 1cm of July 5 was predicted by their weather models. I can find no confirmation that it happened.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (62 votes cast)

Weekend Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (20 votes cast)

Antarctic Sea Ice lowest in 40 years, but no one knows why — “back to drawing board”

Put it in a history book: scientists are sounding like scientists — admitting they don’t understand

Antarctic Sea Ice set records in 2014, but then in 2016 it rapidly declined and hasn’t recovered, indeed right now as the southern winter peaks, it’s at a record low. The long term trend is still rising, but its now only half the rate it was in 2014. On this blog, Mike Jonas recently demonstrated that the Southern Ocean had cooled, not warmed as all the models predicted. But what matters here is that sea ice covers 7% of the world and we don’t know what caused it.

What is also a record is that most scientists and journalists are showing real restraint and are not blaming this as a climate change event.

Even, bowl-me-over, New Scientist, is showing admirable restraint: Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically and we don’t know why. This is the first time since starting this blog ten years ago that I have been able to say that. Congrats Adam Vaughan.

Decades of expanding sea ice in Antarctica have been wiped out by three years of sudden and dramatic declines, leaving scientist puzzled as to why the region has flipped so abruptly. However, researchers cautioned against pinning the changes on climate change and said it was too early to say if the shrinking is the start of a long-term trend or a blip.

The decline may just be natural variability, driven by shift in wind patterns which influence the extent of Antarctic sea ice, says Mark Serreze, director of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center. “To argue that this recent dip is evidence of the start of a longer term decline driven by greenhouse warming is premature.”       — New Scientist.

On average across the seasons there is about 13 million square kilometers of sea ice around Antarctica, so even though this is a record low, it’s still only 10% below normal. Right now, because its winter, there is 14 million square km of sea ice , but at this time of year normally there would be 15 million km2.

Antarctic Sea Ice, Graph, June, 2019.

Antarctic Sea Ice, Graph, June, 2019. Source: NSIDC


The water around Antarctica is no warmer than normal for this time of year:

You might think a warm sea current could be to blame, but it’s not that simple. The black area around the ice below shows the sea surface temperature today has a 0.0C “anomaly”. In other words, spot on average. (Though this is not a trend graph, just a daily situation graph, which can change quickly).

The Southern Ocean long term trends are what matters. This above, is a pretty picture, symbolic, but just a snapshot.

 Scientists admit they have to go back to the drawing board:

Maddie Stone, Gizmodo — January 2019:

“Notably, the November to December 2016 period was considered an extreme excursion of Antarctic sea ice at the time,” the NSDIC wrote.

In short, scientists pinned the last sea ice nosedive on natural variability. But it’s currently unclear what’s behind this year’s ice crash. Notably, University of Washington sea ice researcher Cecilia Bitz told Earther that the Southern Annular Mode is not strongly negative at the moment. Nor are we still nursing the hangover of a monster El Niño, as we were at the end of 2016.

“I think we have to go back to the drawing board a little bit,” Bitz told Earther.

Bitz was reluctant to speculate as to whether the near back-to-back sea ice slumps are part of a new trend associated with climate change. While parts of Antarctica are definitely feeling the heat, until recently, Antarctic sea ice was growing slightly, reaching a record high in 2014. That doesn’t negate the warming trend, it simply speaks to the complexity of sea ice behaviour in an environment impacted by both ocean currents and a giant continent.

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (67 votes cast)

Cosmic rays seeded clouds during the last geomagnetic reversal

That’s not in the models

Cosmic rays, graph, theory.

The cosmic ray theory, Henrik Svensmark, (Click to enlarge)

What if our clouds are partly driven by a rain of cosmic radiation from far flung exploding stars… What if the warming on Earth had more to do with magnetic fields than with CO2?  h/t GWPF

The Grand Mal test of Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory was 780,000 years ago when the poles on Earth flipped. For 5,000 wild years our magnetic shield was down to about a quarter of its normal strength. That would have allowed more cosmic rays to come streaking through the atmosphere down to the lowest part, crashing into molecules and generally busting things up in the air. Those ionised particles then seed clouds — in theory, which make an umbrella shade for the planet, keeping things cooler, and reflecting all that solar heat back into space. But how do we measure clouds that disappeared three quarters of a million years ago?

A team at Kobe University studied the patterns of monsoons in East Asia during the reversal. They argue that the extra low clouds would cause the winter monsoons to become stronger, so they looked closely at layers of dust deposited in the Loess Plateau south of the Gobi desert in China. There, something like 2.6 million years of dust has collected. When the winds are stronger the layers of dust are thicker and the particles are bigger. And sure enough, during that 5,000 year period the winds were blowing hard, the monsoons were stronger, and dust accumulated three times faster. Temperatures fell by around 2 – 3 degrees.

So this is further evidence that magnetic fields (like the Sun’s rather large one) have an effect on clouds. The stronger the fields the fewer the clouds. That obviously shows that magnetic fields change the temperature on Earth, though it doesn’t say “how much”. So this is a quasi proof of concept, which is very helpful, but these were extraordinary conditions (where our North pole becomes our South Pole). If the field fell by 75% and temperatures only fell 2 – 3 degrees, it seems to me, that there must be other major players that the IPCC favoured models also don’t include. (Like the solar wind, solar spectral changes, ozone for starters). But nonetheless, it’s still a bigger empirical effect than any due to CO2. Remembering that CO2′s supposed effect is only “discovered” by asking broken models with missing variables to explain the last 50 years. Ergo: if we ignore most solar physics, “it must be CO2″. (See how to create a crisis graph in six easy steps).

Amazing what people can figure out from a pile of old dust.

 – Jo

Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal

Press release

 New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an “umbrella effect”.

When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.

Cosmic ray theory, Mongolia, geomagetic reversal. Cloud cover. Graph, 2019.

Figure 2. Comparison of Loess Plateau monsoons with the paleoclimate and paleoenvironment changes from other regions(a) North Atlantic paleoceanic environment. (b) Northwest Pacific (Chiba Section) paleoceanic environment. (c) Lingtai summer rainfall. (d) Xifeng summer rainfall. (e) Osaka Bay sea levels. (f) Osaka Bay mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA), mean temperature of the coldest month (MTCO). (g) Lingtai winter monsoon strength. (h) Xifeng winter monsoon strength. (i) Magnetic dipole strength. (j) Cosmic ray flux. (k) Winter insolation at 45 degrees north. The blue bar shows the period of the intensified winter monsoon in the Loess Plateau and the cooling event in Osaka Bay

The Svensmark Effect is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays induce low cloud formation and influence the Earth’s climate. Tests based on recent meteorological observation data only show minute changes in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover, making it hard to prove this theory. However, during the last geomagnetic reversal transition, when the amount of galactic cosmic rays increased dramatically, there was also a large incr

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (53 votes cast)

Not the hottest ever June, 1998 was hotter and so was most of the last half billion years

But who doesn’t love using junk data to create a fake scare?

Another pound of panic with cherry picked data measured on junk equipment and adjusted by secret methods.

June 2019 was the hottest ever recorded on Earth: European satellite agency

New data released Tuesday found the average temperature in Europe for June 2019 was higher than any other June on record.

According to the data, the average temperature in June was more than 2 C above normal.

Earth is 4.5 billion years old and we’ve “recorded” 1 part in 35 million of the total climate history of Earth. It’s not only not the hottest on Earth ever, it’s not even the hottest in the last thirty years, according to UAH satellite data. Thanks to Roy Spencer.

 June 1998 was hotter (and 16 other months) and thousands upon thousands of years

Since 1979 fully 17 months have been hotter than this last June, and if we had had satellites for 10,000 years, we’d have found thousands of Junes hotter than today. Even without satellites there is no respectable climate scientist on Earth who would argue that temperatures weren’t higher than this for most of life on Earth.

UAH Satellite, Global Temperatures, Lower Troposphere, graph, June 2019.

UAH Satellite, Global Temperatures, Lower Troposphere, graph, June 2019.

Before ground data was adjusted and homogenized, June 1998 was 0.1C hotter. If you want to avoid heatstroke, don’t get homogenized and don’t sit near a jet engine (where many thermometers are based, and where you might really get homogenized).

The hottest month in the last 150 years is irrelevant

Nothing about the “hottest year-month-day ever” is meaningful or significant on a big scale.

  1. The world has been warming for 300 years, long before the industrial revolution. Seas have been rising since 1800. The trend didn’t change as our emissions rose, it was the same in the 1980s as it was in 1870s.
  2. 150 years of “records” is tiny. It was warmer 1000 years ago2000 years ago5000 years ago and 130,000 years ago. In fact its been warmer for most of the last 10,000 years than it is today, and it’s been warmer for most of time life since life on Earth was a mere sponge. Only people who think CO2 matters keep repeating that it’s warmed from 1850 to now without pointing out the bigger perspective.
  3. The records have usually been set with thermometers like this one (next to concrete and exhaust vents).  There probably weren’t too many car parks or air conditioners in 1880 either. Not to mention the non-random adjustments, and that mystery about how 75% of thermometers are ignored.

The hottest-ever-lines are bait for the too-busy and the easily-fooled.

It’s holocene denial:

Sea levels were higher, corals were happy, people thrived, and both Greenland and Antarctica were warmer. Seas have been falling for 7,000 years around Australia. Some 6,000 boreholes drilled around the world show it was global. It was hotter and CO2 was irrelevant.

GISP, Greenland, Ice Core temperatures, Holocene.

UPDATE: This graph shows the ice-core data up until 1855. The last 150 years (1705 to 1855) are highlighted in red to show the warming as the Earth began coming out of the LIA.


Vostok Antarctica, last 12,000 years of Interglacial temperature.

Vostok Antarctica, last 12,000 years of Interglacial temperature.


Since you asked: there are five reasons UAH is better than RSS.

(The other main satellite data set). UAH agrees with millions of weather balloons. RSS agrees with dodgy adjusted ground thermometers near airconditioners, tarmac and hot concrete. UAH uses empirical data, RSS uses models to guess. UAH removed a faulty satellite. RSS kept it. UAH corrects for diurnal drift, RSS keeps the error in the early years when it warms the trend then corrects for it after 2002. When is an error not an error — when it warms the planet.

 Thanks to Rod for technical proof reading.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (87 votes cast)

Coral reef totally recovers (for 400th time) and researchers surprised

CoralsIf only coral researchers read skeptic blogs, they’d know that corals have been getting bleached and wrecked by cyclones for millions of years. They have adaptable genes, honed by 500 million years of natural selection, plus epigenetic tricks, and with safe zones to seed recovery. The Great Barrier Reef spans 2,000 kilometers and five degrees Celsius from 27 to 32°C and we’re still finding reefs we didn’t even know about. The pH swings on a daily basis, and fish do better when it does. One coral has adapted to ocean “acidification” in 6 months. Other fish remarkably adapted from salt to freshwater in just fifty years. As Peter Ridd says: Of all the ecosystems in the world, the reef is one that’s best at adapting to climate change.

So once again, corals have recovered — and yet the “experts” who wear their dogma covered glasses didn’t see it coming.

‘Teeming with life’: New hope for the Great Barrier Reef as island shows remarkable coral growth

By Melissa Martin and Erin Semmler, ABC

One Tree Island was lashed by Cyclone Hamish in 2009, destroying much of the island’s coral.

In the five years following the cyclone, no metabolic recovery was detected on the reef and by 2014 calcification of the coral had declined by 75 per cent.

But things changed dramatically between 2014 and 2017, when Ms Davis and her team at the National Marine Science Centre found the coral system calcification increased four-fold.

“We found that the coral ecosystem has completely recovered from this cyclone event after eight years,” Ms Davis said.

 Commenter Pat points out that the Brisbane Times picked this up a week before the ABC.

In other news, environmentalists are doing their best to destroy tourism:

She said tourists are more worried about the reef than previously because of the way it is portrayed in the media.

“Questions I get asked everyday, they say, ‘so is the reef dead? Is this bleached here?’” she said.

Things the ABC BBC and CBC might forget to tell you about coral reefs:

All posts on Reefs, Corals, and the Great Barrier Reef


Frontiers in Marine Science open-source journal

h/t George, David, Pat

Image: Wikimedia, author Wise Hok Wai Lum: Flynn Reef 2014.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.9/10 (96 votes cast)

But it’s good for the renewables religion: Electricity doubles, cold deaths up one third

Progress? Australia has more fashionable energy but less ability to protect elders from the cold

Elderly man, Photo, StockSnap, PixabayDeaths in elderly folk from hypothermia or cold related conditions are up 34% in last ten years. These are people who can’t afford heating.

Power prices were up 117% in the same period, undoubtedly due to policies that put weather control 100-years-from-now, above the present day quality of life.

Watch SkyNews

This doesn’t appear to be the additional deaths from flu or cardiac causes which also rise as indoor room temperature falls. The real total will be much higher. Despite “global warming”, six times as many people die of cold in Australia not heat. That tally of excess winter deaths is around 2,400 per year. Cold kills more people than heat in every Australian capital.


The rising cost of electricity has become a major concern for the elderly in particular with new data revealing more than 130 people were admitted to NSW emergency departments last winter with cold-related problems such as hypothermia.

This is a shock increase of 34 per cent from 10 years ago. Alarmingly, the health statistics correlate with an increase of power prices by a whopping 117 per cent,The Daily Telegraph reports.

Daily Mail UK: The tragic toll of Australia’s power crisis: Elderly people are freezing to DEATH in their homes because they can’t afford to turn their heaters on

A study conducted by Dr Michelle Ananda-Rajah from the Monash University in Victoria found those who were diagnosed with hypotheria lived alone and did not have much social support.

She concurred with Mr Fulde and said the elderly are the most at risk due to their inability to ‘afford adequate heating’.

The billion dollar ABC Australia coverage:


A search for “ABC Cold Death Warning”still turns up a story of a dead cook in a freezer. A search on their ABC site turns up: Fact check: Do more people die in Australia than Sweden due to poorly heated homes?” The verdict, by the way, is that “Mr Kelly’s claim is overstated.”  The evidence supports the claim that more Australians than Swedes die in cold temperatures, and these deaths relate to moderate – rather than extreme – cold.”   “But it is a stretch to say deaths are “simply” the result of inadequate heating. Our habits also play a part in keeping warm.”

Blame the elderly for not wearing more blankets?

So it’s a “Fact” that the ABC will go to pedantic extremes to avoid saying “Craig Kelly was right”.

h/t George

Image by StockSnap from Pixabay

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (93 votes cast)

Weekend Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (24 votes cast)

Clickbait climate records: Hot in France but snowpacked in Canada and Colorado

News today is filled with “record heat” in France — whatever, it might be the hottest since thermometers started measuring, but it’s been hotter before. Even if it’s real, it’s only a technicality because we only started records recently. At most it can only be the hottest in 130 years or so, and we know it was just as hot in medieval times, hotter 7,000 years ago, hotter 130,000 years ago, and so on, hotter for most of life on Earth.

The record heat in France is a meaningless clickbait moment in climate history that preys upon the short term human psyche. Like some collective amnesia we forget that the French Revolution was but a moment ago in geologic history. So this is the worst heatwave in Europe since … 2003? 

But is it even a real (albeit short term) record? We don’t know if French historic records were adjusted, cooled, subject to unaccounted site moves, or measured in super sensitive electronic thermometers that didn’t exist in 1896.  But we do know that when France’s top TV meteorologists wrote a skeptical book, he was sacked. If the data is being tampered with, what are the odds that any recognised French expert could speak up? It’s the only certainty in the climate debate – question the propaganda and kiss the career goodbye.

It was 44C in Toulouse in 1923. All it takes is a bit more tarmac at the airport, a few more high rise buildings blocking the breeze and the same 44 degree day would easily register as 46C today, especially with an electric probe.

Record heat brings record …snow…

In the same week, Beartoothpass on the border between Montana and Wyoming in the USA was closed for five days due to snow in summer.  Colorado welcomed summer with 2 feet of snow, after the fifth coldest May on record. That’s 40 times more snow than normal for this time of year, there is so much snow there will be skiiing on the 4th of July. It’s also unexpectedly snowing in Mongolia.  It snowed in Yellowstone for the summer solstice. It’s also snowed to start summer in Canada, 25cm in in Alberta, people are asking if June is June-uary.   There were icicles in Alice Springs this week, and a bumper snow start to the Mt Hotham season — at least it’s winter downunder. Did you hear about the freak cold?

James Murphy, New American

Which brings us to the recent summer solstice snowstorm in the Colorado Rockies. On June 21, a freak snowstorm dropped up to 20 inches of snow on parts of Colorado, adding to an already substantial snow season, which since January has seen snow totals in Colorado at more than 750 percent above normal. The recent snow has ballooned that number to over 4,000 percent above normal. A large part of that percentage is because snow is normally completely absent by June, and this year’s abnormally cold temperatures have helped preserve vast amounts of snow that fell earlier in the year.

CLOSED for five days in summer! June 25th

Beartooth Pass on US-212 in Montana is currently closed due to blowing and driving snow and high winds and has been closed for the past 5 days. The Pass closed on Thursday, June 20th, 2019, at 7:30 pm and is currently closed as of this writing (10:30 am PDT).



h/t ClimateDepot, Lance, Andrew V

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (71 votes cast)

Advice to the National Environmental Science Program

Unfortunately this survey closes Saturday Sunday at 5pm EST. One DAY to go now. [Correction: Day was wrong, go for it. h/t Eric Worrall].

Apologies to those who would have liked to send in a submission. Hopefully I covered much on your behalf.

The National Environmental Science Programs wants feedback and to figure out priorities for environmental research in one specific program. This funding is $145m, among other things they fund David Karoly at CSIRO.  The form promises a receipt and a PDF reply.

NESP is seeking your feedback

The National Environmental Science Program (NESP) is scheduled for completion in 2021. Early planning for a future environmental research program to succeed NESP has commenced. The details of a future program are subject to Government decisions.

Feedback on key aspects of NESP will help inform the design and administration of a future program. A survey is now available via the Department’s online consultation hub. The survey will close on 30 June 2019.

h/t Darren Nelson


6. What have been the barriers to engagement [with NESP research]?

1. Data and methods are not always publicly available.
2. Published research is not easy to obtain from some journals which require payment.
3. Media releases announce news sometimes that is not even published. This means it’s very difficult for independent commentators to assess or respond to that media.
4. Media releases are often misleading, omitting key information, perspectives, or simply exaggerate the effect or importance.
5. Research with inconvenient results often has no media release, no publicity. Eg: stories of failures of modeling.

7. What would you change to make a future program easier to engage with?


Government funded research should be freely available and transparent — the finished paper (or preprints), the full methods, and the full data. All of this should be online and easy to find from the day a media release is issued.

The media release should allow public discussion and response at the site, or on the public broadcaster. Why is there not one place where the public can discuss the results and ask questions?
Preferably this should be at the university — and maintained under FOIA — with responses from the researchers and an obligation to the public to publish all questions and answers.  This site should not be able to simply delete inconvenient questions to hide them.

8. What do you think are the key factors for enabling people who have a research need to have it recognised and correctly understood by researchers?

The key factors are:
1. Civility and respect.
2. Funding to replicate and check results.

1. Across Australia, people are often derided for even asking a question. Namecalling and bullying effectively stop people discussing important scientific topics. “Denier” is not a scientific term, and yet David Karoly has resorted to this. (eg  Even if other NESP participants don’t use the term, they tacitly encourage it by staying silent while other commentators do.

2. Without funding  volunteer audits happen only with self funding or donations.

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (49 votes cast)

“Insanity”. Feel the angst — should the Emissions Reductions Fund pay money to coal?

Let’s set national policy by “Embarrassment”? Great way to run the country (into the ground).

Skeptics: send in your submissions  before July 12.

A coal generator has asked the Emissions Reductions Fund to pay for carbon credits if it upgrades its turbines and makes less CO2. “The Specialist Reporting Team’s” Penny Timms, of the ABC, quotes two activists, asks no skeptics, no engineers, no electricity consumers, and no hard questions. They call the owner of the generator a “coal baron”. Where are the “wind and solar barons”?

Here’s the ABC standing up for their own ideology:

The chief of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Kelly O’Shanassy, said “it would be a mistake.”

“We would be the only country in the world to be using a climate fund to fund coal-fired power, and that would just be a global embarrassment,” she said.

So a know-nothing activist sayth it would be embarrassing. Who cares? Does it reduce CO2 or doesn’t it? Japan the World Bank and the UN green fundshave funded coal power.

Hypocrisy unbounded — does CO2 matter or not?

If CO2 is reduced by upgrading a coal station is it really a CO2 reduction or it is an unthinkable Sin? Apparently we cant fund a reduction in CO2 if it involves the coal word. Lordy, it might keep old clean reliable assets alive at the expense of welfare dependent uneconomic renewables? Once again, the evidence supports the Jo Nova test of green behaviour — when faced with a choice to reduce CO2 or fund a fellow freeloader on taxpayer dollars, the Green activists always choose to fund a friend. CO2 is just a scare-means-to-an-end. The Ends is power and money, the environment is just the excuse.

The hypocritical Green angst proves once again that this is a religious hate campaign against coal and nothing to do with CO2 reduction. If CO2 mattered, the choices of where the money went would be limited too: 1/ Does it reduce CO2, and 2/ is it cost effective?

Which expert has a religious objection to coal?

Tim Baxter, photo

Tim Baxter. Seriously, his profile pic at Melbourne Uni

According to the ABC, an expert said this is “insane”, which gets repeated three times in the article but Penny Timms does not ask one hard question of the said expert to expose his  hypocrisy.

A man with a conflict of interest perhaps?

ERF expert Tim Baxter, a fellow of Melbourne Law School and associate of the Climate and Energy College, said the potential inclusion of coal-fired power stations was worrying.

“We’re asking whether a scheme, designed purportedly to reduce Australia’s emissions, should be funding some of the most polluting sources of electricity generation in the country,” he said.

“This is an insane question to ask.”

You are not even allowed to ask (because Baxter has no answer, so he has to effectively say “shut up and go away”).

Mr Baxter is not convinced the committee will end up recommending the changes being considered.

“I don’t think that there’s a principled reason for this method to exist at all, and if there is a reason for it, I don’t think there’s a principled reason to expand its availability,” he said.

How about the principle of reducing CO2 in a cost effective manner? Skeptics think that’s a waste of money, but judging the way climate activists act, they do too. His target is the coal industry, not CO2.

The Climate and Energy College is a safe space at Melbourne Uni that is entirely dependent on a belief that CO2 is bad, bad, bad, and obviously has a religious hatred of coal power.


The ERAC is The independent Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, which of course is not independent. They have three calls out for consultation:

Consultation Comments close
 Consultation on the National Environmental Science Program Sunday, June 30, 2019
 Review of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Facilities) Methodology Determination 2015 Friday, July 12, 2019
 Proposed variation to the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure standards for ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide Wednesday, August 07, 2019

$3.5 billion dollars to Fund a green Friend?

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (68 votes cast)

Oregon Democrats say climate bill is “dead”. Republican senators wait in hiding. “Prove it”.

Oregon’s Eleven Update: The eleven Republican Senators remain in hiding to block a vote on the HB2020 Cap N Trade bill. The ruling Democrats have now said the bill is dead — even suggesting that they don’t have the numbers in the Senate themselves. But Republicans are wondering if that’s just a ploy to trick them into returning. After all, if the Democrats didn’t have enough votes from their own Senators why did they put the bill up for a vote?

Oregon's eleven wanted Senators

If the State Troopers caught them, would they detain them “in the Chamber”?

So much for a high trust society:

Top Oregon Democrats Say Climate Change Bill Is Dead After GOP Senators Fled the State

Chip Browlee, Slate

Keep reading  →

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (65 votes cast)

The planned electricity shortages begin and duped Australians say “thanks”

Once upon a time Australians were rich enough to afford electricity on demand

Now obedient Australian’s are impressed with getting tiny refund for having voluntary mini-kinda-blackout.

Presumably, people are either desperate or already so trained in paying unnecessarily exorbitant electricity bills that they are grateful just to get a tiny fraction of their electricity payments back as an incentive for switching off when it suits those managing our inadequate infrastructure.

Demand response is a sales term for a voluntarily “doing without”. The ABC describes it as a wonderful new market force held back by selfish corporate greed (wouldn’t you know it?). The ABC doesn’t mention that electricity used to cost much less before we artificially forced renewables onto the grid and drove out the cheap reliable baseload generators or make the remaining ones less efficient and more expensive. But who remembers 1995?  Were ABC researchers even born then?

It’s like 50 years of history doesn’t exist:

Electricity prices in Australia

Another graph the ABC won’t show on TV

Behind-the-scenes battle over future of Australia’s energy market

It’s called demand response – it allows customers to save thousands of dollars by switching their appliances to lower electricity use at peak times.

These payments are funded by taxpayers:

LIZ HOBDAY: But Bethany James and Michael Basson are trying to save power and money by taking part in a big experiment that’s part-funded by Australia’s clean energy agency.

Cheers to the Big Experiment. We’re paying for electricity twice, through the meter and through our taxes. We pay when we use it and pay when we don’t use it too.

It’s called demand response.

They’re trying to cut their energy use at times when electricity demand is high – not just reducing their bills, but even getting paid.

MICHAEL BASSON: We’re been offered a $10 discount, or $10 credit on the account, for each time we’ve met our goal.

BETHANY JAMES: I think it’s quite doable, and I think that it’s good for the environment, helps out the grid.

I think it’s a really positive thing to do.

 Obedient serfs rejoice!

How tiny is “tiny”? This small:

LIZ HOBDAY: Last year [Oxford cold storage's] electricity bills went up by almost $4 million.

But reducing their power use for short periods with demand response has taken about 10 per cent off those bills.

GABOR HILTON: I think it’s fantastic. It helps to stabilise the grid and it also helps the bottom line.

So demand response is portrayed as a smart development, not as what it is — a desperate band-aid measure to compensate for a grid that’s struggling to keep up with a demand that is lower than it was ten years ago. Failing.

Lies by omission

DAN CASS, THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE: Few people realise, we pay a lot for electricity during the heatwaves of summer.

Generally, wholesale energy is about $100 a megawatt hour. During summer it, goes up to $14,500 a megawatt hour, and we all pay for that.

Dan Cass doesn’t say that for years  wholesale electricity were only $30 a megawatt hour. And it’s obvious why, renewables indirectly make electricity MORE expensive, wind generation makes gas power $30/MWh pricier,  and solar power at $70 per megawatt hour is still twice the price of brown coal.

And having more spinning reserve meant fewer electricity spikes. More renewables means higher prices, both as an average quarterly cost, and in the spikes.

Bottom line

There’s nothing wrong with efficiency improvements in a free market. But this is an inflated fixed fake market, and there are better cheaper options. This is not about a productivity gain.  Demand response wouldn’t have worked in 1995 because electricity was so cheap people wouldn’t have bothered.

Demand response (voluntary planned lack of electricity) is better than real unplanned blackouts, but it’s a sign of the decline, not a big step forward. It also adds a layer of complexity, reporting, and bureaucratic stranglehold on a market getting further from free market efficiency every day.

As an aside I see that this inadequate, one sided and poorly researched page expires 2,738 years from today.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (86 votes cast)

Midweek Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.9/10 (16 votes cast)

ManBearPriestMonks are the new climate experts: they declare faith in IPCC instead of God

Religious leaders dump coal, declare “no faith”

There goes my world. Who knew they had faith in coal?

So forget science, climate change is a moral problem. Is climate sensitivity 1 degree or 3? Ask a priest.

A group called Australians Religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC) has badgered 150 soft targets in the religious world to sign a grandiose letter making coal into the new Lucifer.

The Guardian

In an open letter headed “no faith in coal”, the leaders say the climate crisis is a profoundly moral problem and Australia’s response will be crucial in addressing it.

Signatories to the letter include bishops, rabbis, theologians, the grand mufti of Australia and the heads of the Uniting Church, the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils, Muslims Australia and the National Council of Churches.

Remember the alarmist maxim: ask a plumber to do the plumbing, a heart expert to do the surgery and when you want to predict the climate, ask an Imam.

Or failing that — ask a school student — which is what the religious leaders have done. Let’s quote their letter:

As you know, thousands of school students have been protesting in our streets about this emergency. They have three demands. We are writing to urge you to agree to them:

  1. Stopping the proposed Adani coal mine
  2. Committing to no new coal or gas projects in Australia
  3. Moving to 100% renewable energy by the year 2030.

Let’s ask innumerate teenage girls to set national energy policy. What could possibly go wrong?

It’s not like they are easily fooled slaves to fashion who make great cheerleaders.

The sound of breaking commandments:

I count five:

  1. Thou shalt have no other Gods (since when was the IPCC sacred?)
  2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain (don’t use God for Renewable industry advertising)
  3. Honour thy father and mother (not the teenage false saints)
  4. Thou shalt not bear false witness  (praise not the scientists who hide declines)
  5. Thou shalt not steal.  (see the Australian Renewable Energy Target — solar panels.)

The BishopRabbi economist says automation is bad for jobs

Solar power apparently makes more jobs:

The Adani mine in Central and North Queensland is an excellent example. People there need new, reliable jobs. Yet serious investment in solar would yield far more jobs than the Adani mine would, as it is less automated. And rejecting new coal will also help to protect jobs that depend on the Great Barrier Reef. There are currently 60,000 people whose livelihood depends on the Reef.

Let’s get rid of washing machines too and then women can be full time housewives again. That’ll create lots of jobs.

Solar power makes jobs in the same way that freight by horse and buggy does: a small high-maintenance unit can’t be used in an efficient way with economies of scales. Those economies being what makes trucks cheaper.

So the nice but weak religious leaders have handed their moral power to children and activists. There’s no reason they shouldn’t speak up on climate change, but if they care about their flock, they might want to research the positions they advocate. That means reading the arguments for and against. Instead they blindly follow a group that treats the IPCC as a God — the ARRCC describes its policy as pretty much everything the IPCC ever said.

Thou shalt not question foreign committees

After donating their brains to the IPCC the ARRCC rationalizes why any outcome at all proves they are right:

How the climate is changing

While the numbers above may seem small, their impact is much greater than just a global warming of temperatures by 1-2 degrees. This is firstly because this amount is just an average – the changes in temperature is unevenly distributed across the globe Some places around the world will experience much greater increases than this and some places will actually experience a DECREASE in temperatures.

This phenomenon of cooling and warming at the same time is partly explained by the effect that warming has on ocean temperatures and currents. As the air and land temperatures warm, so too does the average ocean temperature. The increased air and ocean temperatures causes accelerated melting of the ice in the arctic and Antarctic, resulting in an increase of cold water flowing into the oceans. The colder waters interact with the warmer waters to change the patterns of ocean currents, which sees some of this colder water flowing to places that in past have experienced warm ocean currents. As ocean temperatures mediate coastal land temperatures, the colder waters will cause colder temperatures.

So, religious geniuses, tell us what outcome would prove the theory wrong? If temperatures stayed exactly the same?

 And what does God/Budda/Mohammed say about scientists who are hiding data, declines, history, adjustments and methods?

Changing air and water temperatures also affects the weather. As ocean currents change this affects the air currents that flow above the oceans, changing cloud formation and wind patterns. The overall effect of these changing air currents is that most places around the world will actually experience much less frequent rain fall. However when rain does occur, it will happen with much greater intensity. This leads to a pattern of both droughts and floods. It also means that sometimes actual rainfall seasons will change, with dry weather during traditional wet seasons, and very wet weather during traditional dry seasons. The main effect though is to make the rainfall very unpredictable based on past experiences. Changing rainfall patterns also have an effect on traditional water catchment areas and existing river systems, which can affect previously reliable sources of fresh water.

Let’s all pay homage to the pagan rites of climate superstition: Droughts, heatwaves, random noise is “proof” of anything you like. They’re not worse than ones we had 1,000 years ago. Floods are not worse either.

A third effect of changing water temperatures and currents is an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as tropical storms.

Except tropical storms are not occurring more frequently, and the worst storms were hundreds of years ago.

ManbearMonkPriest says skeptics are wrong because of a flawed keyword study of pal reviewed abstracts in a biased-funding safe space for b-grade thinkers. That and because name-calling “denier” sounds so scientific.

Sceptical arguments

The above impacts are not just predictions but things that are being observed right now around the world. However there is still a significant and often vocal body of people who are either sceptical of climate change science or outright deniers.

The prominent people amongst this group are rarely climatologists or even scientists at all – they are generally social scientists such as economists, politicians, people connected with big business or social commentators.

Prominent? Tell that to Professor Richard Lindzen.

While there are a few scientists among this group of people, research by Cook et al in 2013 (“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”) found that 97% of published climatologists believe in the existence of human-induced climate change. That is, 97% of all scientists whose field of expertise is climate, and who have gone through the process of having their research peer-reviewed by other qualified scientists and published in a scholarly journal believe that climate change is happening and that it is directly linked to human activity. There have now been several pieces of research showing that sceptical scientists and think tanks indirectly receive substantial funding from fossil fuel industries.

Yes, and some unnamed research about unnamed people and unlisted sums claims they are paid hacks. These 150 gullible patsies will believe anything. They give religion a bad name.

Unfortunately the science of climate change is most often misrepresented in the media as a ‘debate’ between roughly even numbers of believers and sceptics, giving the impression that the scientific jury is still out. If the portrayal were more accurate, the picture would reflect an almost total consensus on the science, with only the tiniest minority of dissenters.

The media IS misleading. Skeptics outnumber and outrank believers. They won real Nobel Prizes, NASA awards, they walked on the moon they are MIT Professors of Meteorology. Half of meteorologists — fergoodnesssake — are skeptics, and survey after survey shows that two-thirds of geoscientists and engineers are skeptics.

There is no consensus among scientists, there never was, and it wouldn’t prove anything even if there was.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (85 votes cast)